i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Like I said, the point of debate of this thread isn't about the claim that supernatural thinking increases with age - with which I'm not personally inclined to agree with, at least not in literate populations of western industrialized nations; I merely offered the study on which the original NYT article based that claim on - but about the different thought processes that the human brain probably uses to process statements of fact and statements of faith.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Nic: See how easily you dismissed miracles when pressed on it?
Surprisingly, you were the first one to have the decency to ask the question directly, so you had a straightforward answer. My experience here lately is that, from the moment I question any atheist / rationalist claim or tenet, I'm targeted as if I were some sort of religious "mole" planted in the atheist tribe. It's both ridiculous and entertaining, but also tiresome and sometimes makes me question why I even bother to ask questions or spark some open debate.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
I would hope the actual study would make these distinctions explicit clear.
You can find it here, in the May/June 2012 edition of Child Development, volume 83, Number 3, Pages 779-793. 48-hour rent-to-read costs only $6.
I'm backing up a claim that I didn't make to start with but was challenged to show evidence for. The very title of the study already indicates multiple cultures and multiple developmental stages. Mind to show me how do you back your claim of the opposite now?
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
from the article: "Legare said the findings contradict the common assumption that supernatural beliefs dissipate with age and knowledge."
It appears to me that the authors of the study (from the University of Austin, Texas) didn't simply verify that the older generation is more prone to supernatural thinking. One could argue that older generations weren't exposed to science, had less education, etc. But seems to me that the study, rather than taking a static 'snapshot' , observed a dynamic trend in the observed population. I would argue that greater ailments and the proximity of death that come with old age prompt a stronger propension to supernatural thinking.
Eden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=373zbncuuoq
Did someone had a sheppherding call from Hank Marvin? ;-)
Eden
as many of us saw in the pbs news hour program and the abc news nightline program the elders from one congregation failed to communicate properly to the elders in another congregation concerning the child molester jonathan kendrick when he moved to a new congregation.
i have parts of this " introduction letter " from the fremont congregation to the oakley congregation elders so you can read it for yourself and decide how irresponsible these wt appointed elders were.
dated 1/16/98 it opens : .
That particular letter is interesting in that it exposed some of Kendricks misgivings but stop short of revealing his most heinous behavior of pedophilia.
Exactly. Kendrick's "outbursts of anger" merit a cautionary word from the elders in the letter of introduction [no concern for protecting his privacy here] but there's a deafening silence about his not-so-distant-past as a convicted child molester. Here one can see where the elders' priorities are. "Outbursts of anger" from a member don't exactly tarnish the reputation of the Watchtower and its flock at large. But paedophilia does, and thus, best expunge it from any official record. It's clear to me and anyone honest about this.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Don't forget, Nic, that we're here because we all came from the same place, not all of us are on the same trajectory out of it, neither are all of us at the same distance from our point of origin. Our mileage may vary, and so do our cognitive methods to achieve certain answers we're looking for.
Eden
it's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
Oubliette: It seems to me a fundamental dishonesty and a fundamental treachery to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it's true.
It may not make rational sense, of course. But you're not taking into account that belief is also a way that our brain has to cope with physical and mental pain. See this article.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Nicolaou: Obfuscation and sophistry are such unneccesary and tiring pursuits.
Why are you accusing me of such things? Because I just don't take things at face value? Because I want to understand what's behind the process of belief? If you were a social scientist, you would be very interested in raising these questions.
Eden
i found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
Oubliette: Or do we simply need to take it on faith?
Here's your empirical evidence. Just because some people don't experience this themselves, that doesn't become the norm.
Eden
