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
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: More avoidance EdenOne? Answer me plainly, did Jesus walk on water?
Based on what I know on the properties of water and technology available in the 1st century, I can say with a great degree of confidence that such feat never took place, therefore the account, as it exists now, is legendary.
Happy now, Nic?
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.
It would be interesting to see if faith claims are processed by the brain in the exact same manner that statements of fact. Only by analyzing results from that experiment one could come up with a theory.
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 know the difference between objective evidence and subjective evidence; what I'm curious about is what brain mechanisms are at work behind the choice each individual makes to look at an objective fact and then one builds a belief / opinion about the significance of that fact ( evidence of X) and another individual makes a completely different judgement over the subjective value of the same fact ( not evidence of X).
Eden
back in the day, when my family moved to a new congregation, i fell head over heels with a young sister who was an elder's daughter.
it wasn't long before we were talking about marriage and i was contemplating buying her an engagement ring.
my parents were not happy at all.
It's more or less 'standard practice' to go to the elders of the congregation of your love interest and ask for informations before going ahead with serious dating.
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.
It's fascinating as the same fact can be intepreted as "evidence" for different things in the minds of a believer and a non-believer.
Fact (let's assume data is reliable): between August 2012 and August 2014, 100.000+ bible studies were requested online through jw.org website.
The JW believer will point to this fact as evidence that God is blessing the work or the website. He will assert: "God is blessing the Governing Body's efforts, and therefore, this is God's true religion". The non-believer won't challenge the fact, but will question if it constitutes evidence for the belief claimed by the believer.
What baffles me is the neuronal processes that are involved in processing facts and interpreting them as evidence for this or that.
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.
Cofty,
thanks for the link. It seems the study you mentioned is about a different subject, namely, to what extent an individual belief an individual has about what is God's will on a certain issue, is merely a reflexion of one's own belief about that same issue, thus egocentrically projecting one's personal belief into God.
From that study:
"The inherent ambiguity of God's beliefs on major issues and the extent to which religious texts may be open to interpretation and subjective evaluation, suggests not only strong egocentric biases when reasoning about God, but also that people may be consistently more egocentric when reasoning about God's beliefs than when reasoning about other people's beliefs."
However, in the case of this thread's subject, I'd be interested in learning if the brain processes statements of fact and statements of faith differently. I find it fascinating that "evidence" has different meaning and value for rationalists and theists, for example. I wonder if that has to do with some differentiated brain processing of said information.
Eden
