SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the "number-of-the-beast"-is-natural,-whole,-rational,-real,-AND-imaginary dept.
Religious beliefs are not linked to intuition or rational thinking, according to new research by the universities of Coventry and Oxford. Previous studies have suggested people who hold strong religious beliefs are more intuitive and less analytical, and when they think more analytically their religious beliefs decrease.
But new research, by academics from Coventry University's Centre for Advances in Behavioural Science and neuroscientists and philosophers at Oxford University, suggests that is not the case, and that people are not 'born believers'. The study -- which included tests on pilgrims taking part in the famous Camino de Santiago and a brain stimulation experiment -- found no link between intuitive/analytical thinking, or cognitive inhibition (an ability to suppress unwanted thoughts and actions), and supernatural beliefs.
Instead, the academics conclude that other factors, such as upbringing and socio-cultural processes, are more likely to play a greater role in religious beliefs.
[Abstract]: Supernatural Belief Is Not Modulated by Intuitive Thinking Style or Cognitive Inhibition
Would you agree with this conclusion or do you believe that there is something else that influences people's religious beliefs ?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:57PM
A minor reprise:
See how that sounds when it's filled in by a different imaginary friend? To the point: How would one go about "proving" there is no Easter Bunny? It's 100% handwaving. Now, if there was an Easter Bunny, one would just bring the little hopper to the table, have him crap out some chocolate eggs, jelly beans, and filaments of green plastic basket lining, and chant "nyah nyah" while enjoying the (Cadbury) egg on the doubter's faces.
The foregoing demonstrates a perfect truth: You can never prove something does not exist; you can only prove it does.
There's no case to be made for anyone having to disprove something there has been no evidence presented in support of. If you wish to make the case that whatever it is that you believe in is a real thing, the obligation is 100% on you to prove your case by bringing actual evidence (repeatable, consensually experiential, testable) to the table: not on others to disprove it. If you're not up for that, fine, but don't go expecting expect critical thinkers to take you seriously, because that way, I absolutely assure you, lies only disappointment.
These things do not balance. Presenting them as you did is not valid, and creates no worthy argument to ride forth brandishing on your charger of faith.