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 PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:39PM (3 children)
As an atheist I don't feel the need to prove anything, as I am making no claims.
As far as I am concerned it's the religious who should be offering proof, and as some of their claims are pretty extraordinary, so should their proof be.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:06PM
There are different levels and kind of claims:
1. God(s) exists and has properties X, Y, and Z
2. God(s) exists
3. God(s) doesn't exist
4. Unknown
#1 is a much stronger claim than the others and the one most common. #2 and #3 still both require evidence and so far don't have it . I don't think #2 is a huge leap because we humans may someday create universes, rear or virtual, and thus be God(s) from the perspective of the inhabitants of such universes. It probably doesn't require new physics, just better control of matter/nature than we have now. But the default is #4, "unknown", and we don't have enough evidence to shift that. It's still the standing status.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday November 10 2017, @12:01AM
As an atheist (or apparently I pedantically become anti-theist the moment I open my mouth) I'm going to go out on a limb:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD!
"Oh, but you can't prove absolutely, whaaa, bitch, bitch, whine whine!". Screw them, I'll stop saying that there absolutely is not one the moment all of these religious idiots stop saying there absolutely *is* one.
For a split second, almost laughed my ass off imagining them actually trying to do that.
Of course their "proof" always boils down to "my mommy said so", "it says so in that 2000 year old book of gibberish", "I'm crazy and hear voices", or "it has electrolytes, it's what plants crave".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @12:38PM
No proof can be verified from the inside. I turn the sun green, by interfering with your brain patterns in a novel way, am I god?
Entire sacerdotal orders have been based on the ability to predict astronomical events, which is the exact same thing you demand.