"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[stevevw]

In what way does it detract from my earlier point?

As far as I understand it a natural cognitive thought process is not a bias. They cover biases in the study and state that this can also influence people with believing or not believing. But they still state that religious concepts are still a natural thought process regardless of any outside influence. The thing is any study would obviously address biases and other factors that may influence the results and cause people to think a certain way. That is always covered in these studies and to not cover these things would invalidate the study in the first place. It would be a basic mistake and one that qualified experts in their field would not overlook.

How many times must it be repeated? Many inclinations come "naturally" to us. It doesn't follow that we should accept whatever our inclinations lead us to believe. We know our inclinations are not infallible. We know that we are prone to error and cognitive biases. That alone is enough to give us pause to reflect.

But you are making out that these natural thoughts that children have and then can be also found in adults is some sort of outside influence that is put there from other people or society just like indoctrination. Is this what you are inferring as I am not sure what you are trying to imply. From what I understand the study is stating the opposite. It is saying that these thoughts are not the product of any bias as they have filtered those possibilities out. They are natural thoughts that children have and are born with. It is later on that they can be influenced as they grow.

Some of peoples beliefs can be sub conscious. They may say they dont believe but then act in certain situation like they do believe. That is why some say there is no such thing as a real atheist. Deep down we all have some sort of belief in something beyond what we can see.
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/articles/2008BoyerReligionEssay.pdf

If you recall, in our discussion on evolution, you cited a number of studies as support for your position, and I demonstrated to you that those studies did not support your position. In fact, in some cases, the authors' stated the opposite! Do you really want to go down that road again?

As I recall it was your opinion that the evidence supported what you said. Thats the problem with evolution in that both sides can make a case for the evidence supporting what they believe. But you have to be clear on what it is you are trying to point out. Just like with this debate you keep focusing on natural biases when the study is not stating this at all. They have taken biases and other influences into account.

Just think about it for a minute. Why would they make a point to say that religion is a natural thought process if it stems from a bias. If it comes from a bias then there is no point in making a case for religion coming natural to children or adults. It would be based on a false premise. I think you need to read the article in full to get what I am saying.

We also start out naked. By your argument then, we should embrace nudity. It's normal.

Well in some ways yes. We should learn to accept out naked self no matter what we think. That is a major problem for many with self worth and acceptance. But that doesn't mean we go to the extreme like you are inferring and run around naked. The same for belief. We should accept that the thought processes of divine agents, the afterlife and things that are beyond our material world are thoughts we should accept as part and parcel of who we are. We shouldn't reject them as being deluded but we shouldn't also run around living with our heads in the clouds either.

I think that is all this study is saying. Its not jumping to extremes or saying God is true or that we should become monks. It is just stating that thoughts about things that are what people call religious like divinity are natural thoughts to humans especially children. And a belief in them is something we can all do at times especially children.

I don't see anything "balanced" about your suggestion. Your argument seems to be the equivalent of saying that, because we are born naked, we should remain naked all our lives. It's "natural".

No I think you are taking things to that level. I think some people balk at the suggestion of belief and divinity. They immediately reject all notion and dont want anything to do with it as its something they think is stupid or unreal. Its either all or nothing. If you think about it in one way or another all people will have thoughts along the lines of believing in something beyond this material world. Even a belief if UFOs and aliens is a form of believing in life beyond our reality.

But I'm not saying everyone has to become religious or follow aliens or some other group like the Masons. I am saying and the study is saying that we need to acknowledge that the type of thinking that leads to believing in these things is a part of being human. Its the thinking process that is important here and not the things that people end up believing that the study is focusing on.Some people will go overboard and believe all sorts of things. But its the fact that people have a need to believe in something is the point in the first place is the point and that this is a part of being human that we need to accept.

Maybe our natural tendency toward questioning claims is there for a reason too? So that we don't end up duped, perhaps?

Yes I agree.

Questioning beliefs is also a real part of being human. Investigating a claim and finding that it is "hog wash" is also a real part of being human.

Yes I agree. But the thinking that goes into believing is not hog wash. That is a natural part of being human.

It also doesn't follow that we should remain naked because we are born naked.

It also doesn't follow that we should reject our nakedness completely.

Finally, a 2001 paper in Cognitive Psychology6 finds that while parents and communities can have a profound influence on what children believe about origins, middle-school and elementary-aged students tend towards creationist beliefs even if those beliefs weren't taught by the parents:

Early adolescents (11 to 13 years), like their parents, embraced the dominant beliefs of their community, be they creationist or evolutionist. Their younger siblings, especially those in the middle elementary school years (8 to 10 years) were more apt to be exclusively creationist, whatever their community of origin. Early elementary school children (5 to 7 years) endorsed creationism more strongly if they had been to a fundamentalist school or if they were reminded of creationist explanations, as in the forced-choice measures.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh088551.html

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As far as I understand it a natural cognitive thought process is not a bias.

It can be. Cognitive biases are also natural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

But you are making out that these natural thoughts that children have and then can be also found in adults is some sort of outside influence that is put there from other people or society just like indoctrination. Is this what you are inferring as I am not sure what you are trying to imply. From what I understand the study is stating the opposite. It is saying that these thoughts are not the product of any bias as they have filtered those possibilities out. They are natural thoughts that children have and are born with. It is later on that they can be influenced as they grow.

What you are characterising as "natural thoughts" is the bias. I'm not using the word "bias" in a pejorative sense. I'm using it as a synonym for "inclination" or "disposition."

As I recall it was your opinion that the evidence supported what you said. Thats the problem with evolution in that both sides can make a case for the evidence supporting what they believe.

No, not really. You cited evidence that did not support your claims. I called you out on it.

Well in some ways yes. We should learn to accept out naked self no matter what we think. That is a major problem for many with self worth and acceptance. But that doesn't mean we go to the extreme like you are inferring and run around naked. The same for belief. We should accept that the thought processes of divine agents, the afterlife and things that are beyond our material world are thoughts we should accept as part and parcel of who we are. We shouldn't reject them as being deluded but we shouldn't also run around living with our heads in the clouds either.

I think that is all this study is saying. Its not jumping to extremes or saying God is true or that we should become monks. It is just stating that thoughts about things that are what people call religious like divinity are natural thoughts to humans especially children. And a belief in them is something we can all do at times especially children.

Yes, we can acknowledge this, without assuming that such beliefs necessarily have merit.

It also doesn't follow that we should reject our nakedness completely.

No one is "rejecting" nakedness. They acknowledge that it exists. Its existence doesn't mean that we should be naked, however. Your argument is perilously close to a fallacious appeal to nature.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have personally heard atheists tell me this, so you are simply incorrect.

I'm not inclined to believe hearsay.

As to the point, the point of the OP is not whether they do or not, but should they or should they not.

Are these fabricated atheists riding unicorns when they're making these claims? Inquiring minds want to know the full details of this made up hypothetical world we're supposed to discuss.

 

[KCfromNC]

off topic.

Hey, you brought it up. Retreating to the "it's off topic, I can't hear you" bit when things don't go as you scripted them isn't all that convincing.

 

[stevevw]

It can be. Cognitive biases are also natural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Yes I agree but that is not what the study has stated. It said belief in divine agents and dualism came natural to children. In fact the best way they described it was that children are hard wired to believe. That probably describes it best as it is saying that this is the way they are made. Not the way they may be inclined to go later which could be one way or another. Its the way they were made and there was only one way they could have been made.

What you are characterizing as "natural thoughts" is the bias. I'm not using the word "bias" in a pejorative sense. I'm using it as a synonym for "inclination" or "disposition."

OK well if you can call it a bias in that sense. But the study is saying its not something that has been brain washed into children. Their thinking is independent from adults and they have formed their own views about divine concepts which seems to come natural to them. So it seems they were born to think that way. I guess this is why Jesus emphasized that we need to be like children with our faith.

No, not really. You cited evidence that did not support your claims. I called you out on it.

I cant remember and I would have to go back and check that. You may have thought you had a point and maybe you did on certain things but that didn't mean you were correct overall. Like I said these things are complicated and the evidence can be argued over for what it represents. But thats another topic so lets keep focused on this one.

Yes, we can acknowledge this, without assuming that such beliefs necessarily have merit.

Thats all the study is saying. But it is important to realize that because belief is a natural part of our thinking it is there for a reason and shouldn't be taken lightly or dismissed. It also highlights that it will be very hard to rid ourselves of religion like some want to do because belief in ingrained in us to the core.

So now that we have agreement on this I will take it a stage further and give my reason why I think we all have this ability to believe in divine concepts as a natural part of us. This is because we all have a part of God in us and an awareness that God created life. The bible tells us that we all have the knowledge of Gods invisible powers which can be seen by what we see around us in His creation. So when we look at the stars and the moon and all of nature and life we instinctively know that God has created this and it didn't come from some self creating naturalistic process.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Thats why children so easily relate what they see with the universe and life as being something that came from the design of a creator God. Because those things are too amazing to just come by chance and a naturalistic process. Its only when we get older that we become indoctrinated. The bible also says that man in his wisdom thinks he knows better and makes up explanations for how things came into existence and substitutes Gods ability to create with man made ideas about how it all happened from a naturalistic process.
Romans 1:21 to 23
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

No one is "rejecting" nakedness. They acknowledge that it exists. Its existence doesn't mean that we should be naked, however. Your argument is perilously close to a fallacious appeal to nature.

I dont follow. I thought it made good sense. You took my example of a natural ability or process we have and use our nakedness as an example. You assumed that I or the study said that just because we acknowledge a natural thing in us we should then take it and do something with it. In your example it was not just do something with it but to take it to an extreme as you said with your example of running around naked. Whereas I was saying that the study wasn't stating anything but the fact that belief comes natural to us especially children.

There was no mention of doing anything with that belief in the study. My objective was to first make the point that we all have this natural belief in us before I was going to take things further. But it seems that even this was hard to do as you were not willing to even acknowledge what the study had said which wasn't great deal. I think its common sense what the study has said and isn't promoting anything about whether we should become believers or not.

 

[juvenissun]

So a rock feeds, respires, grows, reproduces, and then dies?

How does it breathe in?

Not by any definition I know. What definition are you using?

Rock does not reproduce in the normal case. But rock reincarnates.
Rock breath in by absorb surrounding media on its surface.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As far as I understand it a natural cognitive thought process is not a bias. They cover biases in the study and state that this can also influence people with believing or not believing. But they still state that religious concepts are still a natural thought process regardless of any outside influence. The thing is any study would obviously address biases and other factors that may influence the results and cause people to think a certain way. That is always covered in these studies and to not cover these things would invalidate the study in the first place. It would be a basic mistake and one that qualified experts in their field would not overlook.

But you are making out that these natural thoughts that children have and then can be also found in adults is some sort of outside influence that is put there from other people or society just like indoctrination. Is this what you are inferring as I am not sure what you are trying to imply. From what I understand the study is stating the opposite. It is saying that these thoughts are not the product of any bias as they have filtered those possibilities out. They are natural thoughts that children have and are born with. It is later on that they can be influenced as they grow.

Some of peoples beliefs can be sub conscious. They may say they dont believe but then act in certain situation like they do believe. That is why some say there is no such thing as a real atheist. Deep down we all have some sort of belief in something beyond what we can see.
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/articles/2008BoyerReligionEssay.pdf

As I recall it was your opinion that the evidence supported what you said. Thats the problem with evolution in that both sides can make a case for the evidence supporting what they believe. But you have to be clear on what it is you are trying to point out. Just like with this debate you keep focusing on natural biases when the study is not stating this at all. They have taken biases and other influences into account.

Just think about it for a minute. Why would they make a point to say that religion is a natural thought process if it stems from a bias. If it comes from a bias then there is no point in making a case for religion coming natural to children or adults. It would be based on a false premise. I think you need to read the article in full to get what I am saying.

Well in some ways yes. We should learn to accept out naked self no matter what we think. That is a major problem for many with self worth and acceptance. But that doesn't mean we go to the extreme like you are inferring and run around naked. The same for belief. We should accept that the thought processes of divine agents, the afterlife and things that are beyond our material world are thoughts we should accept as part and parcel of who we are. We shouldn't reject them as being deluded but we shouldn't also run around living with our heads in the clouds either.

I think that is all this study is saying. Its not jumping to extremes or saying God is true or that we should become monks. It is just stating that thoughts about things that are what people call religious like divinity are natural thoughts to humans especially children. And a belief in them is something we can all do at times especially children.

No I think you are taking things to that level. I think some people balk at the suggestion of belief and divinity. They immediately reject all notion and dont want anything to do with it as its something they think is stupid or unreal. Its either all or nothing. If you think about it in one way or another all people will have thoughts along the lines of believing in something beyond this material world. Even a belief if UFOs and aliens is a form of believing in life beyond our reality.

But I'm not saying everyone has to become religious or follow aliens or some other group like the Masons. I am saying and the study is saying that we need to acknowledge that the type of thinking that leads to believing in these things is a part of being human. Its the thinking process that is important here and not the things that people end up believing that the study is focusing on.Some people will go overboard and believe all sorts of things. But its the fact that people have a need to believe in something is the point in the first place is the point and that this is a part of being human that we need to accept.

Yes I agree.

Yes I agree. But the thinking that goes into believing is not hog wash. That is a natural part of being human.

It also doesn't follow that we should reject our nakedness completely.

Finally, a 2001 paper in Cognitive Psychology6 finds that while parents and communities can have a profound influence on what children believe about origins, middle-school and elementary-aged students tend towards creationist beliefs even if those beliefs weren't taught by the parents:

Early adolescents (11 to 13 years), like their parents, embraced the dominant beliefs of their community, be they creationist or evolutionist. Their younger siblings, especially those in the middle elementary school years (8 to 10 years) were more apt to be exclusively creationist, whatever their community of origin. Early elementary school children (5 to 7 years) endorsed creationism more strongly if they had been to a fundamentalist school or if they were reminded of creationist explanations, as in the forced-choice measures.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/more_studies_sh088551.html

Steve, this is the author of the study that you keep claiming isn't biased...

http://www.calvin.edu/

It's right at the top of your link under "author information". Remember when I said that you should read the links you post? This is a great example of why. You've argued for three posts now how the study isn't biased towards religion and guess what? It's pretty hard to imagine it isn't. It's a christian college psychology department lol.

You thought because it's peer reviewed it can't be biased...that isn't the case. The peer reviewer probably mentioned the bias to the publisher and it got published anyway. It happens.

Also "aggregate cognitive processes" doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean "natural" or "from birth" or "universal"...it simply means that the people who wrote the study think religion is a result of several different normal thought processes. They certainly aren't claiming it proves religion true....they're just basing this opinion on the results of a group of psychology experiments (that they didn't even do.)

You really need to look into what you're posting.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes I agree but that is not what the study has stated. It said belief in divine agents and dualism came natural to children. In fact the best way they described it was that children are hard wired to believe. That probably describes it best as it is saying that this is the way they are made. Not the way they may be inclined to go later which could be one way or another. Its the way they were made and there was only one way they could have been made.

"Comes naturally to children" is no different to saying that "children are inclined to..." In either case, you are talking about some inclination or predisposition. And in any case, my previous point is still relevant: those children are also inclined to question and investigate, particularly as they grow intellectually, and these latter inclinations may lead them to reject the beliefs favoured by the former.

OK well if you can call it a bias in that sense. But the study is saying its not something that has been brain washed into children. Their thinking is independent from adults and they have formed their own views about divine concepts which seems to come natural to them. So it seems they were born to think that way. I guess this is why Jesus emphasized that we need to be like children with our faith.

Young children are also inclined toward egocentrism and often fail basic Theory of Mind tasks. As they develop, this tends to change, and indeed such change is critical to developing meaningful social relations as they grow older. What you seem to be missing is the bigger picture: whatever inclinations children happen to have at a young age are not necessarily inclinations that they will always have. What you are lacking is a developmental perspective.

Thats all the study is saying. But it is important to realize that because belief is a natural part of our thinking it is there for a reason and shouldn't be taken lightly or dismissed. It also highlights that it will be very hard to rid ourselves of religion like some want to do because belief in ingrained in us to the core.

It bears repeating, for the 1000th time: many other biases/inclinations/dispositions also come "naturally" to us. This doesn't mean that we should accept whatever our biases/inclinations/dispositions lead us to believe. Such behaviour is antithetical to science.

So now that we have agreement on this I will take it a stage further and give my reason why I think we all have this ability to believe in divine concepts as a natural part of us.

You mean you will reveal the hand so you poorly concealed? Should I feign surprise when you do?

This is because we all have a part of God in us and an awareness that God created life. The bible tells us that we all have the knowledge of Gods invisible powers which can be seen by what we see around us in His creation. So when we look at the stars and the moon and all of nature and life we instinctively know that God has created this and it didn't come from some self creating naturalistic process.

I'm so surprised by this!!! (Am I feigning surprise well?)

Science doesn't rely on what we "instinctively know." If it did, then science would be no better than superstition.

Thats why children so easily relate what they see with the universe and life as being something that came from the design of a creator God. Because those things are too amazing to just come by chance and a naturalistic process. Its only when we get older that we become indoctrinated. The bible also says that man in his wisdom thinks he knows better and makes up explanations for how things came into existence and substitutes Gods ability to create with man made ideas about how it all happened from a naturalistic process.

You mean that we actually investigate rather than relying on what we "instinctively know"? In what way is that bad? What we "instinctively know" often turns out to be false, which is why we do science.

I dont follow. I thought it made good sense. You took my example of a natural ability or process we have and use our nakedness as an example. You assumed that I or the study said that just because we acknowledge a natural thing in us we should then take it and do something with it. In your example it was not just do something with it but to take it to an extreme as you said with your example of running around naked. Whereas I was saying that the study wasn't stating anything but the fact that belief comes natural to us especially children.

There was no mention of doing anything with that belief in the study. My objective was to first make the point that we all have this natural belief in us before I was going to take things further. But it seems that even this was hard to do as you were not willing to even acknowledge what the study had said which wasn't great deal. I think its common sense what the study has said and isn't promoting anything about whether we should become believers or not.

Yes, I'm aware of what the study states, but I'm addressing what you take it to mean. You are under the impression that our apparent natural inclination toward superstition somehow warrants religious belief. I'm pointing out that it doesn't.

 

[stevevw]

You wouldn't be surprised if the study that showed chocolate was good for your health was funded by a chocolate/candy company?

Steve, every time you respond to Arch regarding the article he cited you prove you haven't read it. You proved you didn't read it when you said it was written by Roy Morgan...and you just proved you didn't read it again when you made the above statement.

This is why no one regards the articles you cite worthy of consideration. You don't read them. You just post them because you read the title and think it supports your position.

How do you know I dont read the articles I post. I have several on this topic all of which I have read and many of them I have had for a long time and have not just got them for this debate. If you want I can do a search and show you where I have used them in other debates. The only ones I may not read are the ones that I have to pay for. But I can find them on other sites as well or good parts of them which will give me a good understanding. If you notice I posted a few more after you objected to the first lot. All were along the same lines and I question whether you had read them yourself for such a quick dismissal.

The same thing is said more or less on several other sites doing a commentary on them or on blogs. But I hesitate to post these because they have a religious connection and I know they would be rejected out of hand without even been read so I try to stick with non religious ones. So one way or another I read up about what has been said before I post it and try to understand it as much as possible.

The point is its others who dont read them that will dismiss it before they have even read the complete article because they bring up objections that have already been covered and they would have known that. As far as Arch the article Arch posted I didn't read it thoroughly. But I didn't have to because he told me what it was about and I agreed. It was about how some people can make out that something is good when its not. He was using that example about the article I posted. But that was a side issue. The fact is this study was done by Oxford university and was very large over years. It also was in line with several other studies which all said the same thing. So it wasn't a one off thing as to what Arch was using.

The point is when someone brings up some info that may support anything to do with religion even if its not about God people will do everything to rubbish the people involved. Then they will nit pick other things and do everything apart from acknowledged that there may be some truth to the evidence. In this case it didn't matter because it wasn't even saying anything about supporting God or religion. But still some want to dispute it for the sake of disputing it because it mentions something about religion or God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How do you know I dont read the articles I post.

Well, we know you didn't read the link I posted, at least not initially, because you mistook it for something else.

I have several on this topic all of which I have read and many of them I have had for a long time and have not just got them for this debate. If you want I can do a search and show you where I have used them in other debates. The only ones I may not read are the ones that I have to pay for. But I can find them on other sites as well or good parts of them which will give me a good understanding. If you notice I posted a few more after you objected to the first lot. All were along the same lines and I question whether you had read them yourself for such a quick dismissal.

The same thing is said more or less on several other sites doing a commentary on them or on blogs. But I hesitate to post these because they have a religious connection and I know they would be rejected out of hand without even been read so I try to stick with non religious ones. So one way or another I read up about what has been said before I post it and try to understand it as much as possible.

The point is its others who dont read them that will dismiss it before they have even read the complete article because they bring up objections that have already been covered and they would have known that. As far as Arch the article Arch posted I didn't read it thoroughly. But I didn't have to because he told me what it was about and I agreed. It was about how some people can make out that something is good when its not. He was using that example about the article I posted. But that was a side issue. The fact is this study was done by Oxford university and was very large over years. It also was in line with several other studies which all said the same thing. So it wasn't a one off thing as to what Arch was using.

The point is when someone brings up some info that may support anything to do with religion even if its not about God people will do everything to rubbish the people involved. Then they will nit pick other things and do everything apart from acknowledged that there may be some truth to the evidence. In this case it didn't matter because it wasn't even saying anything about supporting God or religion. But still some want to dispute it for the sake of disputing it because it mentions something about religion or God.

What is being disputed is the meaning you have extracted (or imposed?) on the papers. This is similar to the evolution debate we had months ago, in which you posted links to articles wherein the authors explicitly disagreed with the conclusions you were reaching on the basis of their work.

 

[clemenslee]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question:
1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).
2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

Just my two cents,

We can choose to "believe" any thing is real. Example I can "believe" a rocket is going to fly. But I won't have any faith that it will, until I get in the rocket and blast off.

Its not blind faith, faith is action based up belief, sustained by confidence in that belief. Its hanging yourself upon your belief because you have confidence that what you believe in will perform etc.

We all do it athiest or not. We all believe that gravity is real, we can't see it. But we have faith and confidence that when we wake up in the morning and put our feet on the floor we aren't going to fly up and hit the ceiling.

All I am saying is that yes we can blindly believe something, but we don't have faith in something without persuasive evidence that our belief is real.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, this is the author of the study that you keep claiming isn't biased...

http://www.calvin.edu/

It's right at the top of your link under "author information". Remember when I said that you should read the links you post? This is a great example of why. You've argued for three posts now how the study isn't biased towards religion and guess what? It's pretty hard to imagine it isn't. It's a christian college psychology department lol.

You thought because it's peer reviewed it can't be biased...that isn't the case. The peer reviewer probably mentioned the bias to the publisher and it got published anyway. It happens.

Also "aggregate cognitive processes" doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean "natural" or "from birth" or "universal"...it simply means that the people who wrote the study think religion is a result of several different normal thought processes. They certainly aren't claiming it proves religion true....they're just basing this opinion on the results of a group of psychology experiments (that they didn't even do.)

You really need to look into what you're posting.

Like I said I have several links for this topic. One of them I have linked is from Oxford university. That was the biggest study done over 3 years, by over 57 scientists in over 20 countries. The whole article can be read in one of the links I have posted and it supports what the peer reviewed articles have stated. The article was also in the guardian, telegraph papers and many other sites and blogs to read. Like I said I have several articles and I try to get more than one opinion to cross reference. But in checking the article again as I didn't think it was associated with any religion the main ones are associated with The Us National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health. Which is a Government site.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637620


As far as peer review papers are concerned I dont discriminate about where the papers come from like you. Peer review is exactly that "peer reviewed". It is put out there to be reviewed by others but it is a legitimate piece of study just as much as any peer reviewed paper. They are done by qualified scientists and cant be submitted unless they adhere to certain guidelines. But what it does show is what I am talking about and what you are trying to say. That some can reject certain articles based on who wrote them which is unfair and inst a gauge for whether they are valid or not especially when it has passed other legitimate avenues of scrutiny.

But you seem to be making statements like you know what these experts are really saying so I'm wondering if you have read the articles and taken the time to compare them with other ones. They are saying that the beliefs that children have are a normal cognitive thought process and that they have this as a result of forming their own thoughts if you read all the articles. There are other factors they go into like as children get older they lose some of that natural belief from being subjected to influences. That religious though can also be biased and be indoctrinated. But that is all related and covered in the study as it is all linked. The basic point is that belief in divine concepts comes natural to humans and especially children.

 

[stevevw]

Well, we know you didn't read the link I posted, at least not initially, because you mistook it for something else.

Fair enough but I accepted what you were saying and didn't need to be convinced. I did assume that it was done by a certain person. But I accepted that yes some studies can fool people and make out that something is good when it is not or visa versa. But normally as I said this is a case of people who do one off studies, marketing groups, smaller studies done by scientists and not verified by other studies. There are occasions when several get it wrong like with climate change. But even then there are normally certain motives behind this.

But the study I was linking first off wasn't saying anything that you needed to object to in regards to its quality. It wasn't saying you had to believe in God or that believing in God was better and I was suspecting that the objections were more to do with the fact that you thought it was inferring something and therefore disputed it on those grounds. Secondly the study is not some small science lab or a one off study. These types of studies with these findings have been the case for several years now and all are showing similar results. The Oxford university study was a massive one involving many different labs and scientists across many countries. We can start to dispute every single study if we want but surely there is a line where we can say that one is more valid than the other. Otherwise whats the use of doing studies.

What is being disputed is the meaning you have extracted (or imposed?) on the papers. This is similar to the evolution debate we had months ago, in which you posted links to articles wherein the authors explicitly disagreed with the conclusions you were reaching on the basis of their work.

As I stated earlier and with any debate I have. There are more than one agenda. First you have to establish the the facts. With this it is that belief comes natural to humans and especially children. This doesn't state anything about whether religion or God is good or bad and I declared that. But then I also stated that my personal opinion was along certain lines. You can object to that but dont mix up what has been established by fact in studies done by experts. It seemed I was having trouble just getting that agreement because you may have assumed I was trying to make other claims at that point but I wasn't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Fair enough but I accepted what you were saying and didn't need to be convinced. I did assume that it was done by a certain person. But I accepted that yes some studies can fool people and make out that something is good when it is not or visa versa. But normally as I said this is a case of people who do one off studies, marketing groups, smaller studies done by scientists and not verified by other studies. There are occasions when several get it wrong like with climate change.

But the study I was linking first off wasn't saying anything that you needed to object to in regards to its quality. It wasn't saying you had to believe in God or that believing in God was better and I was suspecting that the objections were more to do with the fact that you thought it was inferring something and therefore disputed it on those grounds.

No, I was disputing your claims, not the study authors'.

Secondly the study is not some small science lab or a one off study. These types of studies with these findings have been the case for several years now and all are showing similar results. The Oxford university study was a massive one involving many different labs and scientists across many countries. We can start to dispute every single study if we want but surely there is a line where we can say that one is more valid than the other. Otherwise whats the use of doing studies.

Clearly there's no use to doing studies at all. We should all just go with what we "instinctively know," right steve?

 

[JGG]

Rock does not reproduce in the normal case. But rock reincarnates.
Rock breath in by absorb surrounding media on its surface.

They reincarnate? Even reincarnation requires reproduction. Advocates of reincarnation do not hold that people pop into existence. How are new rocks formed? What happens if I break a rock? Does it die, or is that how a new rock is formed? As for absorbing "media" on a rock's surface, if I were to place a penny on top of a rock, how long does it take for the rock to breathe it in? I'll try it out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How do you know I dont read the articles I post. I have several on this topic all of which I have read and many of them I have had for a long time and have not just got them for this debate. If you want I can do a search and show you where I have used them in other debates. The only ones I may not read are the ones that I have to pay for. But I can find them on other sites as well or good parts of them which will give me a good understanding. If you notice I posted a few more after you objected to the first lot. All were along the same lines and I question whether you had read them yourself for such a quick dismissal.

The same thing is said more or less on several other sites doing a commentary on them or on blogs. But I hesitate to post these because they have a religious connection and I know they would be rejected out of hand without even been read so I try to stick with non religious ones. So one way or another I read up about what has been said before I post it and try to understand it as much as possible.

The point is its others who dont read them that will dismiss it before they have even read the complete article because they bring up objections that have already been covered and they would have known that. As far as Arch the article Arch posted I didn't read it thoroughly. But I didn't have to because he told me what it was about and I agreed. It was about how some people can make out that something is good when its not. He was using that example about the article I posted. But that was a side issue. The fact is this study was done by Oxford university and was very large over years. It also was in line with several other studies which all said the same thing. So it wasn't a one off thing as to what Arch was using.

The point is when someone brings up some info that may support anything to do with religion even if its not about God people will do everything to rubbish the people involved. Then they will nit pick other things and do everything apart from acknowledged that there may be some truth to the evidence. In this case it didn't matter because it wasn't even saying anything about supporting God or religion. But still some want to dispute it for the sake of disputing it because it mentions something about religion or God.

How do I know you don't read the articles you post? Well, for starters, you used this link...
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/articles/2008BoyerReligionEssay.pdf
....to support your claims that "everyone believes in something they can't see" and "there's no such thing as atheists.". That article doesn't say anything about that...it explains the cognitive processes that make up religion. Yes, these processes exist in all of us regardless of society or culture...but what they show is that your religious beliefs are a result of the way evolution has influenced the way you think...or in other words, he's saying your religious beliefs have nothing to do with the supernatural.

I know you don't believe this, which is why it's hilarious you keep citing these studies. They're basically saying that your brain has tricked you into believing in religion.

What is a cognitive process? One example would be "clustering"...the tendency to group positive or negative traits together. Studies have shown that people trust attractive people more...for literally no other reason than you find them attractive. You see someone attractive and you automatically trust them more than the ugly person standing next to them...because your brain associates positive traits together.

His article is just a list of cognitive processes like the one above. So when he says that we all create an internal discussion with ourselves or imaginary friends...he isn't saying that we all believe in the supernatural, he's saying that when you talk to god, you're just having a conversation with yourself or your imaginary friend.

Edit: I'd like to say I think any of the atheists here would find this an interesting read. He talks about how theists tend to anthropomorphize god regardless of how the conceive him, how religious rituals are born out of the same processes that are overactive in people who suffer from OCD, and how people accept faith claims (which aren't based on evidence) for their "coalition" but turn around and reject the exact same types of claims from other faiths. Apparently, cognitive psychology has been scientifically proving much of what atheists have been saying about religion for years.

Edit again: The last two paragraphs are great and say it all. Its hard to imagine Steve read this and still posted it...let alone post it to support his claims...
"The findings emerging from this cognitive-
evolutionary approach challenge two central
tenets of most established religions. First, the notion that their particular creed differs from all other (supposedly misguided) faiths; second, that it is only because of extraordinary events or the actual presence of supernatural agents that religious ideas have taken shape. On the contrary, we now know that all versions of religion are based on very similar tacit assumptions, and that all it takes to imagine supernatural agents are normal human minds processing information in the most natural way.
Knowing, even accepting these conclusions is unlikely to undermine religious commitment. Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate."-Pascal Boyer

 

[juvenissun]

They reincarnate? Even reincarnation requires reproduction. Advocates of reincarnation do not hold that people pop into existence. How are new rocks formed? What happens if I break a rock? Does it die, or is that how a new rock is formed? As for absorbing "media" on a rock's surface, if I were to place a penny on top of a rock, how long does it take for the rock to breathe it in? I'll try it out.

No, if you break a rock, the pieces are still the same rock. They reincarnate by changing into a different rock (a new rock).
Rock is slow. Everything about it takes a long long time. But, if it should happen, it will happen. So, in your example, some Cu (ion) will eventually be breathed into the rock.

 

[stevevw]

No, I was disputing your claims, not the study authors'.

And what were my claims.

Clearly there's no use to doing studies at all. We should all just go with what we "instinctively know," right steve?

Not really, we can use common sense to work out what is acceptable and whats not. But here you are going to the extreme again. Because I suggest that we can use our reasoning and logic to see what is a valid study and what is not you turn that into ridiculing the study. I have stated throughout our debate that there needs to be a balance but you keep jumping around the sides by turning what is said into extreme examples.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And what were my claims.

That our superstitious inclinations, particularly during childhood, somehow indicate that there is merit to religious belief.

Not really, we can use common sense to work out what is acceptable and whats not.

No we can't! "Common sense" often turns out to be wrong.

But here you are going to the extreme again. Because I suggest that we can use our reasoning and logic to see what is a valid study and what is not you turn that into ridiculing the study. I have stated throughout our debate that there needs to be a balance but you keep jumping around the sides by turning what is said into extreme examples.

I'm using your own reasoning against you.

 

[stevevw]

How do I know you don't read the articles you post? Well, for starters, you used this link...
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/articles/2008BoyerReligionEssay.pdf
....to support your claims that "everyone believes in something they can't see" and "there's no such thing as atheists.". That article doesn't say anything about that...it explains the cognitive processes that make up religion. Yes, these processes exist in all of us regardless of society or culture...but what they show is that your religious beliefs are a result of the way evolution has influenced the way you think...or in other words, he's saying your religious beliefs have nothing to do with the supernatural.

The above article is one of several that I posted but you are only using this one as an example. Yet you claimed they were all rubbish and now you want to use one of your choice. Why this one is it because you think it is supporting evolution. Boyer doesn't state that the evidence for religious belief comes from an evolutionary process. He says we dont really know.
So is religion an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution? Perhaps one day we will find compelling evidence that a capacity for religious thoughts, rather than "religion" in the modern form of socio-political institutions, contributed to fitness in ancestral times. For the time being, the data support a more modest conclusion: religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities.

It seems Boyer is an atheists and of course he will have some views on how he thinks things developed through evolution. But I wanted to use various views on this topic. The basis of what he is saying supports what I have said in that religious belief is something that comes natural to us and is part of our normal cognitive processes as he said just like music, arts and language.

I know you don't believe this, which is why it's hilarious you keep citing these studies. They're basically saying that your brain has tricked you into believing in religion.

No they are not. This is what you are interpreting them as. There may be some articles that will say this as well and this may be some peoples view. But most of what I read doesn't state any hard evidence about how we may have got this natural religious belief. They just tell us that religious belief is a natural part of being human. I like you and others can then give an opinion as to how we think it may have arisen but that is just our own views on the topic.

What is a cognitive process? One example would be "clustering"...the tendency to group positive or negative traits together. Studies have shown that people trust attractive people more...for literally no other reason than you find them attractive. You see someone attractive and you automatically trust them more than the ugly person standing next to them...because your brain associates positive traits together.

His article is just a list of cognitive processes like the one above. So when he says that we all create an internal discussion with ourselves or imaginary friends...he isn't saying that we all believe in the supernatural, he's saying that when you talk to god, you're just having a conversation with yourself or your imaginary friend.

It actually goes beyond this because they say that the type of language that is used when talking about religious concepts and divine entities is different to how we talk to other humans. So there is a different level of development around these ideas which are reaching out beyond the world around us into something beyond.

Edit: I'd like to say I think any of the atheists here would find this an interesting read. He talks about how theists tend to anthropomorphize god regardless of how the conceive him, how religious rituals are born out of the same processes that are overactive in people who suffer from OCD, and how people accept faith claims (which aren't based on evidence) for their "coalition" but turn around and reject the exact same types of claims from other faiths. Apparently, cognitive psychology has been scientifically proving much of what atheists have been saying about religion for years.

Which is.

Edit again: The last two paragraphs are great and say it all. Its hard to imagine Steve read this and still posted it...let alone post it to support his claims...

What were my claims.

"The findings emerging from this cognitive-
evolutionary approach challenge two central
tenets of most established religions. First, the notion that their particular creed differs from all other (supposedly misguided) faiths; second, that it is only because of extraordinary events or the actual presence of supernatural agents that religious ideas have taken shape. On the contrary, we now know that all versions of religion are based on very similar tacit assumptions, and that all it takes to imagine supernatural agents are normal human minds processing information in the most natural way.
Knowing, even accepting these conclusions is unlikely to undermine religious commitment. Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate."-Pascal Boyer

Nothing said here goes against religious belief. Like I said these studies are not stating that there is a God or that we should believe in a particular God and that is what I have said all along. You are assuming a lot here and taking things to another level with these studies. But just because this authors opinion says that normal human thought about religious belief doesn't state that there is one religion that is above others or that a God is what is driving things doesn't mean that there isn't a God or that there isn't one way to that God. You can also look at the evidence and say that because it is natural for humans to belief in some sort of divine agent that there may be a God out there and people have just mixed things up and turned that one God into their own versions.

The important thing here is that we are hard wired to believe and this is a part of human thinking. The author also states that to not believe goes against the natural grain and takes a lot more work to do which says that those people are going against what should come natural.
By contrast, disbelief is generally the
result of deliberate, effortful work against our
natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the
easiest ideology to propagate.
But there are several other links with more info if you want to cite them as well. It seems that you think what I posted was rubbish but now you can find some points that you think are OK because they support what you think. Yet you conveniently call anything that doesn't support you view as rubbish.