Religious belief 'not linked to intuition or rational thinking': study

November 8, 2017, Coventry University
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

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 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 experiment - found no link between intuitive/, 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.

The study - published in Scientific Reports—was the first to challenge a growing trend among cognitive psychologists over the past 20 years that has attempted to show that believing in the supernatural is something that comes to us 'naturally' or intuitively.

The team started by carrying out an investigation on one of the largest pilgrimage routes in the world - the Camino de Santiago de Compostela, in northern Spain.

They asked pilgrims about the strength of their beliefs and the length of time spent on the pilgrimage and assessed their levels of intuitive thinking with a probability task, where participants had to decide between a logical and a 'gut feeling' choice.

The results suggested no link between strength of supernatural belief and intuition.

In a second study, where they used mathematical puzzles to increase intuition, they also found no link between levels of intuitive thinking and supernatural belief.

In the last part of their research they used brain stimulation to increase levels of cognitive inhibition, which is thought to regulate analytical thinking.

This involved running a painless electrical current between two electrodes placed on the participant's scalp, to activate the right , a part of the brain that controls inhibitory control.

A previous brain-imaging study had shown that atheists used this area of the brain more when they wanted to suppress supernatural ideas.

The results showed that while this brain stimulation increased levels of cognitive inhibition, it did not change levels of supernatural belief, suggesting there is no direct link between cognitive inhibition and supernatural belief.

The academics say that it is "premature" to explain belief in gods as intuitive or natural.

Instead, they say their research supports a theory that religion is a nurture-based process and develops because of socio-cultural processes, including upbringing and education.

Leading author Miguel Farias said:

"What drives our belief in gods - intuition or reason; heart or head? There has been a long debate on this matter but our studies have challenged the theory that being a religious believer is determined by how much individuals rely on intuitive or analytical thinking.

"We don't think people are 'born believers' in the same way we inevitably learn a language at an early age. The available sociological and historical data show that what we believe in is mainly based on social and educational factors, and not on cognitive styles, such as intuitive/analytical thinking.

"Religious is most likely rooted in culture rather than in some primitive gut intuition."

Explore further: Do brain connections help shape religious beliefs?

More information: Miguel Farias et al, Supernatural Belief Is Not Modulated by Intuitive Thinking Style or Cognitive Inhibition, Scientific Reports (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14090-9

Related Stories

Do brain connections help shape religious beliefs?

January 27, 2014

Building on previous evidence showing that religious belief involves cognitive activity that can be mapped to specific brain regions, a new study has found that causal, directional connections between these brain networks ...

Intuitive thinking may influence belief in God

September 20, 2011

Intuition may lead people toward a belief in the divine and help explain why some people have more faith in God than others, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

Recommended for you

Unprecedented study of Picasso's bronzes uncovers new details

February 17, 2018

Musee national Picasso-Paris and the Northwestern University/Art Institute of Chicago Center for Scientific Studies in the Arts (NU-ACCESS) have completed the first major material survey and study of the Musee national Picasso-Paris' ...

Using Twitter to discover how language changes

February 16, 2018

Scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London, have studied more than 200 million Twitter messages to try and unravel the mystery of how language evolves and spreads.

56 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2017
"suggests that is not the case, and that people are not 'born believers'."

The god meme offers palpable relief from fear of death, resentment, guilt, uncertainty about the future, and loneliness.

This flood of good feelings is referred to as the epiphany.

Addicts are not born but some people are more prone to addiction than others.

"People cannot tell the difference between pleasure and relief from pain." epicurus
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Nov 08, 2017
Religious beliefs are not linked to ....rational thinking

There's a big surprise.

and that people are not 'born believers'.

Of course not. We evolved from hominids (and pre-hominids) that didn't worship at altars. None of the feral children reported ever showed symptoms of religious belief, either.

Religion is a meme (some may argue a memetic virus).
Eikka
5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2017
There's a big surprise.


The important message is that religion is also not linked to the lack of rational thinking.

What many forget is that rationality isn't an all or nothing thing. Smart people aren't universally smart, and everyone has a blind spot of some premise they just can't or won't question, at least without considerable pain and effort.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2017
The god meme offers palpable relief from fear of death, resentment, guilt, uncertainty about the future, and loneliness.


Then shouldn't you be the pope?

The important message is that religion is also not linked to the lack of rational thinking.

Had the study found otherwise, I would call it into question. As is well known, many of the great minds of the past were profoundly religious, for example Newton writing more on theology than science.

I think it is actually a natural instinct to "overstep" what is immediately possible to know, and enter into metaphysics. A short glance at theories even in modern physics shows this as well,... Everett, de Broglie -Bohm, etc
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2017
.... in their postulated non-observable entities (i.e metaphysics).

Religion is a meme (some may argue a memetic virus).


If by this you mean a cultural element passed from one generation to another, I would rather challenge that and say it's more instinctual in overstepping what is immediately knowable , as religion has developed independently in time and location. We do this sort of "belief" every day for practical reasons,... so religion seems similar except institutional.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2017
The important message is that religion is also not linked to the lack of rational thinking.


The title of the article is made to appear otherwise which is disingenuous if done on purpose.
Zzzzzzzz
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2017
.... in their postulated non-observable entities (i.e metaphysics).

Religion is a meme (some may argue a memetic virus).


If by this you mean a cultural element passed from one generation to another, I would rather challenge that and say it's more instinctual in overstepping what is immediately knowable , as religion has developed independently in time and location. We do this sort of "belief" every day for practical reasons,... so religion seems similar except institutional.


Your challenge is based on nothing but your existing set of delusions. The scientific method exists to break away from this trap.
Moltvic
2 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2017
What's up, my fellow pseudo-scientists?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2017
Your challenge is based on nothing but your existing set of delusions. The scientific method exists to break away from this trap.


Humanity en masse are not scientists, so I don't know what the scientific method has to do with the present topic? What delusions are you referring to. I have many so you may wish to be specific. Religious people don't need to be specific but scientifically minded people do.
flashgordon
4 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2017
As I point out in my Gospel of Truth, http://wwwscienti...-up.html

people that are born in a country that is predominantly christian, tend to be christians; those born in a predominantly Muslim country believe in Allah, those born in a predominantly Oriental country believe in Buddhims/Hinduism/Confuscionism .I

I find a quote by christian apologists that they understood this,

"The former city loved its founder, and therefore believed him to be a god; the latter believed Christ to be God, and therefore loved him." This is in St Augustine's "City of God" - chapter 22-6. If you read this in Augustine's "City of God", you'll see that he's saying the Roman's believed in the tales of Romulus being raised from wolves, and that he is a god, because they were raised as Romans.

julianpenrod
1 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2017
Among other things, the page displays a crucial fact. Four other articles mentioned, one indicating a link between "intuition" and "religious" feelings, one saying there is no link, one indicating "analytic" thinking reduces "religious" feelings, one saying there isn't a link between "religious" feeling and "intuitive" or "analytical" thinking. "Science" can't move one step, but claims to be the answer to everything. And, then, when it turns out wrong, which is usually the case, "science" devotees, like career shills, try to depict that as a virtue. They'll try to sell a lie and, when they can't sell it anymore, they'll switch to a new one.
Among other things, pilgrims is not necessarily a good place to look, since many tend to be obsessive. A more genuine appreciation of the presence of God is among those who live with it without the need of something spectacular to fix it in.
BobSage
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2017
As a person brought up in a rabidly atheist family, who now believes that Jesus is the son of God, I can tell you that there is certainly more than upbringing that determines belief in God.

For me it was largely experimental investigation. Here's something you can do on your own, with no lab equipment:

Pray to Jesus for something you want or need. Then see what happens.

Then do it again and again and again until your intellectual resistance is overcome by the statistical certainty that prayers are, indeed, answered.

No atheist I have ever spoken with was willing to do that experiment, no matter how scientifically minded they are.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2017
The fact, though, is that a more eminent facet is the nature of those who refuse to accept the presence of God. They all tend to be arrested development freaks and misfits, incapable of healthy, genuine relationships with anyone.
The fact is, the presence of God can be experienced directly in one's life, if one undergoes the sea change of acting with scrupulousness, acting to improve the world and onesself, and doing it because it's right, not for what it can give you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2017
A more genuine appreciation of the presence of God is among those who live with it without the need of something spectacular to fix it in
But Julian what is more spectacular than the resurrection? Or the flood or creationism or any of the other miracles you're all so enamoured with?

Whats more spectacular than giving you everything you ever wanted? On paper, at any rate. With the gold edges.
They all tend to be arrested development freaks and misfits, incapable of healthy, genuine relationships with anyone.
And what about this spectacular bigotry you all think you're entitled to, because you have a personal relationship with the god of everything?

Groupies of Jesus Christ superstar, the greatest spectacle on earth. Not only elephants and bears but 2 of every animal on earth.

Except for all the ones Jesus didnt love.

Maybe they couldn't accept all that nonsense either and were extincted for their heresy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2017
For me it was largely experimental investigation. Here's something you can do on your own, with no lab equipment
No, actually, 'experimental investigation' is going over to the holy land and digging around for 100 years and finding out that none of those bible stories ever happened because other things were going on that would have made them impossible.

And then realizing that the only place where a description of the godson can be found, is in a book founded on lies.

And then perusing the other holy books and finding out that even though they are founded on the same sorts of lies as yours, they can exact the same sorts of feelings and convictions as yours does, in exactly the same kind of people as you.

And then coming to the realization that your faith is pathology.

That's science for you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2017
Science - the ultimate buzzkill.
forumid001
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2017
It does take some intelligence threshold to think of beings that are hard to sense or contact, but for most humans, it should be quite obvious that we are not at the upmost level of beings. It's a little bit harder to figure out how 'real' is our 'reality'. All 'things' we sense and all 'understandings' we have acquired are constructs of trillions of neurons. I am quite suspicious of a being that contains trillion trillion neurons (or more generally, interconnected sensors and actuators) would have the same 'senses' or 'understandings' as we do. If our civilization continues to evolve for another millenium, I am quite sure that the artificial universes and the 'humans' in those universes will be more 'real' and more sophisticated than our universe and us. I would not be surprised that these artificial humans will ask questions such as: "How 'real' are we?", "Are we the upmost level of being?"
Spaced out Engineer
3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2017
Noumenon
Is onto something, this maybe why we out lasted the Neanderthal. One more shore. It makes for an ease of cognitive disruption and coincides our apparently inaggregable representations of variant cognitive maps, dialogues, and modalities can both have a wholism, but also keeping it existential.

The brain craves change. So I do not think cultural factors are the sole provider either, but they maybe the dominant one.

Science is not a buzzkill. The mathematical universe is not falsifiable. What are we left to say when our tools leave us with consistent histories isomorphic to the same present moment? The universe or God is humbling.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Nov 08, 2017
More to the article. It is reassuring that atheists cannot just call religious believers simply temporal epileptics. Looks like Dawkins was not just wrong about the selfish gene(see locusts to crickets).
Whether by Poincaré conjecture and taking math as more or less than a metaphor or the difference of metaphorical inference, the tolerance is choiceless, happy.
EyeNStein
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2017
'not linked to intuition or rational thinking'
Well thank God for that.
Wouldn't want any real God to be a made up feeling, or found at the bottom of a test tube, would we.
rrwillsj
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2017
Personally? I converse with the deity every now and again. The deity makes fun of me for being a materialist atheist and I poke fun right back. For the deity being a 13+ gigayear old infant. Still just a baby! Give it a trillion years or so to reach maturity and then maybe it will have something interesting to say.

As for the all too common delusion that religious belief is innate to humans? If that was true, than sunday-school classes would be unnecessary. Heck-fire, requiring all school children to recite institutionally approved pledge to the flag and dictated prayers and civic classes in loyal obedience would be a waste of tax money.

However the hypocrisy of the authoritarians is as boundless as their sadistic egos.
FM79
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2017


The god meme offers palpable relief from fear of death, resentment, guilt, uncertainty about the future, and loneliness.


Memetics are pseudoscience and religion is not explained as easily as you put it either.
FM79
not rated yet Nov 08, 2017
The deity makes fun of me for being a materialist atheist and I poke fun right back.


As well he or anyone should. There are so many holes in materialism that hardly anyone with a brain could take it rationally, really, whether one believes in God or gods or not.

Of course your comment reveals lack of rationality all together, just a stack of straw men.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2017
Bob
No atheist I have ever spoken with was willing to do that experiment, no matter how scientifically minded they are
Wow Bob - you talked with people who do not believe in god. You told them to spend the rest of their lives praying to this god (the one they don't believe in) - and they declined your generous offer. Who'd of thunk???????
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2017
Religious belief 'not linked to intuition or rational thinking': study

One need not look any further than this website to see the acolytes of all things dark to prove this point. Not to mention the AGWite worshippers.
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2017
For me it was largely experimental investigation. Here's something you can do on your own, with no lab equipment:

Pray to Jesus for something you want or need. Then see what happens.

Jesus isn't a leprechaun whose job it is to respond to greedy, amoral, materialist narcissists like you with lavish gifts. I can see why atheists wouldn't take you up on the offer, because even they could tell there's nothing Christian about you.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2017
For me it was largely experimental investigation. Here's something you can do on your own, with no lab equipment:

Pray to Jesus for something you want or need. Then see what happens.

Jesus isn't a leprechaun whose job it is to respond to greedy, amoral, materialist narcissists like you with lavish gifts. I can see why atheists wouldn't take you up on the offer, because even they could tell there's nothing Christian about you.

100 stars, if I could...
rrwillsj
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2017
Very good point bn. I've always wondered about that. And not just prayers by the christ-on-a-schtick cultists. But for all the religious believers I have known.

I have never heard of any of them praying to benefit other people. Oh, they're willing to dictate commandments for obedience. Of everyone else but themselves. After all, they're special and can sin without remorse or penalty. They know what is right for those they can brutalize into submission.

To quote the Old Hawaiians "The missionaries came to do us good. And they wound up doing very well for themselves!"

To paraphrase, the religious believers violently insist that the primitive, anthropophagic tribal customs of their inbred little village of jukes and kallikaks, be enforced as the laws of the universe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2017
Jesus isn't a leprechaun whose job it is to respond to greedy, amoral, materialist narcissists like you with lavish gifts. I can see why atheists wouldn't take you up on the offer, because even they could tell there's nothing Christian about you
Dont blame the sinner. This is exactly what the godman promises.

"7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye
shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh
findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." Mat7

-ie everything you ever wanted. Why do you think it's so popular?

He's the epitome of a believer.

What, you think xians are all selfless humble servants of the god of infinite mercy? No, they only act that way because it's supposed to help them get whatever they want. And also so that merciful, loving god wont torture them forever in hell.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2017
Xians will insist on doing you a favor even if it kills you both. That's why they will slam on their brakes short of an intersection, right in front of you, just to let someone out.

They're supposed to.

Jesus could have cured every leper in the world but he only cured the ones in his path, for an audience. To wow the shills.

I really don't think that's setting a very good example.
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2017
"...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."

That's right: Brainwashing. And Intuitional/Magical Thinking is the easiest way in. Therefore all the pressure to FEEL. To BELEIVE, IN YOUR HEART. To SUSPEND RATIONAL THOUGHT. And to get into that magical, ritual routine of worship and observance.

Although the Academics will use less fraught terminology, such as "cultural indoctrination", or "behavioral conditioning".

But it is the same thing, and best begun at birth, if you want it to have the best chance to stick.
And stick, it does. Only the very strongest individuals, in terms of intelligence, strength of character and robust ethical sense, are ever able to throw off the yoke. And those who don't possess the normal human compliment of emotions, like serial killers, Televangelists, and CEOs.

EyeNStein
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2017
I can see why Marx called religion the "opium of the people".
In the harsh materialistic western world Christianity has de-evolved into a comfort blanket; which it certainly wasn't in the first century; when faith could be a death sentence.
The historical narrative became an area fenced off from rational (or intuitional?) discussion.
Believing in a literal Ark filled with EVERY animal became a badge of honour rather than a dereliction of duty to dialog on its meaning.
Without dialog on history it all just becomes revisionism: All events only mean what you want them to mean. Any sense of reality is lost. Convenience is king and pass the opium pipe.
Regardless or whether your 'religion' is a particular political persuasion or a particular faith.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2017
That's right: Brainwashing. And Intuitional/Magical Thinking is the easiest way in. Therefore all the pressure to FEEL. To BELEIVE, IN YOUR HEART. To SUSPEND RATIONAL THOUGHT. And to get into that magical, ritual routine of worship and observance.


Probably similar psychological dynamics at play causing alarmists to overstate the threat of AGW in terms not scientifically justified. Studies show that most climate scientists being objective, don't fall into this trap just as most scientists generally don't follow religion,.... while politicians, the uninitiated, tree huggers, and general liberal bed-wetters tend to or at least 'make use of' the fact that others are inflicted.

greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2017
Probably similar psychological dynamics at play causing alarmists to overstate the threat of AGW in terms not scientifically justified.
How come you don't mention the denialists - who make repeated attacks on the science of climate change - of course also in terms not scientifically justified? I think this kind of statement answers that question
while politicians, the uninitiated, tree huggers, and general liberal bed-wetters tend to or at least 'make use of' the fact that others are inflicted
Your bias, and sloppy thinking are showing through there noum. What exactly are you accusing 'liberal bed wetters' of doing?
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2017
Hey , greenonions. The topic was about unsubstantiated belief. Deniers don't believe. Didn't you notice my having defended the majority of climatologists? No? Why not? I see you skipped that portion of my text.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2017
The study confirms the fact that the unfolding of the mental illness called religiosity is mostly enabled by the circumstances of education and socialization. As we also know from recent scientific discoveries patterns of behavior and thinking can impregnate and infest themselves back into the genome. So in other words, groups and societies who over centuries perpetrate religious cults will create babies that have already built-in tendencies to fall for religious silliness that can easily be activated by respective parental or otherwise education, or later in the life by careless self-education.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2017
I don't like the misleading categorization into rational and intuitive. The future of mankind depends on us training ourselves to be truly rational, and on that rational basis consciously utilize the vastly untapped potential of intuition, applying strict logical criteria when doing so. Intuition can be trained, it has zero, nil, nothing to do with belief. So, don't call a mentally confused believer an intuitive person.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2017
Some posting here don't realize that our mental system is very, very powerful. Thoughts can create extremely powerful, also physical, effects, for the good and for the bad. If you forcefully believe that the person next to you is a mighty healer, who by laying his hand on your head can cure you from a nasty disease, your consciousness will cause self-healing effects in your body. If you believe that a non-existing God will help you passing an exam, it might in reality help you to yourself calm down, be better concentrated etc. when sitting it. Our consciousness can equally make us see things that don't exist. So be careful with all your pseudo-proofs.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2017
@Noum dodges away from its false claims on the AGW thread still without giving any answers to the meaning of "existential threat" or the direct falsification by open access papers to its claim there is no mass extinction, and that AGW will not contribute to it, and brings the argument to another thread pretending never to have heard any challenges.

This @Noumtroll is ducking, bobbing, weaving, and trolling. Repeating claims that have already been falsified is a typical #climatedenier trick. It won't work here, @Russiannoumtroll.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2017
without giving any answers to the meaning of "existential threat"

I didn't conduct the study. Indeed as posted, I am making the presumption that those conducting the peer reviewed published study know how to do this, and along with those surveyed understood the terms used and understood the scale provided, as there is no rational reason for questioning this. Again, as pointed out, the given scale was calibrated with LESS severe phraseology than "existential threat", with other studies having placed the later higher than "severe/catastrophe" as used in the study. Therefore, logically had the former phraseology been used instead, it would have resulted in even more of a minority view.

...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2017
.. to its claim there is no mass extinction, and that AGW will not contribute to it


Clearly you are not an objectively honest person, nor one with appropriately careful reading comprehension to qualify in entering into any rational debate with me...

....as not only had the study categorically not made such a claim, nor had Noumenon made such a claim,... but rather for the sake of argument I had even gave the benefit of doubt to Caliban/RC and granted the equivalency of their respective phraseology with that given in the study as at scale 10.

I had even granted that since in that case still a significant number (41%) of "leading scientists" would concur, that Caliban and may be right and Noumenon may be wrong!

My point only relied upon that being a minority view amongst "leading scientists" to substantiate the argument that 'one is not a denialist merely on the basis of not accepting as scientifically founded the notion of "existential threat".

Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2017
... IOW, my argument was NEVER about what will or will not happen on account of AGW, but rather in defending against the unsubstantiated charge that I'm a denialist merely on the basis of rejecting that an "existential threat" and "mass extinction" are scientifically objective statements.

mackita
5 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2017
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2017
Noum
Hey , greenonions. The topic was about unsubstantiated belief.
I know - and you hold up 'bed wetting liberal' as your whipping boy regarding unsubstantiated belief. But you don't mention the deniers - who trumpet the 'unsubstantiated belief' that global warming was made up by the Chinese. That is unsubstantiated belief too - no? So as I say - your bias and sloppy thinking are on full display. I notice you did not answer the direct question I posed - regarding your comment. Perhaps I should also add - 'Why do you pick on 'bed wetting liberals' - but conveniently miss out those on the other side of the issue who engage in 'unsubstantiated belief?'
mackita
5 / 5 (1) Nov 12, 2017
IMO the problem of this controversy consist in dual nature of believer vs. skeptic. There is no substantial difference between believer and skeptic, i.e. believer into the opposite once they base their arguments on established ideology instead of rational reasoning. For opponents of Copernicus Galieo was also naive believer and their skepticism was even occasionally well reasoned with logical arguments. They just ignored new findings and they feared the lost of their jobs and easy money from establishment in similar way, like the opponents of lets say EMDrive or cold fusion today.
The opposite of religion is agnosticism not skepticism.
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
3 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2017
@mackita: sorry, but you are going wrong. Religions are stuffed with claims that conflict with the laws of nature, as already validated. From time to time religious dogmas are forced to fix their worst ridiculous irrationalities to avoid massive loss of followers. The opposite of religion is realism. The opposite of leading a life based on the reality and its truth, being curious, searching for new knowledge is to replace knowledge and scientific curiosity with belief of no matter what flavor and thus disrespecting research rigor, disregarding the importance of truth. Don't mix up a scientific hypothesis with unchallenged blind belief in random claims.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2017
Agnosticism is often used as an excuse for not accepting evidence.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2017
Agnosticism is often used as an excuse for not accepting evidence.


I doubt many proper agnostics are so on account of religious claims that are within the purview of scientific investigation. Generally, one is agnostic about metaphysical questions precisely because they are either meaningless or that they can't be subject to scientific investigation. In this respect, I would say that Atheists who believe 'there is no god' merely on lack of evidence, are of no better rationality than Theists.

But you don't mention the deniers - who trumpet the 'unsubstantiated belief' that global warming was made up by the Chinese


I never heard that one before, and don't regard that as a scientific theory. As I said this thread is about 'belief in something',... not about 'not belief in something', to answer your question. But, yes for the most part I don't engage cranks or denialists, unless in rare occasions they have a valid argument.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2017
... that they attempt to use to justify their crankology.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2017
Noum
I never heard that one before, and don't regard that as a scientific theory
You have never heard a conspiracy theory pushed by Donald Trump? http://www.politi...inese-h/ And yet you want to comment on a science board - about the subject of belief vs science. You don't engage cranks or denialists - but are happy to comment on the whole topic as if you are some authority - tossing around insulting terms such as 'bed wetting liberals.' You still did not answer the question.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 12, 2017
You have never heard a conspiracy theory pushed by Donald Trump? And yet you want to comment on a science board - about the subject of belief vs science.


That's correct.

You still did not answer the question.


You asked why I didn't post about denialists in this thread? If so, then yes, I answered this question. Was there anther question?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2017
I think nou-me-nons true purpose in being here is revealed in the frequency of his use of the words I and me and my.

His arguments only perpetuate more arguments and increase his chances to mention himself. Over and over and over.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2017
I think nou-me-nons true purpose in being here is revealed in the frequency of his use of the words I and me and my.

His arguments only perpetuate more arguments and increase his chances to mention himself. Over and over and over.


I was asked a question. I don't know of any other poster here that likes to get a reaction from me more than you Otto.

TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Nov 13, 2017
I was asked a question. I don't know of any other poster here that likes to get a reaction from me more than you Otto.

I I me. Two sentences, 3 self refs.

Hey maybe youre one of these

"At the same time, psychopaths are good imposters. They have absolutely no hesitation about forging and brazenly using impressive credentials to adopt professional roles that bring prestige and power. They pick professions in which the requisite skills are easy to fake, the jargon is easy to learn, and the credentials are unlikely to be thoroughly checked. Psychopaths find it extremely easy to pose as financial consultants, ministers, psychological counselors and psychologists. And that's a scary thought."

-Like this guy?
https://www.youtu...bEw6SctA

-Mr um um
StudentofSpiritualTeaching
not rated yet Nov 13, 2017
If interested in the topic of how to recognize a psychopath, here a PDF with the best description that I have so far come across: ow.ly/YmCB30gyH7i
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 13, 2017
Noum
You asked why I didn't post about denialists in this thread? If so, then yes, I answered this question.
What I was asking about - which is very clear from multiple comments - was why you are a hypocrite. Why is it OK to throw around baby terms like 'bed wetting liberals' - when you are accusing the left of not being scientific in their expressions about the climate - but you give a pass to people on the other side of the issue - who are equally guilty in terms of not being scientifically rigorous in their expressions. The question was very clear. Yes your bias and sloppy thinking make you look really childish.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.