"Well, obviously having faith and being analytical have their different places in our lives."
Faith has no practical purpose. I honestly thought we'd gotten over this kind of cop-out already.
"“Rational” is just making sense and being logical."
Hence that "using logical reasoning" clause of the definition of "analytical." Analytical thinking is rational thinking, though rational thinking is not necessarily analytical. So this doesn't really work out for your argument.
half.note: First of all let me say that that was a pretty d.arn good explaination. I'm not sure if I buy into it or not, but I'll give you credit for presenting your point well.
As for my opinions regarding the content let me think about it and I'll get back to you.
I already started typing up a reply, but it's getting late and I'm too tired to finish it.
I'll post it on the morrow. :P
Thank you. That means a lot to me. :)
Take your time to think things through (<--- alliteration XD). I look forward to discussing it with you. (<--- rhyme XD XD)
God bless. ♥
Oops, sorry my reply was so late. It took me a while to get the wording right. But I stumbled across an Ellen White quote today which relates to what I'm talking about (and which I quoted at the end) and it inspired me to finish this up and finally post.
“Hence that "using logical reasoning" clause of the definition of "analytical." Analytical thinking is rational thinking, though rational thinking is not necessarily analytical. So this doesn't really work out for your argument.”
Yes, analytical thinking is rational thinking—I agree with you there. And I also agree that rational thinking is not necessarily analytical… which leads to my point that they are not interchangeable.
Anyways, we have now reached a point of semantics, so we’ll just focus more on the actual article.
In the case of those studies, analytical thinking affected faith, not necessarily rational thinking. Faith can be rational. Which leads me to what I wanted to talk about next….
“Faith has no practical purpose.”
I think you may misunderstand what faith is (please take note of my use of the word “think”… I am only going off of my limited information on you; I don’t mean to accuse you of ignorance).
Anyways, I should at least clarify my definition of faith:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)
Faith is the “substance” or grounding/confidence for the things we hope for. Basically, it is the reasons we have to hope. Rather than just blindly hoping that there is life after death, we can use the evidence of God working in our lives to give us faith in such matters.
Faith is also the “evidence of things not seen.” It is the reasons we have to trust in that which we cannot see (God, the afterlife, etc.).
And faith is actually quite practical.
The verse I quoted above is the first verse of Hebrews chapter 11, most commonly known as the “Faith Chapter.” It contains a (quite lengthy) list of examples of how people in the Bible applied faith practically in their lives and the result.
For example, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” (Hebrews 11:7)
Faith is much like trust, which is intrinsic in human relationships.
Faith gives as strength and confidence. It provides us with the calm assurance that God is guiding us along our path. Or, if you prefer, even just the simple hope that things will turn out alright.
Sure, we need to be analytical when building a plane, but it’s faith that keeps us motivated, that lets us believe it will actually work.
I know what you’ll say, “But we can know it will work because we’ve tested the design and seen that it has a high chance of success.” Yes, but we don’t know with absolute certainty. That’s where faith comes in. It involves the things we don’t know, which, you must admit, is an awful lot. ;)
Faith is not blind. It’s not even deaf. It is simply an admittance that we need help. That there are things we don’t know and don’t understand. It is beautiful, pervading, and important to our everyday life.
Okay, well, I’ll just finish this off with an Ellen White quote:
“Faith is trusting God--believing that He loves us and knows best what is for our good. Thus, instead of our own, it leads us to choose His way. In place of our ignorance, it accepts His wisdom; in place of our weakness, His strength; in place of our sinfulness, His righteousness. Our lives, ourselves, are already His; faith acknowledges His ownership and accepts its blessing. Truth, uprightness, purity, have been pointed out as secrets of life's success. It is faith that puts us in possession of these principles… Faith is needed in the smaller no less than in the greater affairs of life. In all our daily interests and occupations the sustaining strength of God becomes real to us through an abiding trust.” [Education, pg. 253, 255]
God bless. ♥
half.note, is it wise to quote Ellen White more than Jesus (pbuh)? :P
"And I also agree that rational thinking is not necessarily analytical… which leads to my point that they are not interchangeable."
But, you don't understand. It doesn't matter if they are not interchangeable the other way around, because the study doesn't deal with that. We can agree that analytical thinking is rational thinking. Therefore we should be able to agree, whether or not all rational thinking is analytical thinking, that the study increased rational thinking (more specifically analytical thinking) in its subjects and lower religiosity resulted. That is a factual correlation.
"In the case of those studies, analytical thinking affected faith, not necessarily rational thinking."
Yes, necessarily rational thinking!
"I think you may misunderstand what faith is"
If you're going to redefine "faith" as "hope," then sure, I'll be glad to have a discussion at length about all the practical applications of hope. I agree, hope is pretty important in something like designing the first plane. It's great to have hope that things will work out, because it keeps us motivated, although it's always important to remember that without real facts and real action to back up, hope is completely and totally useless.
"It's great to have hope that things will work out, because it keeps us motivated, although it's always important to remember that without real facts and real action to back up, hope is completely and totally useless."
*sigh* This thread is tiring me out....
I think I'm about done with this one.
I only quote Ellen White so much because she always puts what I want to say perfectly (and I'm reading her book, Education, right now and I always come across awesome quotes that relate to what I'm trying to say).
Besides, quoting Jesus and the Bible doesn't hold much weight with atheists. :P
"It doesn't matter if they are not interchangeable the other way around, because the study doesn't deal with that."
- "capable of replacing or changing places with something else; permitting mutual substitution without loss of function or suitability"
- "(mathematics, logic) such that the arguments or roles can be interchanged)"
- "capable of being interchanged; especially : permitting mutual substitution"
- "able to be exchanged with each other without making any difference or without being noticed:"
By the definition of the word "interchangeable", they need to be able to swapped both ways, so it doesn't work in this case.
Faith may conflict with analytical thinking, but you can be rational about faith. I have reasons for my faith, which makes it perfectly rational. It may not necessarily be analytical (since faith involves trusting in things you can't analyze), but it is still rational.
"If you're going to redefine "faith" as "hope," then sure, I'll be glad to have a dicussion at length about all the practical applications of hope."
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for..." (Hebrews 11:1)
Faith is hope. It just deals more with God, the afterlife, and other things beyond our world-- in other words, "the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1)
But faith can also be applied to our everyday life.
Not helping... *narrows eyes*
God bless. ♥
Religion gives people who aren't overly intelligent something to have faith in outside themselves. Nobody's gonna debate this. Very few stupid people will place their eternal fate in the hands of their own logic. Whether this helps them towards the truth or falsity in the end is an irrelevant issue.
However, that does not mean that there are not an equal amount of analytical thinkers among religious and non-religious people (I'd even say the majority would probably be in favor of the religious, just because there are so many of us).
So, it's only common-sense that you'd get more analytical thinkers among atheists if you did a study of a small group. Almost all atheists are analytical thinkers (or at least try to be), whereas only a portion (though probably still larger than the entire pool of atheists) of religious people are.
Like Destinee pointed out, Augustine, Aquinas, Justin Martyr, William of Ockham, Sir Thomas Moore, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, William, Paley, William Sorley, John Polkinghorne, William Lane Craig, etc. probably weren't subjects in the study.
^Also, it should be noted that if analytical reasoning is the only kind of reason you believe in, then you're bound to use it more.
Personally, I refuse to place ultimate faith in human reason, but perhaps that's just cause I'm unreasonable. *Shrug* Just seems . . . for lack of a better word, "pretentious"?
Well I put more faith in human reason than say human guessing. :)
I'm not saying either one is right, but analytical thinking seems better.
Also fair point about sample size.
Isn't logic itself a guess? You said yourself that evolution doesn't necessarily produce the ability to perceive truth.
Also, it might be worth saying that all logic is dependent on assumptions. Things like "Do other people really exist?" can't be proved, yet the assumption is made. You can't prove that A=A all the time and everywhere. We just have to assume in order to go about analyzing. Without that, we're just "chasing after wind."
We made a whole thread on assumptions. Destinee and I went back and forth with novel length posts for several pages. I'll dig it up, so if you're interested you can see my logic on that stuff.
Anyway, I agree that logic is a guess, but it is a guess we have to make, as you say. But in general I think the best policy is to limit those assumptions and guesses as much as possible. But maybe that isn't the best way to approach assumptions...
Hahaha. Destinee's pretty good at writing a thesis every time you think you've proved her wrong. Not sure if it's annoying or if it's why I like her.
And I'll try to dig it up later. Sounds like it might be interesting to go over.
And just to jog your mind (I'm not even sure I 100% agree, but it's interesting)
ht tp://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Obm7KoVR_dk
There was a better video, but it got deleted. >:( Plantinga's one of the best philosophers of religion in the world, but he's got a way of making you question what ya take for granted. But then again, that's a philsopher's job . . . :)
Collin: I agree in the main with the fact that analytical thinkers are more -ummm.....prosperous?- in religious communities than in atheistic one. Also the analytical method is only one way to judge truth and while being exclusive in its nature like science, it cannot take into account other forms of potentially possible experience.
"So, it's only common-sense that you'd get more analytical thinkers among atheists if you did a study of a small group."
Did you read the article? It wasn't that analytical thinkers were more common among atheists, although I suspect that is also true, but it wasn't what they were dealing with. I don't mean to be condescending, I just think you might be misunderstanding the nature of the study.
Haha, ya got me! I I actually didn't read the article.
Though I just did. The study doesn't really seem that revealing. Basically just says atheists think more like atheists . . .
^And it seems a bit sketchy. These people must really not have been very religious to begin with if staring at a statue can impact their views . . .
"Hahaha. Destinee's pretty good at writing a thesis every time you think you've proved her wrong. Not sure if it's annoying or if it's why I like her. "
Y'ALL ARE JUST JEALOUS.
Also, the article is a valid psychological study. It is saying, basically, that the statue will for whatever reason increasing analytical thinking. Then, separately, they judged that the increase in analytical thinking decreases religiosity.
I haven't actually looked up the original study, but it seems fine.
Like I said in my reply though, big deal? LOL.
"You can't prove that A=A all the time and everywhere..""
Okay. I tried explaining this to SDD and Quantum and they didn't get it. Hopefully I have better luck with you.
A = A is not proven. A = A is a logical necessity. It is not somethingt hat you can prove, it is not a hypothesis, it is an unwritten premise, a law of thought. A =/= A is a logical absurdity. It is a meaningless statement, totally absurd. A=A is known a priori which as I am sure you know does not require proof. It is required for any logical argument to be intelligible.
Do you agree? If not, I'll give up early...