Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > Analytic Thinking is Inversely Proportional to Religious Belief

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Analytic Thinking is Inversely Proportional to Religious Belief

CollinF replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 12:16 am

^Exactly. A=A is essentially the basis of logic, so it can't be argued logically. Which goes to show that everything doesn't have to be analytically established, else there would be no criteria to do the analyzing. 
 
Some philosophers of religion have argued that belief in God may be properly basic (like belief in other people, ourselves, the laws of logic), and that thus it doesn't technically need to be argued analytically. *Shrug* It's interesting, at the very least. Craig's got an extended video on it on Youtube, though it was originally Plantinga's idea. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Quantum1.0This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 12:17 am

Oh not this again:
 
"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 doesn't have to be. I could certainly imagine a universe that doesn't follow the typical laws of logic. In fact by some interpretaions of quantum mechanics our universe is one of them. For example have you heard of wave particle duality?
 
Waves and particles have distinctly different properties, yet "particles" act like both in different instances aka A =/= B and A = B
 
Or, take relativity. People can measure different times for the exact same event. In fact time is can actually be different for two different people. Who is right? Both of them.
 
Does that make logical sense classically? No.
 
Is it how the universe works? Yes.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 12:20 am

And you're probably right. *Shrug* I just tend to be pretty skeptical regarding psychological studies. I think people are often more complex than we assume. I mean, what if just the act of being told to pause before answering itself affected their scores by making them think they were supposed to change their answers and then they acted accordingly? Maybe looking at llama poop would have the same affect?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 12:43 am

Collin:
 
"Some philosophers of religion have argued that belief in God may be properly basic (like belief in other people, ourselves, the laws of logic), and that thus it doesn't technically need to be argued analytically. *Shrug* It's interesting, at the very least. Craig's got an extended video on it on Youtube, though it was originally Plantinga's idea. "
If you can argue for it or against it, then I think it becomes analytical. Right now, for instance, Quantum is arguing against the Law of Identity, however, as I will hopefully show in the next 3 min, he isn't really arguing against it ontologically. God on the other hand you can argue against ontologically. Even if you're wrong lol. Like you said, chance is 50/50. Laws of thought - there is no possibility for them to be wrong. Otherwise there is the possibiltity that they could be wrong and that they could be right at the same time, which is utter nonsense. 
 
"And you're probably right. *Shrug* I just tend to be pretty skeptical regarding psychological studies. I think people are often more complex than we assume. I mean, what if just the act of being told to pause before answering itself affected their scores by making them think they were supposed to change their answers and then they acted accordingly? Maybe looking at llama poop would have the same affect?"
They try to control for that stuff. In this case, looking at a discus thrower (for whatever reason) did not significantly change analytical thinking. It's one of those things that the general public kinda goes "yeah right" at though, so i understand. Psychology as a field is nowhere near understanding mental complexity. Not even near.
 
Quantum: 
 
Yes I know about wave-particle duality haha. I've tried explaining this best I can, since it is one of the few things I think I know, as opposed to approximating at the truth, so here goes. If it doesn't work we can call it quits, kay? 
 
1. Wave-particle duality is a lot about measurement. It has not yet reached ontological basis of things. Logical necessities apply to ontology, not to epistemology (i.e. to reality not how we know reality). So it has not, like, ruined the classical logic law (which again I think is disingenuous, as it implies the law is simpyl "old" instead of "necessary" - I've already ranted about how I thinkt he work "law" is misleading).
 
For instance: "People can measure different times for the exact same event. In fact time is can actually be different for two different people. Who is right? Both of them. " This is about perspective. If Grace measures the time to be x, and Bob measures it to be y, that means that time is malleable. It does not mean that Grace measures it to be both x and not-x at the same precise moment. And again, a difference in measurement. 
 
2. "Waves and particles have distinctly different properties, yet "particles" act like both in different instances aka A =/= B and A = B" 
 
I disagree completely. While you are right that they act differently, what this means is that the fundamental essence of an electron acts as both a wave and a particle. It literally means nothing else. The way modern science works is operationally - i.e. it measures behaviour and defines things based on that. It never looks at the "essence" of things, which is essentialist. It is descriptive and predictive. The laws of thoughts are essentialist. 
 
For instance, imagine that you are a horizontal line. Somehow you have gained consciousness. You are moving horizontally - in one direction, you observe, and there is no other way for you to move. You can't change directions. Then you observe something moving horizontally. "Oh, it's a line like me!" you say. But then it moves vertically. "Wait, vertically and horizontally are different directions completely how can it do this?" You see it move horizontally again, and then vertically. You are utterly confused since the two lines are operating in two different dimensions (up/down and right/left). "This isn't possible!" you exclaim, puffing at your Sherlock Holmes-esque pipe furiously. Then you realize it's a square and it has both dimensions.
 
I know this analogy has flaws (e.g. it's changing sequentially, not simultaneously), but if you are in a line and you see a circle, it'd be the same deal. At one moment in time you could draw a tangent at one angle, at the next moment the tangent would be at another angle. As a line-being, you could not comprehend circle-beings in any other way than as lines. But a line is fundamentally different to a circle. You can only measure it using your tools which have been designed to measure lines. The circle is not a line. You measure its behaviour as best you can using lines. But it hasn't yet reached the essence of the circle. 
 
I hope that makes more sense.
 
Cheers.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 12:48 am

And Quantum, I honestly don't see how anybody can imagine a universe without the typical laws of logic. Honestly. Just, explain how something can exist and not exist simultaneously and I'll believe ya. Honest to God.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
CollinF replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 1:04 am

Destinee has I'm pretty sure most or all philosophers on her side on this one. All I've heard talk about this say the laws of logic are true in "every possible world." Not physical laws, mind you, bu stuff like the law of identity.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 6:51 am

Collin:
 
"These people must really not have been very religious to begin with if staring at a statue can impact their views . . ."
 
Warning: The above is not a legitimate criticism of the study, it is a failed reductio ad absurdum.
 
"I mean, what if just the act of being told to pause before answering itself affected their scores by making them think they were supposed to change their answers and then they acted accordingly?"
 
Now that's my man Collin, making a proper criticism of the methods of the study this time. <3

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Quantum1.0This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 8:58 am

Destinee: Good post. Although then we get into the ground of measurement and how fundamental it is to the way reality works. I'll think about this a bit more and then decide whether or not you've convinced me.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Destinee replied...
Jul. 18, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Collin: Don't forget, God is on my side too. ;)
 
Quantum: Thank you. *relief* :D 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 12, 2013 at 10:18 am

I'm reviving this thread back from the grave because there was a meta analysis:
 
ht tp://arstechnica.co m/science/2013/08/new-meta-analysis-checks-the-correlation-between-intelligence-and-faith/
 
Thoughts on the meta analysis? On the data, explanations, or implications? Although there are a few problems/criticisms, I must admit it's more difficult to pass off a consensus of studies than a single study.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
KatsKThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 12, 2013 at 10:50 am

Hmmm. I hadn't read that before, due to somehow missing this thread. That's a really interesting idea. I think this makes sense, going along with the idea that atheists use reasoning due to its practicality and tangibility. Of course, like I've been talking about with half.note, just because someone's religious doesn't make them a true representative of their faith. *shrugs*
How many people were in the studies as a whole? I couldn't find an exact number, though I suppose that would be hard when collecting data from almost a century of tests.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 12, 2013 at 11:27 am

Well, there were 63 studies total, with presumably a few dozen or more each, so at least a few thousand. I don't know if you could pin an exact head count, however, as the analysis and some of the studies draw on polls like Gallup for information which draw on thousands of people that might or might not be significant enough to the studies to be counted as subjects.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback