How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God

[Kilgore Trout]

It's a dumb test. I don't think it reveals anything about a person's general "method" of thinking.

I expect there are people who couldn't answer them even if you told them the "obvious" answer was wrong, but that comes down to an education/intelligence thing, and not really a method of thinking.

I question the utility of it for measuring anything since real-world analytical problems don't generally present themselves in such a context, so whether someone applies "system 1" or "system 2," or whether they apply them appropriately, is probably widely variable, based on a whole host of complex criteria.

Of course, there is something to be said for learning how to develop a tendency for looking at problems deeper and more thoroughly, and to always double-check your unconscious assumptions before proceeding. I don't know whether this is a component of what they're talking about or not.

 

[metis]

I think that when one seriously studies other religions, they often start questioning what they believe and why do they believe what they believe? Capice?

And since religious dogmas are basic unfalsifiable, there really is no logical way one should conclude that theirs must be correct and all others wrong to varying degrees.

 

[Valjean]

You said: "It's not designed so much to exclude notions of God, as to exclude notions not based on evidence and analysis thereof."
So, the first three words in the Bible discuss the Big Bang,

"In the beginning" is a discussion of the big bang?

a theory which is the apex of all human theories.

?????

Einstein the god of many cooked up the Steady State Universe

," Einstein the God?" I think your anti-intellectual bias is showing, and didn't Einstein quickly abandon the idea of a steady state?

which warps in some imagined 4th dimension.

But Einstein's "4th dimension" is real.

And you are not getting the idea that the Apex of human skills, which has discovered that our universe had a beginning, is the very thing which you are clamoring for and the Bible had the solution from 4000+++ years ago?

What "solution" does the Bible have? It implies a beginning. That's the extent of it.

Can you see now that all the labor done by man has done nothing new. God said: "In the Beginning... " a concept which tortured physicists of the last two centuries. They all asked "Was there a beginning or not???" The Bible said that there was a beginning. And Genesis was communicated to man in some form. So, not until 1973 did man realize that the Bible record was correct. 4000+++ years later?

When have people ever not assumed a beginning of some sort? A beginning is hardly the astonishing, unique and revolutionary biblical revelation you seem to think it is.

So, you now clamor for inspection of evidence and much analysis or Empirical evidence. Right? Christians like me smile and resort to "Thus said God!" Were we wrong to rely on Him? Those were the very first words of God to man. Would it not behoove you to read what else God may have said? As an example: "Was the earth created before the universe?"

There is no "evidence" in the Bible, nor is there any "explanation." It's not a science book. It does not explain, it asserts.
All you're saying is that its assumption of a beginning -- which everyone assumed all along, and can be found in literature from all over the world -- is part of a theory of physics.

Christian beliefs have more to offer, for those who delicately study the words of God. So, your comment "exclude notions not based on evidence and analysis thereof." offers human erring empirical evidence, which is morphing all the time. All this scientific evidence was arrived at with punishing difficulty. It would have been far more pleasant to just take the words of the One Who created the Universe.

Is it pleasant we're looking for, or truth?
We took the word of the biblical God for over a thousand years. Did it advance human technology or understanding of how things worked? If anything it retarded understanding. In fact, it actively opposed understanding and knowledge.

Do you not see the advantage of the belief in this God who decided to give you the very beginning of how you and I came to be?

Without belief in this God we might have been on the moon a thousand years ago or invented tetracycline in time to avert the Plague. Wasn't the age of faith also called the Dark Age?
Advantage? Science isn't looking for advantage, it's looking for truth.
"...God who decided to give you the very beginning of how you and I came to be?" ???? -- What does that mean?

Sounds like something a parent would say to his kids. It shows care.

You're right. It's pablum.. It explains nothing. It just placates. It assumes we're incompetent to investigate reality by ourselves.

And it did not disappoint man. It took man 4000+++ years to confirm this, all along screaming "God is just a myth!"

"Man" was screaming no such thing, and only a tiny portion of the planet's population had access to this astonishing and unique revelation that there was a beginning.

The point is that it is not foolishness to trust in someone reliable like your parents.

My parents told me there was an Easter Bunny and a Santa Claus -- how reliable was that? It was a placatory but bold faced lie. They assumed I was a simpleton who didn't actually read the Golden Guide books they gave me -- which explicitly stated the only flying mammals were bats, not reindeer.
Parents are storytellers, not science educators.

And when you go to school, and the professor tells you the moon is made of cheese... errr, I mean we live in a Steady State Universe... are you going to tell me that your information source is more reliable than that of the Christian?

Absolutely!
The Bible doesn't cover cosmology, nor are the few statements it makes about it based on data or research, nor is it any more authoritative than the Quran, Tao te Ching, or The Little Prince. It's folklore.
Science doesn't have all the answers, and it can be wrong, but it's self-correcting, evidence based and, like it or not, the best source we have to ascertain truth.

You cannot reproach the Biblical knowledge of the facts which are one by one coming to light as being veritable.

Au contraire. People have been using the bible to suppress both science and the truth for a thousand years (remember the Galileo incident?)
The Bible has no particular "knowledge of the facts." It thinks the Earth's flat, that pi is 3.0, and that putting peeled sticks in a goat's water trough will produce spotted kids.

Freud used to laugh at what the Bible had to say and he disparaged most of it as fiction and stories made up, claiming that the stories about Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah are just fickle imagination. Today we know that they are all true.

We do? Evidence, please.

One by one every claim is coming out as true and correct. No fables!

Have you been living under a rock? The fact is, one by one, science is supplanting the folklore and superstitions that kept man in the dark for thousands of years. Biblical "truth" is in retreat.

Here is the reality. Your religious views in science is at present less reliable than that of the Biblical record. Can you see that?

I cannot -- and I suggest you have your own glasses checked.

 

[Nous]

I expect there are people who couldn't answer them even if you told them the "obvious" answer was wrong, but that comes down to an education/intelligence thing, and not really a method of thinking.

Apparently there were some people in the Shenhav et al. study who didn't get any correct answers--at least within 90 seconds.

I question the utility of it for measuring anything since real-world analytical problems don't generally present themselves in such a context, so whether someone applies "system 1" or "system 2," or whether they apply them appropriately, is probably widely variable, based on a whole host of complex criteria.

Agree.

Of course, there is something to be said for learning how to develop a tendency for looking at problems deeper and more thoroughly, and to always double-check your unconscious assumptions before proceeding. I don't know whether this is a component of what they're talking about or not.

I don't know either. Also,one generally gets more than 90 seconds to decide something about God.

 

[Valjean]

Critical thinkers lose their faith in god only if they're good at it.

Yes. Critical thinking transforms faith to knowledge.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So. I read the whole article-- twice, just to be sure I didn't miss anything important.

And came to two possible hypothesis: I'm now an unbeliever, because I spent 17 years working as a programmer. Programming computers is nothing but analytics-- there is no real intuition here. Computer languages are somewhat unforgiving of nebulous intent; rather they are very good at doing exactly and specifically what you programmed them to do--- even if you made a mistake.


Second. I was struck that simply printing in a difficult-to read Font, caused people to shift into analytic mode.

This could have considerable educational consequences: if you wish your students to really study the material in an analytical way? Simply switching to, say, Comic Sans, or perhaps Old English font would do the trick?

Seriously?

Imagine Fox News presented entirely in Old English font.... imagine the .... effect that could have on the American Public....

.... next: Imagine if all of Twitter was suddenly switched to Icelandic Font (or some other obscure display)....

<laffin here at my own poor attempt at humor>

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think most evolutionary psychologists would point out that "System 1" thinking had evolutionary advantages. Cognitive biases, and the like, were cognitive shortcuts that worked more often than not, so to speak, and that allowed our ancestors to make rapid, timely decisions, especially in the face of danger.

There has been some recent work in this area done in the realm of sports.
Same requirement for 'instinctive' decision making in a time-sensitive competitive environment, supported by a lot of methodical analysis later, all backed by both money and measurable outcomes.

There are a LOT of good examples in this area. One concept I've read about is the difference between intention and anticipation.

Making a slower decision, taking more stimulii, can lead to a better intention (ie. Better choice of action), than anticipatory behaviours (guessing based on prior experience). But if the decision making process takes too long, even a perfectly thought out plan is useless.

The simple example I read about was a soccer goalkeeper. Guessing left or right is anticipatory. Waiting as long as possible to see how the kicker is acting increases the chance of a correctly intentioned decision. However, knowing he's kicking right, and having time to stop the goal are potentially working at cross purposes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So. I read the whole article-- twice, just to be sure I didn't miss anything important.

And came to two possible hypothesis: I'm now an unbeliever, because I spent 17 years working as a programmer. Programming computers is nothing but analytics-- there is no real intuition here. Computer languages are somewhat unforgiving of nebulous intent; rather they are very good at doing exactly and specifically what you programmed them to do--- even if you made a mistake.

It's an interesting one.
I work in IT as well, but as a Business Consultant/Solution Architect. Still, I fudge program enough to know exactly what you mean. I also work with a lot of Sri Lankan programmers who readily reconcile their religious beliefs with their programming work life.

I wonder if it's more impactful depending on the religion in question?
Or whether it's just the higher level of supporting cultural imperatives.

 

[Shadow Link]

Yes. Critical thinking transforms faith to knowledge.

I've never understood why the term "religion" and "critical thinking" are not one and the same. The modern view of religion is so vague. If the term "religion" by its original intent means "a careful consideration" than it would seem to imply these terms have very similar meanings.

 

[Valjean]

I've never understood why the term "religion" and "critical thinking" are not one and the same. The modern view of religion is so vague. If the term "religion" by its original intent means "a careful consideration" than it would seem to imply these terms have very similar meanings.

But when did religion ever include "careful consideration" or critical thinking?

Indoctrination, propaganda, social pressure, yes, but critical thinking? That was usually labeled heresy and actively discouraged.

Religion itself acknowledges being faith based. Faith, by definition, has no foundation. It's a system built on sand. I suspect an awareness of this vulnerability, conscious or unconscious. is what motivates religion's exquisit sensitivity to criticism and often rabid attacks on science and reason.

 

[Socratic Berean]

...If one experiences a coincidence that happens in sequences on a given day always after church and related to a prayer, the believer will almost always attribute it to god (for example). A Critical thinker would process and eliminate the causes of such strange conclusions and probably because there are always a non supernatural cause, there isn't a reason to believe god is the answer...

...What I find interesting is that some critical thinkers don't take into account that what believers call the supernatural is just a part of life. The only think the critical thinker is doing to a believer is belittling the event while the believer us seeing the positive in it. How they attribute it and the terms to who and what shouldn't change the fact that their view of the world gives more meaning than they would think of someone who doesn't see the blessings of god.

It's an unnecessary attribution of events to god to make life less mundane and more with purpose as opposed to just making the cause god and pushing away all other non-supernatural causes...

...Belief is pretty much a psychological and cultural thing. I just find many people are more apt to believe in god because they are naturally gullible and open to experiences so strong they don't want to analyze...

...Just, when we can't find a natural cause, a lot of people, rather than dealing with "I don't know" psychologically shut down. They need a cause...

Critical thinkers lose their faith because after awhile, some of us find we do not need a cause. Life happens when it happens. If we want to attribute things we can't experience to a cause, that's on us..

This line of thinking is popular, and the ideas of the article are very interesting, but they ignore a robust, contrarian data set. There are many prominent men and women of science and other rigorous professions that require critical, analytic thinking who have used their mental acumen and the investigative tool sets of their trade to examine the evidence presented within a faith-based system, have followed the evidence where it led them, and converted from atheism or agnosticism to full believers.

Indeed, some of the most prominent Christian apologists of our time are in this category, such as Oxford and Cambridge scholar C.S. Lewis, cold case homicide detective Jay Warner Wallace, investigative journalist Lee Strobel (law degree from Yale), physicist Hugh Ross, geneticist Francis Collins (head of the National Insitutes of Health and the human genome project), and Oxford-trained political and philosophy journalist Philip Vander Elst. The list is far too long to include in its entirety here, but other noteworthy mentions are a chief founder of Harvard Law School Simon Greenleaf, political news analyst Kirsten Powers, New Yorker magazine staff writer Malcolm Gladwell, and Dr. Antony Flew (the most well know atheist before the rise of Richard Dawkins and lecturer at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reaing, and York University). The thought journeys of Ted Turner (a capitain of industry) and Stephen Hawking are equally noteworthy.

Reading the detailed accounts of the religious change experienced by these men and women is fascinating, irrespective of which side of the conversation your views fall on. They paint a picture of belief and conversion that is very different from what we find in pop culture narratives and studies like the one cited in the article. Critical and analytic thinking are/were central to these people's daily ways of life, yet they moved toward faith in God, not away from it.

 

[pearl]

Reading the detailed accounts of the religious change experienced by these men and women is fascinating, irrespective of which side of the conversation your views fall on. They paint a picture of belief and conversion that is very different from what we find in pop culture narratives and studies like the one cited in the article. Critical and analytic thinking are/were central to these people's daily ways of life, yet they moved toward faith in God, not away from it.

You've made an important clarification. The article has focused on those of a simple unquestioning faith only.

 

[Valjean]

This line of thinking is popular, and the ideas of the article are very interesting, but they ignore a robust, contrarian data set. There are many prominent men and women of science and other rigorous professions that require critical, analytic thinking who have used their mental acumen and the investigative tool sets of their trade to examine the evidence presented within a faith-based system, have followed the evidence where it led them, and converted from atheism or agnosticism to full believers.

But these scholars aren't using a deductive, scientific or experimental approach to their investigations. Their approaches are largely a priori, and their goals social or psychological.

"...evidence presented within a faith-based system" strikes me as oxymoronic. If there were evidence sufficient for a reasonable conclusion, the system wouldn't be faith based.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's an interesting one.
I work in IT as well, but as a Business Consultant/Solution Architect. Still, I fudge program enough to know exactly what you mean. I also work with a lot of Sri Lankan programmers who readily reconcile their religious beliefs with their programming work life.

I wonder if it's more impactful depending on the religion in question?
Or whether it's just the higher level of supporting cultural imperatives.

Whereas it is true I was being a wee bit tongue-in-cheek? The cause-and-effect may or may be reversed here.

I was a good programmer because I was already capable of analytic thinking? Or did I learn analytic thinking methodology to be a better programmer? (I think it was both-- I had a predilection for analytic thought, but I also benefited from training in that way of thinking.)

But as to the religious question: I'm one of those who is all the time trying to avoid cognitive dissonance; I cannot imagine compartmental thinking-- it's not in me to do that in my head.

I think I've always been that way. But for a lot of folks, compartmentalizing their ideas and thoughts comes as naturally as breathing. I recall thinking about that fact: some people were good at keeping dissonant ideas separate in their minds-- back in the 8th grade.

I think being able to keep separate, belief/faith/religious ideas and everything else is a requirement for many folk who are in very technically demanding jobs (i.e. engineering or programming) but who remain deeply, and faithfully religious.

This is, obviously, just a hypothesis-- I cannot prove my idea, here-- as people typically are reluctant to discuss issues of cognitive dissonance.

Even those who are very good at it, don't like to be made aware of any cognitive dissonance in their own minds. Of that, I'm quite certain from communicating for over decades with theists.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This line of thinking is popular, and the ideas of the article are very interesting, but they ignore a robust, contrarian data set. There are many prominent men and women of science and other rigorous professions that require critical, analytic thinking who have used their mental acumen and the investigative tool sets of their trade to examine the evidence presented within a faith-based system, have followed the evidence where it led them, and converted from atheism or agnosticism to full believers.

Do you have an example? Your list (which I did not include for brevity) didn't include anyone who converted based on evidence presented (as opposed to a deeply emotional response to ailing physical and/or mental health).

I'd be interested in reading about someone who really was an atheist and, after examining the evidence presented, became a believer.

For starters? I'd love to see..... the 'evidence presented' and how it was presented, and in what context...

And by 'atheist' I don't mean a believer who was not involved in church activities, and/or didn't do daily devotions or prayers or whatever-- but still had strong faith in some sort of god. That's not an atheist; that's still a theist-- and is someone who is still convinced god(s) are real.

An atheist is someone who truly has no faith at all, in gods-- not just strong doubts.

You can have strong faith there is a god (or gods) and still have very strong doubts too-- doubts do not an atheist make. Unless you follow your doubts to their logical conclusion, and lose all faith.

 

[Akivah]

How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God

An old, but thought-provoking, article. Please discuss.

The article is not in accordance with my knowledge of Judaism. Jewish scholars debate and analyze Judaism texts. A lot of thought and analysis goes into these analyzes. Yet no one says that they have stopped believing in G-d as a result.

 

[sayak83]

How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God

An old, but thought-provoking, article. Please discuss.

What does the study actually show? Doing logic puzzles make people temporarily less religious? I bet you would find a similar effect on love and empathic dimensions as well. Apart from stating the obvious fact that when one specific region of brain is activated for a prolonged period, other parts of the brain and associated mental attitudes get temporarily suppressed... what other conclusion can be drawn? How?

 

[Socratic Berean]

But these scholars aren't using a deductive, scientific or experimental approach to their investigations. Their approaches are largely a priori, and their goals social or psychological.

"...evidence presented within a faith-based system" strikes me as oxymoronic. If there were evidence sufficient for a reasonable conclusion, the system wouldn't be faith based.

By definition, a priori hinges on deductive reasoning, a type of critical thinking. No, test tubes weren't involved, but that doesn't discount the employment of scientific method and the rigors of a sound research approach, like the physicist and geneticist did. Aside from the scientists, Strobel, for instance, set out to disprove and debunk, using the legal and investigative journalist methodologies that he knew. Wallace meticulously scrutinized the gospels--tried to pick them apart as if they were eyewitness accounts like he did for decades in homicide investigations (reminded me of a historian using the rigors of his trade to authenticate a recently discovered document).

They all had their own approach, but--in most cases--their goal was to topple either the legitimacy of a text (scripture) or the existence of God, by "weighing the evidence at hand" (not my choice of words, but one you see many of them...including the scientists...use).

 

[jonathan180iq]

Interesting they only use the term "God" to equate belief. I wonder what could be said of other non-monotheistic beliefs.

They all fit into the same category, don't they?

Fantastic make-believe is fantastic make-believe, regardless of how its packaged.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Do you have an example? Your list (which I did not include for brevity) didn't include anyone who converted based on evidence presented (as opposed to a deeply emotional response to ailing physical and/or mental health).

That couldn't be further from the truth or what I said. I'd encourage you to look into their cases. Most of them set out with the purpose of disproving scripture or the existence of God, and ended up in a very different place.

I'd be interested in reading about someone who really was an atheist and, after examining the evidence presented, became a believer.

If the many examples I listed are not enough to begin with, there are many more out there. A simple Google search will surface plenty of material, but several of these people have also documented their journey in books.