Belief in god just a gut feeling

Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Belief in god just a gut feeling

 Thought this was interesting. Explains that answer you hear from theists alot "I don't know how I know I just know".

 

(mod edit: Link to original; formatting)


Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling

For many people, believing in God comes down to a gut feeling that a benevolent deity is out there. A study now finds that gut feelings may be very important in determining who goes to church every Sunday and who avoids the pews.

People who are generally more intuitive in the way they think and make decisions are more likely to believe in God than those who ruminate over their choices, the researchers found. The findings suggest that basic differences in thinking style can influence religious belief.

"Some say we believe in God because our intuitions about how and why things happen lead us to see a divine purpose behind ordinary events that don't have obvious human causes," study researcher Amitai Shenhav of Harvard University said in a statement. "This led us to ask whether the strength of an individual's beliefs is influenced by how much they trust their natural intuitions versus stopping to reflect on those first instincts."

Shenhav and his colleagues investigated that question in a series of studies. In the first, 882 American adults answered online surveys about their belief in God. Next, the participants took a three-question math test with questions such as, "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"

The intuitive answer to that question is 10 cents, since most people's first impulse is to knock $1 off the total. But people who use "reflective" reasoning to question their first impulse are more likely to get the correct answer: 5 cents.

Sure enough, people who went with their intuition on the math test were found to be one-and-a-half times more likely to believe in God than those who got all the answers right. The results held even when taking factors such as education and income into account.

In a second study, 373 participants were told to write a paragraph about either successfully using their intuition or successfully reasoning their way to an answer. Those who wrote about the intuitive experience were more likely to say they were convinced of God's existence after the experiment, suggesting that triggering intuitive thinking boosts belief.

The researchers plan to investigate how genes and education influence thinking styles, but they're quick to note that neither intuition nor reflection is inherently superior.

"It's not that one way is better than the other," study researcher David Rand of Harvard said in a statement. "Intuitions are important and reflection is important, and you want some balance of the two. Where you are on that spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God."

The research was published Sept. 19 online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Link to original?

Link to original?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
It would be interesting to

It would be interesting to see the actual article/study to see if it really does suggest that belief in god in intuitive or the results were just over hyped.

 

The research I've seen suggest that religious ideas hold because they're counter-intuitive, but I can see how intuitive thinking can lead to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Zeepheus
atheist
Zeepheus's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2011-08-26
User is offlineOffline
Link

http://www.livescience.com/16151-god-belief-intuition.html

 

Sorry didn't think about the link to the article.

Unless you subscribe to Journal of Experimental Psychology you can not get the full article and I would really like to read it but this is the best I can give at this point in time.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

You see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13767
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The title of this thread

The title of this thread says it all and that is all it boils down to after all the "tradition" and "faith" and pseudo intellectual garbage. It merely amounts to the fantasy of having a super hero protect you.

It is born out of our ignorance as a species. Dawkins discribes this flaw in evolution(not the theory, but the fact that evolution isn't about perfection) Dawkins in "The God Delusion" aptly describes this flaw as the moth mistaking the light bulb for the natural moonlight it guides itself by.

What humans fail to realize is that our "perceptions" are notoriously flawed and way more often than not they are wrong.

God belief is a self inflicted illusion. It is the mental version of the video of the guy in the hallway which looks scale and full size, but once he walks backwards away from the camera, the hallway shrinks. It is the same as seeing the butterfly in the inkblot. There is no butterfly, there is merely a person who wants to see a butterfly.

God belief exists, not because gods are real, but because our emotions and desires override our rational side. Outside god claims, people don't throw out their skepticism. We don't pray to a car engine god to fix our cars. We don't pray to a money tree god, to make money. We wouldn't believe someone if they claimed that they could fart a Lamborghini out of their ass.

But when it comes to invisible non material fictional beings, we have no problem inventing them and falsely believing in them.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:It would

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

It would be interesting to see the actual article/study to see if it really does suggest that belief in god in intuitive or the results were just over hyped.

 

The research I've seen suggest that religious ideas hold because they're counter-intuitive, but I can see how intuitive thinking can lead to them. 

It does boil down to a gut feeling.

I understand it is more specifically the aspect of 'mystery' in the doctrines, that they can't be quite expressed in mundane terms, to make everyday 'sense', is a strong part of the appeal, and also why the expressions of those mysteries persist in the form they were originally made in.

The point is, to me, that it is that specific feeling of 'mystery', rather than 'counter-intuitiveness' as such, that is important.

Dennet addressed this in "Breaking the Spell'.

The apparent contradictions or 'mystery' aspects of religious claims are intuitively felt to be a pointer to them being true in some 'deeper' sense beyond what we can grasp.

All non-scientific claims are based on intuition/instinct in some form.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Gut feeling = intuition.I

Gut feeling = intuition.

I have a love-hate relationship with intuition. The way to get the most out of it is to simply keep in your mind the idea, "Intuition is generally good and useful, but it is also very flawed and imperfect at the same time." The problem is most people don't keep this in mind and are absolutely convinced that their flawed intuitions are the word of a perfect god.

In a longer post on post-modernism, I sketched out my views on intuition:

natural/wonderist wrote:
Does this mean wonderism is worthless? Isn't it just a laggard, always playing catch-up with real science? No. Again, wonderism is not here to take the place of science. It has another very important role, such that even scientists who are at the top of their fields can find value in wonderism.

As I conceive it, one of the key roles of wonderism is to popularize good science, good philosophy, good reasoning, good critical thinking skills, and good education (among other things, as well). One way of thinking about this is that wonderism attempts to provide: A reasoned defense of intuition, and an intuitive defense of reason.

I don't want to get into a deep discussion of intuition here, so I'll just give a simple definition for it. Intuition is our brains' natural ability to make pretty-good guesses (not perfect, but pretty-good, nonetheless). Stephen Colbert calls the intuitive 'feeling of truth' as 'truthiness'.

One of the big problems today is that there is a massive disconnect between the intellectual leaders and the general public. You could characterize this as two fictional populations: Those who rely mostly on reason, and those who rely mostly on intuition. The big problem is that most actual truth these days is completely counter-intuitive. Science's biggest accomplishments are to discover where intuition has gone wrong, and where reason and evidence point to deeper truths than our 'common sense'.

As a result of this disconnect, the public goes on about its intuitive business, and becomes more and more estranged from science, even developing distrust and outright hostility to science.

But some people -- and Carl Sagan was a master at this -- are able to convey the deeper, counter-intuitive truths of science in an easily understandable, intuitive way. They are able to make the counter-intuitive into the intuitive, so the general public can learn from and appreciate science, without needing a PhD. This is the job that wonderism is very well suited for.

As a sketch of an argument, here is how wonderism fulfills the role of defending both intuition and reason, with respect to each other:

Intuition is defended by reason with a pragmatic argument. Intuition is useful. It is not perfect, surely, and can even be systematically flawed (e.g. intuitive fallacies such as argument from authority). However, even given all its flaws and imperfections, intuition remains useful. Everybody uses their brain's natural in-born ability to make pretty-good guess every single day, and not just once or twice, but pretty much all the time, constantly. There is even a good argument to be made that intuition is the foundation of reason. Without intuition, we never would have developed reason. Which leads to...

Reason is defended by intuition with a wonderist argument. The vast and deep truths we discover with reason are more wonderful than the tiny and shallow truths we are stuck with if we rely solely on our basic intuitions. Have you ever had a gut-feeling or a hunch and it turned out wrong? Yep. That sucked, didn't it? Yep. Didn't feel so good. Well, guess what? There are tools we can use to correct our faulty hunches, and train our gut-feelings so that they turn out correct more often. These are the tools of reason. We know which tools of reason are better than others by which ones work better to make better guesses (or predictions) about the future. With these tools, we can discover more amazing things than we could without them.

These sketch arguments are just the beginning. In the big picture, wonderism inspires us to educate our fellow humans the way people like Carl Sagan aspired to do. Bring them the incredible and fascinating truths of the universe, while simultaneously tickling their truthiness feelings. Reason and intuition combined to actually reach through defensive barriers and help correct ignorance and dogma, with a more skeptical, reasoned, and scientific way of thinking.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't want to be OT,

I wouldn't want to be OT, but I don't get the ball/bat thing. Is it a trick question like I dunno, the 10 cent doesn't exist?

From what I observed and studied, btw, I think this "sensation" is more than a "gut feeling". If there is some ex-believer I think he could confirm this, that you sort of "train" this "god sensation", you have to feed it, and it grows. It's almost like an entity in the brain which is indipendent, and learns from your actions, and mentally rewards you when you act good/punish you when you do bad.

I'm searching a post from someone who I remember described in a good way what I think now but I can't seem to find it... shame


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:I wouldn't want

luca wrote:

I wouldn't want to be OT, but I don't get the ball/bat thing. Is it a trick question like I dunno, the 10 cent doesn't exist?

Heh.  The ball costs 5 cents.  The bat costs a dollar more.  So the bat costs 5 cents plus a dollar.

1.05 + .05 = 1.10

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ Natural; I largely agree,

@ Natural; I largely agree, and I suspect intuition can be trained to a degree. The more accurate knowledge you have, the more likely your intuitions are correct. I use my intuition constantly, as you propose, and while I could be mistaken, I believe it is far more successful now than it was say 20 years ago.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
:(

doh


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:doh I was

luca wrote:

doh

 

I was looking at one of the related articles earlier today.  In the comments, there were people who seemed to honestly not get it.  They insisted 10 cents was the right answer.  I was trying to see if it was a put on, but sure didn't seem to be.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:luca wrote:doh I

cj wrote:

luca wrote:

doh

 

I was looking at one of the related articles earlier today.  In the comments, there were people who seemed to honestly not get it.  They insisted 10 cents was the right answer.  I was trying to see if it was a put on, but sure didn't seem to be.

These are examples of people being unaware that intuitions can be wrong. They are experiencing an intuitive illusion strongly enough that it simply seems true to them, even though they are demonstrably wrong.

The strongest intuitive illusion I've seen (except perhaps for the god thing) is the Monty Hall problem. (If you already know the answer, don't spoil it!) This one is worth studying, for anyone interested. You'll be shocked at how many people strongly feel that they are surely right, when they are demonstrably wrong. Honestly, I would not be surprised if my merely mentioning it here causes someone reading it to pop in with the wrong answer and defend it strongly. Resist the urge to look at the correct answer until you've tried to figure it out yourself. That may help more people to see the intuitive illusion.

If you already know the answer, don't spoil it!

Here is a clearly-stated version of the problem.

The Monty Hall problem wrote:

Stay or Switch?Suppose you're on a game show and you're given the choice of three doors [and will win what is behind the chosen door]. Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats [unwanted booby prizes]. The car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors before the show. The rules of the game show are as follows: After you have chosen a door, the door remains closed for the time being. The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it. If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one [uniformly] at random. After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you "Do you want to switch to Door Number 2?" Is it to your advantage to change your choice?

This problem has quite a surprising bit of history.

It was once posed in a fairly well-circulated magazine article. The author of the article gave the correct answer and interpretation. However:

Quote:

Many readers refused to believe [the correct answer]. After the Monty Hall problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine claiming that [the author] was wrong. [...] Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept [...] the best strategy.

I'll give a link to the correct answer later. No cheating! Eye-wink What do you think?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, there is no advantage to

No, there is no advantage to making another choice. I would say there is a disadvantage to making another choice. But I don't particularly feel like taking the time to describe why that is my answer. Its too complicated and I'm buzzing atm lol.

I would be surprised to be mistaken, but not shocked. I am toking atm, afterall, and had to read the question a couple times before it made sense. lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Dude, I'd be totally happy

Dude, I'd be totally happy with a goat.

Americans don't eat goats as a normal practice.   We just don't.   We don't milk the fuckers and we don't eat them.   I'm not sure why our particular culture finds cows fine for eating their flesh or drinking their milk, but would gag at human milk, but would also reject both meat or milk from a goat.

Mexicans love goat meat.   I grew up in Texas so our cultures mix a bit.  I haven't had goat since well...fuck 25 years ago or so, roughly.

But it's so fucking good.   Goats are incredibly delicious.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Actually why do humans find

Actually why do humans find human milk so abhorrent but will suck down cow milk by the gallon?   Is it an aversion to cannibalism of some sort?   Then why does Christianity indulge in the Lord's Supper?

Eat of my flesh, drink of my blood.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to switch to door

I'm going to switch to door number 2. 

It seems the counter-intuitive thing to do. I look forward to the answer.....

 

The Monty Hall Problem wrote:

The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it.

If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one [uniformly] at random. 

 

My emphasis. BTW - do you mind clarifying the conditions again? 

These two conditions appear to be contradictory. As I read it, if our friend Monty MUST open a door with a goat behind it, the two remaining doors must have a car and a goat behind them. As a result, he can't 'choose one [uniformly] at random', as he never will satisfy that 'IF' statement. 

 


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:luca wrote:dohI was

cj wrote:
luca wrote:
doh
I was looking at one of the related articles earlier today.  In the comments, there were people who seemed to honestly not get it.  They insisted 10 cents was the right answer.  I was trying to see if it was a put on, but sure didn't seem to be.

Fact: I wrote that message to say that I didn't get it, but after I posted it I understood, so the message was there and I deleted the content... Sad

I mean I did not understand the constraint "x+1 dollar" was so strict (or better, that it was "x + 1.x dollars" -- and so that if you have 10 cent and 1 dollar the difference is 90 cent and not 1 dollar), so 10 cent + 1 dollar was ok.

The 3 doors problem is now present in every probability courses Eye-wink


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
HumanVuvuzela wrote:I'm

HumanVuvuzela wrote:

I'm going to switch to door number 2. 

It seems the counter-intuitive thing to do. I look forward to the answer.....

How do you know you're not one of those people whose intuitions are correct on the first try? If you're intuitively going to the 'counter-intuitive' guess, then you're still going by intuition.

What reasoning can you come up with to support your choice?

Quote:

The Monty Hall Problem wrote:

The game show host, Monty Hall, who knows what is behind the doors, now has to open one of the two remaining doors, and the door he opens must have a goat behind it.

If both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one [uniformly] at random. 

My emphasis. BTW - do you mind clarifying the conditions again? 

These two conditions appear to be contradictory. As I read it, if our friend Monty MUST open a door with a goat behind it, the two remaining doors must have a car and a goat behind them. As a result, he can't 'choose one [uniformly] at random', as he never will satisfy that 'IF' statement. 

What if the door you chose (#1) was the right door in the first place? Are there now two cars?!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Dude, I'd be

Watcher wrote:

Dude, I'd be totally happy with a goat.

Americans don't eat goats as a normal practice.   We just don't.   We don't milk the fuckers and we don't eat them.   I'm not sure why our particular culture finds cows fine for eating their flesh or drinking their milk, but would gag at human milk, but would also reject both meat or milk from a goat.

Mexicans love goat meat.   I grew up in Texas so our cultures mix a bit.  I haven't had goat since well...fuck 25 years ago or so, roughly.

But it's so fucking good.   Goats are incredibly delicious.

Awww! Poor little goat! Why can't you just keep it as a pet? Why do you have to eat everything?!

Quote:
Actually why do humans find human milk so abhorrent but will suck down cow milk by the gallon?   Is it an aversion to cannibalism of some sort?

So you're a cannibal, too?! Why stop at the milk, why not eat the whole baby?! Why do you have to eat everything?! You atheist, you!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:HumanVuvuzela

natural wrote:

HumanVuvuzela wrote:

I'm going to switch to door number 2. 

It seems the counter-intuitive thing to do. I look forward to the answer.....

How do you know you're not one of those people whose intuitions are correct on the first try? If you're intuitively going to the 'counter-intuitive' guess, then you're still going by intuition.

What reasoning can you come up with to support your choice?

Basic probability shows that my initial choice, door 1, will be wrong two-thirds of the time. The key is that this also means that the car will be behind one of the other two doors (collectively) two-thirds of the time. By opening a door and displaying a goat, Monty has demonstrated that a car is NOT behind that door. That gives me information about one of the doors that DOESN'T contain a car. It also means that the car IS behind one of the other two doors. I think switching is the better option (on average), as you are only one chance in three of moving away from the correct door (the odds that you picked the right one in the first place), but two chances in three of successfully shifting (the odds that you DIDN'T pick the right door in the first place). 

It seemed counter-intuitive as the information revealed by Monty opening the wrong door didn't immediately seem to help me. It was only after sitting down with a pencil and paper and looking at all the alternative scenarios (picking the correct door, then picking each of the wrong doors), that it started to make sense. 

natural wrote:

What if the door you chose (#1) was the right door in the first place? Are there now two cars?!

If the door I originally chose was correct, this would be one of the one-third of times that I would be unsuccessful, and I'd walk out with a goat. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're going to make me look

You're going to make me look it up if I have to wait much longer. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Awww! Poor

natural wrote:

Awww! Poor little goat! Why can't you just keep it as a pet? Why do you have to eat everything?!

'Cus I'm so hongry!   So hongry...

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Well, for those who can't

Well, for those who can't wait, here are a couple links to the explanation: Monty Hall problem at Wikipedia, MontyHallProblem.com

Basically, you should switch. It increases your odds of winning to 2/3. Most people think it's 50/50. Try bringing this up with people who don't already know the answer. You'll be surprised how many go for 50/50 and how strongly they defend it.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
It doesn't come down to a

It doesn't come down to a gut feeling. It comes down to social pressure and conditioning to 'believe'. If it was a 'gut feeling' we'd see people believing in Thor and Zeus, but their not socially acceptable and not presented as something one must believe in.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Monty Hall came up as a

Monty Hall came up as a discussion in the letters columns of our city newspaper about ten or so years ago. I wrote in to explain the right answer, giving a truth table for prior choices and current options, and a computer simulation result. Another person simultaneously published the rationale. Although discussion died down, it seemed from the dying mumbles that some people just wanted to believe the choice was really 50:50 and the rest was statistical trickery.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Where can I get these 5 cent

Where can I get these 5 cent baseballs? I am going to make so much money reselling them. Eye-wink

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm actually less surprised

I'm actually less surprised than I thought I'd be. I'm not going to bother explaining why, as I'd have to explain the thoughts that brought me to the conclusion in the first place. But it was a fun exercise.
The weird thing is that I thought I was choosing the counter-intuitive choice. Go figure.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:It doesn't come

EXC wrote:

It doesn't come down to a gut feeling. It comes down to social pressure and conditioning to 'believe'. If it was a 'gut feeling' we'd see people believing in Thor and Zeus, but their not socially acceptable and not presented as something one must believe in.

I agree that alot of the major religions like Christianity/Islam are a result of social pressure and conditioning. However, there are some Wiccan traidtions out there that worship the old pagan gods/goddesses of pre-christian times. Now as to what their motivations and reasons are, I would not be able to answer that.

After I left religion behind, I did fool around with alot of that new age stuff for a couple of years.  For me, I wanted to find mystery and wonder in the world and just could not quite let go of the idea that there had to be "something" out there.

Oddly enough, the place that I found mystery and wonder, was in science and being an Atheist. Who needs ghosts, crop circles, or burning bushes when you can behold the wonders of evolution, physcis and astronomy ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm actually

Vastet wrote:
I'm actually less surprised than I thought I'd be. I'm not going to bother explaining why, as I'd have to explain the thoughts that brought me to the conclusion in the first place. But it was a fun exercise. The weird thing is that I thought I was choosing the counter-intuitive choice. Go figure.

 

Isn't that the point?  The intuitive choice is the wrong choice.  People suck at statistics.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, I meant my first impulse

No, I meant my first impulse had been to change my choice, but then I vaguely recalled a test somewhat similar to this that had a different solution, and I didn't even bother trying to do much math, and just went the other way.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5881
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
My initial reaction was that

My initial reaction was that opening the door wouldn't change the probabilities, therefore wouldn't justify changing your initial choice. Even though a hint of memory of earlier encounters with this problem suggested that wasn't true, I could not initially see it. I didn't feel like doing the pencil and paper exercise, which might have sorted it out (I hope).

Then when I thought about it later, after a nap, it hit me - the perspective where it was a two-thirds probability that it was behind one of the doors you didn't choose. Of course that meant that that 2/3 was focussed on the remaining door once MH opened the one with the goat.

I think that might have been another example of my sub-conscious having time to work on it...

I often either lie down, even take a nap, or go for a walk, cycle ride, whatever, when I feel stuck in front of my computer trying to work out how to resolve soem programming problem. Maybe just gets some more blood flowing to the brain, either from changing position or from physical activity is what does it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13767
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:It doesn't come

EXC wrote:

It doesn't come down to a gut feeling. It comes down to social pressure and conditioning to 'believe'. If it was a 'gut feeling' we'd see people believing in Thor and Zeus, but their not socially acceptable and not presented as something one must believe in.

IT STILL IS  a gut feeling. I agree that most in a given society WILL buy into the gods their parents and or society  sell them. But what has been recently invented to defend deity concepts has been the term "God gene"

There is no conspiracy here but it is a COLLECTIVE result of "fight vs flight" and our flawed perceptions leading us to safety in numbers which causes our species to sell these fantasies.

IT IS A GUT  feeling in the sense that if you are a gazzel on the African plain and you think you "smell" a lion, it may not be that the lion is really there, you simply default to running and warning others "just in case".

There is no "gpd gene". There are simply humans who do not understand evolution and why false beliefs tend to override pragmatic testing.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
super-ego

Brian37 wrote:
EXC wrote:
It doesn't come down to a gut feeling. It comes down to social pressure and conditioning to 'believe'. If it was a 'gut feeling' we'd see people believing in Thor and Zeus, but their not socially acceptable and not presented as something one must believe in.
IT STILL IS  a gut feeling. I agree that most in a given society WILL buy into the gods their parents and or society  sell them. But what has been recently invented to defend deity concepts has been the term "God gene"

There is no conspiracy here but it is a COLLECTIVE result of "fight vs flight" and our flawed perceptions leading us to safety in numbers which causes our species to sell these fantasies.

IT IS A GUT  feeling in the sense that if you are a gazzel on the African plain and you think you "smell" a lion, it may not be that the lion is really there, you simply default to running and warning others "just in case".

There is no "gpd gene". There are simply humans who do not understand evolution and why false beliefs tend to override pragmatic testing.

It's more than a simple gut feeling... Take in account the years you need to fight it back: in time this sensation becames a distinct entity in your brain, that punishes and rewards you for your actions.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote: Basically,

natural wrote:
Basically, you should switch. It increases your odds of winning to 2/3.

I'm not buying it.

The car is either behind door 1 or door 2. It is, and was the case. The car not being behind door 3 has what possible influence on door 1 or door 2 being the one with the car behind it??

You're guessing. Whether the game was with 2 doors to begin with, or 3 or 4.

The claim is that what's behind door 3 is more likely to make it behind one of the remaining doors more than the other remaining door?

I don't see how...

 

That's like playing Russian Roulette, spinning the chamber, and claiming that you have better odds of advancing or retarding the chamber manually from where it stopped after spinning.

 

I'll ask a friend of mine who studied Computational Statistics in University. They did this stuff all the time.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Before you start, you have a

Before you start, you have a one in three chance of being right. This means that you have a two in three chance of being wrong. The two in three chance of being wrong is the same as having a two in three chance of being right if you could pick any two doors. 

Your choice is door 1 (say) = one in three, versus [door 2 OR door 3] = two in three. 

You know that door 3 doesn't have the car. 

Your choice is now door 1 = one in three, versus [door 2 OR known not to be the car] = two in three. 

As you know door 3 doesn't have the car, door 2 has a two in three chance of being right. 

Switching doesn't guarantee finding the car. Switching makes it more likely that you will find the car. 

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:natural wrote:

redneF wrote:

natural wrote:
Basically, you should switch. It increases your odds of winning to 2/3.

I'm not buying it.

See?! Told ya!

It's like magic. Like a moth to a flame. An incredibly convincing intuitive, cognitive illusion. Just have to light the wick and sit back and watch the spiralling doom.

I've done my part. Who's up to the challenge of pitting their rational reason against inspirited intuition?

 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I do believe that a certain

I do believe that a certain user, who shall remain nameless, tends to point out using intuition is invalid.

 

But here's another one?

 

How many people have to be in a room, for there to be a 50% chance that two of them share the same birthday?

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

It would be interesting to see the actual article/study to see if it really does suggest that belief in god in intuitive or the results were just over hyped.

 

The research I've seen suggest that religious ideas hold because they're counter-intuitive, but I can see how intuitive thinking can lead to them. 

It does boil down to a gut feeling.

I understand it is more specifically the aspect of 'mystery' in the doctrines, that they can't be quite expressed in mundane terms, to make everyday 'sense', is a strong part of the appeal, and also why the expressions of those mysteries persist in the form they were originally made in.

The point is, to me, that it is that specific feeling of 'mystery', rather than 'counter-intuitiveness' as such, that is important.

Dennet addressed this in "Breaking the Spell'.

The apparent contradictions or 'mystery' aspects of religious claims are intuitively felt to be a pointer to them being true in some 'deeper' sense beyond what we can grasp.

All non-scientific claims are based on intuition/instinct in some form.

 

 

Actual, it IS counter-intuition that makes the ideas so appealing.

 

 

 

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I do

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I do believe that a certain user, who shall remain nameless, tends to point out using intuition is invalid.

 

But here's another one?

 

How many people have to be in a room, for there to be a 50% chance that two of them share the same birthday?

I like it better when it's phrased in reverse: If you have N people in the room (say a statistics classroom), what is the probability that any two of them share a birthday?

I was originally fooled by this one in a Finite Math class in high-school. The teacher put it in the form of a wager. He said if he was right, I'd have to buy him a can of pop. If I was right, he'd buy me a whole case. We did the experiment (writing our own and a family member's birthdays on a slip of paper, since our class was rather small). He was right.

That used to be my favourite example of the systemic flaws of intuition, until I stumbled across the Monty Hall problem on UseNet way back.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Actual,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Actual, it IS counter-intuition that makes the ideas so appealing.

 

 

 

 

Don't have time to watch it. Is that the theory about how people will believe strange things that are mostly ordinary/intuitive, but just a little bit counter intuitive to make it intriguing? Like, they won't believe that trees literally pull out their roots and chase you down and kill you, but they might believe that the trees of a certain forest are 'cursed' and will cause you 'bad luck' if you should go through the forest on a dark night.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Don't have

natural wrote:

Don't have time to watch it. Is that the theory about how people will believe strange things that are mostly ordinary/intuitive, but just a little bit counter intuitive to make it intriguing? Like, they won't believe that trees literally pull out their roots and chase you down and kill you, but they might believe that the trees of a certain forest are 'cursed' and will cause you 'bad luck' if you should go through the forest on a dark night.

 

 

Yes, Ara [the psychologist in the video] makes a comparision of popular fairy tales and how Cinderella with a pumpkin carriage etc.. is more popular than another one...about some magic donkey or something.

 

That is  MINIMALLY counter intuitive [MCI] stories/tales are more likely to grab our attention, than plan old tales, or ones that are TOO counter intuitive.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:natural

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

natural wrote:

Don't have time to watch it. Is that the theory about how people will believe strange things that are mostly ordinary/intuitive, but just a little bit counter intuitive to make it intriguing? Like, they won't believe that trees literally pull out their roots and chase you down and kill you, but they might believe that the trees of a certain forest are 'cursed' and will cause you 'bad luck' if you should go through the forest on a dark night.

Yes, Ara [the psychologist in the video] makes a comparision of popular fairy tales and how Cinderella with a pumpkin carriage etc.. is more popular than another one...about some magic donkey or something.

 

That is  MINIMALLY counter intuitive [MCI] stories/tales are more likely to grab our attention, than plan old tales, or ones that are TOO counter intuitive.

Right, that's the same one I had heard about, MCI.

IMO, not based on evidence except, ironically, my own intuition, this is more about the phenomenon of a paradigm shift. When something that was previously counter-intuitive is suddenly seen in a new perspective, and BAM BAM BAM, suddenly a whole lot of other things seem to 'make sense' or 'fall into place'.

It is not the counter-intuitiveness that is making the beliefs attractive, it is the paradigm shifting that happens after the counter-intuitive hurdle is overcome, and the resulting cascade of intuitive Ah Ha! moments.

That is why the belief must be minimally counter-intuitive, because increasing counter-intuitiveness only increases the barrier to acceptance.

Imagine a Cinderella story that went like this:

[exact same story, but instead at the end...]

The Prince finds Cinderella, fits the shoe, they get married, she gets pregnant and dies in childbirth. The baby died too. What a tragic story. But isn't it sweet, that whole thing with the pumpkin turning into a stage coach?

No. Nobody's going to bother remembering that story--even though the ending is about as realistic as the original, possibly more so--because it doesn't have that nice intuitive/emotional pay off at the end. There's no sense that her struggles in life have been worth anything. There's no sense that, even if life generally sucks sometimes, at least we can have our fairy-tale happy ending, and fantasize about what the good life might be like.

Without that intuitive reward (I would call it a wonder experience, but I'll go with paradigm shift to avoid a side-track), the counter-intuitiveness of something doesn't do anything.

It would be like a roller-coaster that races toward the first hill, climbs and climbs and cliiimmbs. And then just slowly creaks to a halt and stops. Where's the payoff? Nobody's gonna ride that thing. In fact, the higher you make that hill, the less likely they will bother to even try it.

But, if you can get the roller coaster juuusst over the first hill, and then shoot down to an even lower dip, and then race around the track and do loops and spirals and shit. People will fucking line up!

If there was no hill in the first place, no counter-intuitiveness, then everybody would just believe the thing anyway, and there would be nothing interesting to say about it.

Of course we water plants to help them grow. What's counter-intuitive about that? Only an idiot would think otherwise. But tell the people that Brawndo's got electrolytes, and suddenly it all starts to make sense! Of course it's got electrolytes. That's what plants crave! Ah ha! I get it! Cool! Gimme some o that stuff! You need that extra payoff at the end, or the counter-intuitiveness does nothing.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
natural, so in a topic about

natural, so in a topic about how intuition can be misguided, you use your intuition to attempt to invalidate a scientific principle? For example an idea with MCI is more likely to grab attention than no CI elements or TOO much counter intuitive elements.

 


 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:redneF

natural wrote:

redneF wrote:

natural wrote:
Basically, you should switch. It increases your odds of winning to 2/3.

I'm not buying it.

See?! Told ya!

What?

That you are buying it and I'm not?

We already knew that.

This 'problem' or 'proof' of 'probablities' or whatever, is what? A crystal ball?

Pfffft...

natural wrote:
It's like magic. Like a moth to a flame. An incredibly convincing intuitive, cognitive illusion. Just have to light the wick and sit back and watch the spiralling doom.

Blah, blah, blah.

Still waiting for you to do something other than agree with yourself that you're on to something powerful.

natural wrote:
I've done my part.

No, I'm still waiting. You're sounding like every apologist on the planet.

natural wrote:
Basically, you should switch.

Otherwise I'll lose?

I should have 'faith' that my guess was incorrect?

How do you know the door I picked isn't the one with the car behind it??

natural wrote:
It increases your odds of winning to 2/3.

Sez you.

That doesn't mean that the car cannot be behind the door I first chose.

I could have guessed correctly the first time.

natural wrote:
Most people think it's 50/50. Try bringing this up with people who don't already know the answer. You'll be surprised how many go for 50/50 and how strongly they defend it.

Then this whole 'premise' of the argument is obfuscated in a narrative.

I get it. By choosing 1 of the 3 doors, the 'probablity' is 33.333%.

The remaining 66.66% is behind a door 'other' than the one you picked. But since one of the 'unpicked' doors cannot possibly be the one with the car behind it, the other 'unpicked door has 66% probablity.

And?????

I should have 'faith' that the door I didn't pick is 33% more likely the one with the car behind it?

Because a door (that didn't have a car behind it) got factored into the equation in my mind?

And???

 

What about all the other doors in the television studio that don't have a car behind them?

Or all the doors on all the buildings on the studio lot. Or in the same city. Or in the same state. In the same country?

 

What a completely useless 'thought' experiment...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Nik K
Posts: 5
Joined: 2011-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Wow. You explain the

Wow. You explain the rationale behind the conclusion, then reject it and go off on an irrelevant rant about faith? The point is just what you said, by switching doors you change your probability from 1/3 to 2/3. There's no guarantee switching will be the right move, but if you don't switch you will win once every three times and if you do you will win twice every three times. That's statistics, not fortune telling.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I do

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I do believe that a certain user, who shall remain nameless, tends to point out using intuition is invalid.

 

But here's another one?

 

How many people have to be in a room, for there to be a 50% chance that two of them share the same birthday

 

For people like me that are statistically illiterate, this goes a bit over my head. What is the answer and how do you arrive at the conclusion ? I feel like an idiot for asking, but my curiousity went before my pride on this. Someone want to explain this to me ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Already answered but...

All possible starting positions where 1 = location of the prize, 0 a goat. Rooms are A, B and C.

A   B   C

1   0   0

0   1   0

0   0   1

You choose room A and Monty opens a door containing a goat, marked with an X (in the first line it could be door B or C, it makes no difference).

A   B   C

1   0   X

0   1   X

0   X   1

It is now clear that switching from your original choice, A, will win twice as often as it loses, in the context of the original position.

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nik K wrote:Wow. You explain

Nik K wrote:

Wow. You explain the rationale behind the conclusion, then reject it and go off on an irrelevant rant about faith? The point is just what you said, by switching doors you change your probability from 1/3 to 2/3. There's no guarantee switching will be the right move, but if you don't switch you will win once every three times and if you do you will win twice every three times. That's statistics, not fortune telling.

Nik, waiting a few more posts might have allowed you time to read the irony and humour in redneF's post. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli wrote:All possible

Pacioli wrote:

All possible starting positions where 1 = location of the prize, 0 a goat. Rooms are A, B and C.

A   B   C

1   0   0

0   1   0

0   0   1

You choose room A and Monty opens a door containing a goat, marked with an X (in the first line it could be door B or C, it makes no difference).

A   B   C

1   0   X

0   1   X

0   X   1

It is now clear that switching from your original choice, A, will win twice as often as it loses, in the context of the original position.

 

No, I was talking about, the classroom and the likelihood that two people would have the same birthday. But, thanks for explaining that one too. Smiling

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Nik K
Posts: 5
Joined: 2011-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Pacioli, I'm still not

Pacioli, I'm still not getting it... you're saying he's being ironic? Talk about deadpan! I must have accidentally switched on my sarcasm firewall.