Thinking can undermine religious faith, study finds

digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Thinking can undermine religious faith, study finds

Those who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I disagree with the cost of

I disagree with the cost of the bat and the ball question in this article.

For example, students were asked this question: "A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?" The intuitive answer — 10 cents — would be wrong. A little math on the fly reveals that the correct answer would be 5 cents.

I understand the math for the equation using the distributive rule, but the way this question is worded is misleading.

x=ball

x+1=bat

2x+1=1.10

2x=.10

x=.05

(this is the normal answer)

 

OK...

If you had a ball and your brother charged you $.10 for it, but being the bully he is says, "If you want the bat you'll need to give me a dollar more" it will end up costing you $1.10 for the bat and the ball.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 480
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
i don't get it Bum??   To

i don't get it Bum??   To come up with .05  the problem would have to have a given value of the bat being $1.05 

How did you get 2x +1 = 1.10 ?

It sounds like a double equation  ( bat = ball + 1.00 ) = 1.10

I don't see how it could be anything but  .10

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Bum is right

lets call ball L and bat T

T + L = 1.1

L + 1 = T

 

so

 

(L + 1) + L = 1.1

2L + 1 = 1.1

2L = 0.1

L = 0.05

 

So Bat is 1.05 and Ball = 0.05

 

 

 

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

Those who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude.

 

 http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story

The article is the wrong way to go about it and so the equation although analytic is sort of correct.

People who are analytic tend to expect obvious things like cause and effect and logic even if not formal. Take prayer, priests say it works. By observation is almost never does. The excuses preachers offer for failure are the same as why magic beans don't work no matter what the bean seller promised. Believers are the opposite of analytic.

In the good old days so little was known about the real world that the few cases where analytical thought worked could be dismissed as flukes or special cases. Science was in the gaps.

Today god is in the gaps and its successes such as prayer are not flukes but consistent with statistics.

In the good old days not enough was known to use rational thought to get to atheism. These days believers cannot support faith beyond it feels good or damnation. But if the analytic type doesn't feel good after trying faith game over or at least as soon as it stops feeling good.

In the past atheism or its equivalent was made possible by monotheism. Believers narrowed it down to only one god with certain characteristics. Atheist equivalents got there by comparing reality to the nature of that one god. If they didn't match they were wrong about the god. Enter Deism for example.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 480
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I see now

 

X wrote:
( L + 1 ) + L =  1.1

 

Thanks  X , skipping that step in the first explanation is what threw me off in the first place.  I read Bum's explanation before I even gave the question any thought.  It's all very obvious now.  Smiling

 

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"follow gut instinct" vs

"follow gut instinct" vs "think more analytically" involves, in addition to a false dichotomy, too many fallacious thinking instances to squeeze into one post. Maybe it is because of "hyped up" or "distorted" journalism, but it brings the rest of the article into question in my mind.

Quote:
According to one theory of human thinking, the brain processes information using two systems. The first relies on mental shortcuts by using intuitive responses — a gut instinct, if you will — to quickly arrive at a conclusion. The other employs deliberative analysis, which uses reason to arrive at a conclusion.

And there you have it, ladies and gents. The false dichotomy itself, in so-called "theory" form. How "falsifiable" is this theory, precisely? Or is it merely one man's "description" of the human mind?

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:i don't

tonyjeffers wrote:

i don't get it Bum??   To come up with .05  the problem would have to have a given value of the bat being $1.05 

How did you get 2x +1 = 1.10 ?

It sounds like a double equation  ( bat = ball + 1.00 ) = 1.10

I don't see how it could be anything but  .10

 

Sorry, my mistake for not giving more details.

I still say, depending on how you read the question, you could have two answers.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

i don't get it Bum??   To come up with .05  the problem would have to have a given value of the bat being $1.05 

How did you get 2x +1 = 1.10 ?

It sounds like a double equation  ( bat = ball + 1.00 ) = 1.10

I don't see how it could be anything but  .10

 

Sorry, my mistake for not giving more details.

I still say, depending on how you read the question, you could have two answers.

i can see that.  the math is airtight, but the wording is not.  "the bat costs one dollar more than the ball" could conceivably mean "the bat costs one dollar in addition to the ball."

if i wanted to be absolutely clear, i would word the problem something like, "the difference between the price of the ball and the price of the bat is $1.00."

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Working it backwards helps

Working it backwards helps when intuitive answers fail. If the ball is .10, and the bat costs .1 + 1, then the bat + ball = 1.20.

If the ball is .05, and the bat is .05 + 1, then the total is 1.10.

I can't see any other answer. No other amounts add up to the desired result while observing the bat = ball + 1 dollar rule.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Working it

Vastet wrote:
Working it backwards helps when intuitive answers fail. If the ball is .10, and the bat costs .1 + 1, then the bat + ball = 1.20. If the ball is .05, and the bat is .05 + 1, then the total is 1.10. I can't see any other answer. No other amounts add up to the desired result while observing the bat = ball + 1 dollar rule.

 

If you purchased the ball from your bother for .10 and then he says, "You need to give me a dollar more for the bat" the total spent is $1.10

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10137
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's not how the question

That's not how the question was worded. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. If the bat cost a dollar it would have been specified as the bat costing a dollar, not a dollar more.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That's not how

Vastet wrote:
That's not how the question was worded. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. If the bat cost a dollar it would have been specified as the bat costing a dollar, not a dollar more.

Ah the fun with the english language.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams