# Thinking can undermine religious faith, study finds

digitalbeachbum
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
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.

digitalbeachbum
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
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

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.

tonyjeffers
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
Offline
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
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
Offline
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
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
Offline
.

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.

tonyjeffers
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
Offline
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.

"...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
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
Offline

"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
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
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.

iwbiek
Posts: 4111
Joined: 2008-03-23
Offline
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 have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Vastet
Posts: 12585
Joined: 2006-12-25
Offline
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
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
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

Vastet
Posts: 12585
Joined: 2006-12-25
Offline
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
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
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.