Two studies of Atheism and Theism.

[Mystic]

You know, two studies may show the reason Atheists are Atheists and Theists are Theists on general, of course, there can always be significant amount of exceptions.

The two studies show (this was on youtube, I haven't seen the official studies):

1) Atheists analyze things more and rely less on intuition than Theists.
2) Atheists worry about being wrong more than Theists, hence perhaps lack confidence in being right.

Now most Theists are religious. If religion seems true to them and most religions are false....we can see that reliance on intuition and confidence in being right doesn't really guide people to the truth, even if say there is a correct religion out there.

On the other hand, if we have some properly basic intuitions that make us suppose to recognize God and we shouldn't worry to much about being right about these intuitions, but just live according to them...then this would explain why Atheists disbelieve in God as well from the viewpoint that they should have faith.

Perhaps a path in between, with analyzing a lot to know religion is false, but at the same time, sticking to intuition of soul and God...is a delicate balance act between the two (confidence in being right, reliance on intuition vs analyzing a lot, and worry you can be wrong) if you so kindly grant the possibility of Theists being right about God+ soul?

[LukeMC]

I don't think that anybody here is going to grant the possibility of theists being right about God and the soul. More to the point, if you leave an intuition unquestioned then you risk founding your life upon something that is factually wrong- how would you know without analyzing it? Further, if the "God intuition" you speak of cannot survive questioning, what value does it have?

As to your point "Atheists worry about being wrong more than Theists, hence perhaps lack confidence in being right" I would say the following:

1. Please provide the studies rather than just referring to them.
2. If this is true, perhaps it is rather the case that atheists are more fascinated by natural reality than theists, who may forfeit their reasoning in order that they may indulge more fully their particular brand of poetry, folklore and superstition. Even if your theory is correct and atheists are more insecure than theists, they are certainly closer to a true understanding of the universe because of their willingness to follow the trail of evidence rather than the fancies of their imagination.

I'm not quite sure what side or what point you are arguing, so I apologize if I've misread you. Please though, I would like to see these Youtube videos you mention.

Luke.

[Mystic]

More to the point, if you leave an intuition unquestioned then you risk founding your life upon something that is factually wrong- how would you know without analyzing it?

This sort of confirms the studies. You are worried about being wrong so much. Suppose morality is objective and subjective, and subjective is judged through the objective. Suppose we have free-will. Would've been better to stick to our intuition of morality and free-will, even if there was no analytical proof of them...or only act upon them and believe in them, if we have analytical proof of them or evidence of them?

How much of humanity has analytical proof of free-will, human rights or morality?

Analytically, we can't prove there is such a thing as praiseworthy unless you can to accept properly basic beliefs, that are on intuition alone.

1. Please provide the studies rather than just referring to them.

I watched in on the "Atheist experience". It's a radio channel thing, they have callers. I watched a while ago. I don't recall the exact one.


I'm not arguing for either side.

I am looking at from an agnostic perspective. If God doesn't exist, it's already obvious which method works best.

I'm willing to entertain possibilities...so that arguments for and against theism can better be realized.

One of those is "Why don't Atheists believe/know God exists, if God is known to believers via faith?" (rhetorical)

[Neo-Scholastic]

I wonder what effect belief has on creativity and creativity on belief. It would be intersting, since not all of life is logic. Half our brain is devoted to intuition.

[LukeMC]

This sort of confirms the studies. You are worried about being wrong so much. Suppose morality is objective and subjective, and subjective is judged through the objective. Suppose we have free-will. Would've been better to stick to our intuition of morality and free-will, even if there was no analytical proof of them...or only act upon them and believe in them, if we have analytical proof of them or evidence of them?

How much of humanity has analytical proof of free-will, human rights or morality?

Analytically, we can't prove there is such a thing as praiseworthy unless you can to accept properly basic beliefs, that are on intuition alone.

I should have been more clear. I don't see a fundamental problem with intuition and the fact that I could be wrong isn't what is so bothersome. What I mean to say is that while your private intuitions about life are harmless, it is dangerous that you should give them such credibility that you actually go out into the world and try to change people based on it. At this point, you really ought to think about your beliefs, because they could be doing more harm than good. The same goes for morality- it must be analyzed for its inconsistencies or risk causing undue suffering.

When, for example, people accept the story of Noah as being a factual event, this isn't just wrong- it's a positive impediment to progress, for it vastly limits the scope of our science and by extension the context for our own lives. Sometimes being wrong very much matters, as it prevents us from gaining the kinds of understanding that would help to ease our lives (you don't want your doctor to be wrong). In this sense, I am very much in favour of being correct. The problem with your post is that it implies some sort of insecurity on my part, which I don't believe is an accurate portrayal.

In conclusion I would say that if your intuition leads you to God, it shouldn't lead you any further. Even being wrong about one small issue can make a huge negative impact on society when it goes to the ballot box. But that's not to say that theists are intuitive and atheists analytical. Some people's intuition is enough to say there is no god, and some people are very analytical about their theism, but very poor at it.

[Mystic]

I tend to agree with what all you said...what I meant with morality however was not in the details of it, but the over all belief in it. But you do bring a relevant point that analytically, we can better distinguish what moral beliefs are wrong (produce harm when we think produce good), yet at the same time, without intuition, morality would fall, and a lot of details of it, are not relied upon analytically by humanity. So analysing would better morality, yet without intuition, we couldn't condemn anyone for any wrong actions no matter what degree.

What I saying with regards to morality was mainly the point - if there was a God, perhaps we have a spiritual path of ascension towards him, perhaps not, but if our intuition suggests we do, what is wrong with living according to that? It doesn't harm anyone or ourselves.

Analytically, "what soul" "what path" "what stages for ascension" etc...and it's all terribly confusing.

At the same time, because most religions are false to the say the least, and it seems only one can be correct (although this is not conclusive), obviously relying on intuition alone by Theists has not lead them over all to the truth even if leads some of them towards it.

So analysis is needed. What I'm suggesting, if we grant the possibility that Theism has a basis (ie. God is knowable through direct experience/can be known through intuition)...would that suggest a balance of intuition and analytical reasoning is what is required to find the middle path, not fanatical Wahabism for example or complete total moral and existential nihilism for example on the other hand?

(As I said in the beginning, there of course can be significant exceptions to the rule)

[Neo-Scholastic]

...if there was a God, perhaps we have a spiritual path of ascension towards him, perhaps not, but if our intuition suggests we do, what is wrong with living according to that? It doesn't harm anyone or ourselves.

Doesn't that depend on which God you feel drawn to and your beliefs about what He expects from you?

[Mystic]

...if there was a God, perhaps we have a spiritual path of ascension towards him, perhaps not, but if our intuition suggests we do, what is wrong with living according to that? It doesn't harm anyone or ourselves.

Doesn't that depend on which God you feel drawn to and your beliefs about what He expects from you?

Yes it does. And analysing helps realize that. Which is why I think there needs to be balance between intuition and analysis if God were to exist and was knowable. If he doesn't, then Atheist method is hands down the best one .

[Neo-Scholastic]

Reason and faith must work together. For some people they can't seem to play nicely in the sandbox. And that's a shame, because they make such a lovely couple.

[Mister Agenda]

To the OP, I think the studies are on to something, and the diifference would be even more striking if there was nuance between, say, rational skeptics and fundamentalists; and very small between Episcopelians and Raellians (could even swing the other way).

I think it makes a difference what kind of theist and what kind of atheist we're talking about.