Science: Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief

atomiclauren

This just in from Science:

ABSTRACT

Scientific interest in the cognitive underpinnings of religious belief has grown in recent years. However, to date, little experimental research has focused on the cognitive processes that may promote religious disbelief. The present studies apply a dual-process model of cognitive processing to this problem, testing the hypothesis that analytic processing promotes religious disbelief. Individual differences in the tendency to analytically override initially flawed intuitions in reasoning were associated with increased religious disbelief. Four additional experiments provided evidence of causation, as subtle manipulations known to trigger analytic processing also encouraged religious disbelief. Combined, these studies indicate that analytic processing is one factor (presumably among several) that promotes religious disbelief. Although these findings do not speak directly to conversations about the inherent rationality, value, or truth of religious beliefs, they illuminate one cognitive factor that may influence such discussions.

full text:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.full.pdf?sid=3c3e72bd-acc6-47e1-9b6c-2f1ec212b76f

write up in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-religion-analytical-thinking-20120427,0,5374010.story

macpatti

It sounds like the writer is wanting to say that religious "disbelief" is, at least in part, caused by "analytical processing" in some people that results in their rejecting "initially flawed intuitions in reasoning." The not-so-subtle argument appears to be that most humans are inclined to accept "flawed" intuitions/insights (i.e., religiously-minded people) and that some peple have the ability to question those intuitions, i.e., the people who reject religion. Although the article is cautious enough to admit such things have not been proven, it clearly proposes a hypothesis that is based on having already drawn a conclusion about the merits of religious claims. For the most part, I think this is nonsense. There are plenty of religious-minded people who are highly analytic and there are plenty of "unbelievers" who have a great deal of difficulty analyzes arguments apart from their "wishes" about religious things. No cognitive theory is going to solve the question of the truth-value of religious claims; these claims must be considered on their own merits. Further, if someone wants to reject all "intuitive" insight, he will have a great deal of difficulty defending anything since knowledge must begin somewhere and those fundamental axioms of thought are simply "seen" not proven by prior argument or demonstrations of reason (e.g., reliability of sense experience, validity of the laws of logic). I'm suspicious of much of contemporary "cognitive science" since it is filled with assumptions and presuppositions about the nature of human thought and action.

castadiva

...About which we really know very little. Well said, Patti.

adrian_indy

You could make the case about many christians that they never analyzed the bible in any great detail because they actually never sit down and read their own bible. They are the weekend christians. I don't think the analytical thinking study can be applied to the true believer, I've known many that are very intelligent. The problem with this study is that if seems to be just a step above calling believers stupid which just isn't the case.

The mystery of religion is faith...why some are willing to follow based on faith or blind faith, while others are not. That is the conversation that interestes me. Plenty of scholars and even scientists have read every line of theh bible and still believed. Why? I think that Neil Degrasse Tyson was speaking and said that something like 18% of all genius level scientists still believed in a god. Why would they? Now, it can't be a lack of an analytical mind or intelligence....they are geniuses.

fbmandy55

You could make the case about many christians that they never analyzed the bible in any great detail because they actually never sit down and read their own bible. They are the weekend christians. I don't think the analytical thinking study can be applied to the true believer, I've known many that are very intelligent. The problem with this study is that if seems to be just a step above calling believers stupid which just isn't the case.

The mystery of religion is faith...why some are willing to follow based on faith or blind faith, while others are not. That is the conversation that interestes me. Plenty of scholars and even scientists have read every line of theh bible and still believed. Why? I think that Neil Degrasse Tyson was speaking and said that something like 18% of all genius level scientists still believed in a god. Why would they? Now, it can't be a lack of an analytical mind or intelligence....they are geniuses.

Playing Devil's advocate here as I don't really know what my own opinion is on religion... But isn't Athiesim also a blind faith? You can't prove that God DOESN't exist.. Isn't love also a blind faith in a way? Do you not believe in love?

BrettPGH

Playing Devil's advocate here as I don't really know what my own opinion is on religion... But isn't Athiesim also a blind faith? You can't prove that God DOESN't exist.. Isn't love also a blind faith in a way? Do you not believe in love?

Sure I'll bite.

Atheism doesn't require faith because it's a "negative position". The claim is being made by religion that some supreme deity exists. The burden of proving that claim is on religion. Atheism simply says "I don't believe any religion has convingly proved the existence of a deity."

Russell's Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are logical exercises that deal with this. I can't prove that there ISN'T an invisible teapot floating on the other side of the moon. I can't prove that an entity made of noodles and meatballs DIDN'T start the universe. Now I'm 99.9999999999% sure neither of these exist, as are most people. But there's no way for me to conclusively prove they don't.

So people use that as some kind of "proof" that atheism is flawed. If the best defense you have for your chosen creator is saying "Well you can't PROVE he's fake!" it's a pretty weak defense indeed.

One love. :flowerforyou:

atomiclauren

The mystery of religion is faith...why some are willing to follow based on faith or blind faith, while others are not. That is the conversation that interestes me. Plenty of scholars and even scientists have read every line of theh bible and still believed. Why? I think that Neil Degrasse Tyson was speaking and said that something like 18% of all genius level scientists still believed in a god. Why would they? Now, it can't be a lack of an analytical mind or intelligence....they are geniuses.

Ditto - that conversation interests me as well. For the "genius level scientists" - it must rest in faith (faith in *what* exactly differs). And faith just can't be argued, regardless of the concrete reasoning that is put aside.

For the article...bleh. I did think bringing up teleological intuition and cognitive disfluency was interesting, though they weren't really explored much.

As an aside, two big things that interest me are the geographic implications of religion and early exposure to religion.
How can multiple religions and deities coexist? What are the rates of adults becoming religious after no or minimal exposure to religion and how did they choose the religion? It's all very fascinating to me.

macpatti

So people use that as some kind of "proof" that atheism is flawed. If the best defense you have for your chosen creator is saying "Well you can't PROVE he's fake!" it's a pretty weak defense indeed.

Wait....we do have proof that God exists. Some people just fail to believe the eyewitness accounts if they don't see with their own eyes.

macpatti

As an aside, two big things that interest me are the geographic implications of religion and early exposure to religion.
How can multiple religions and deities coexist? What are the rates of adults becoming religious after no or minimal exposure to religion and how did they choose the religion? It's all very fascinating to me.

Lauren,
I don’t know that there are statistics or “rate” levels of people becoming religious after no or minimal exposure to religion since most people, historically speaking, have been raised in religious environments. In fact, one would probably have to focus on the 20th century to find societies with widespread opposition to religion. I think that human beings, by their very constitution, search for an integrating framework for life that will encompass everything. That “framework” is almost inevitably religious or includes reference to a transcendent basis or cause of the world we experience. This leads many to the conclusion that humans are inherently religious or are “hard-wired” for religion. In any case, multiple religions can coexist because (a) people interpret reality differently and, therefore, religious symbols are variously used and interpreted and (b) people have different histories that prompt them to think differently about religion. If not for the life of Jesus, for instance, I don’t know that anyone would have conceived of God as a Trinity of persons in an eternal relationship of love. None of this suggests there is no “objective” truth about religion only that human beings have a tendency to focus on or exaggerate or distort elements of religion when placed in different contexts.

KimmyEB

So people use that as some kind of "proof" that atheism is flawed. If the best defense you have for your chosen creator is saying "Well you can't PROVE he's fake!" it's a pretty weak defense indeed.

Wait....we do have proof that God exists. Some people just fail to believe the eyewitness accounts if they don't see with their own eyes.

What eyewitness accounts?

macpatti

What eyewitness accounts?

I'm referring to the people who lived with and followed Jesus.

Trechechus

I am a scientist, and I believe in God.

adrian_indy

What eyewitness accounts?

I'm referring to the people who lived with and followed Jesus.

Eye witness accounts were both ways. I tend to believe it's all stories since the vast majority of Jerusalem didn't convert at the time of these "miracles". The new testament not only claims Jesus rose from the dead, but dead relatives came back to life and greeted people on the streets. If these miracles really happened, you would think everyone would have converted...but the vast majority didn't.

KimmyEB

What eyewitness accounts?

I'm referring to the people who lived with and followed Jesus.

Eye witness accounts were both ways. I tend to believe it's all stories since the vast majority of Jerusalem didn't convert at the time of these "miracles". The new testament not only claims Jesus rose from the dead, but dead relatives came back to life and greeted people on the streets. If these miracles really happened, you would think everyone would have converted...but the vast majority didn't.

^Yep.

Also, weren't there eye-witnesses who saw Krishna and other deities? Lots of eye-witness accounts of Greek gods, as well.

macpatti

Eye witness accounts were both ways. I tend to believe it's all stories since the vast majority of Jerusalem didn't convert at the time of these "miracles". The new testament not only claims Jesus rose from the dead, but dead relatives came back to life and greeted people on the streets. If these miracles really happened, you would think everyone would have converted...but the vast majority didn't.

^Yep.

According to the New Testament a very large number of people did convert to Christianity in its early days (and all the evidence supports this claim). Looking at the New Testament, the focus is on the Apostles and disciples of Jesus seeing him on and after Easter Sunday. Those people relentlessly professed their belief in the resurrection and many of them held this belief to the point of dying for it in a variety of brutal ways. Given that Jesus is not the only person from ancient Israel that people proclaimed to be the “Messiah” but is the only one that has survived (and has been accepted by billions of people as true) through the centuries, one has to ask what the causes of the successes of Christian are in contrast to those other religious claims (also keep in mind that Christianity was illegal until more than three hundred years into the Christian era, during the same time Christianity grew from a small number in ancient Israel to a world-wide religion). Initially, the success of Christianity and the radical transformation of the followers of Jesus were based on their claim of the resurrection of Jesus. No one was able to disprove it and the “proof” for it was so great that those who claimed this belief became fearless preachers and martyrs. It is true that many did not accept Christianity but, knowing human nature, this is not at all surprising. From a Christian standpoint, I “see” God present in this world in countless ways but an atheist looks at the same world and says God is nowhere to be found. Miracles do not force people to believe. Miracles can serve as a sign to those who are “open” to God’s revelation but they certainly to not force a person against their will to believe.

Lauren~ Sorry for the derail from your article to the existence of God! I realize that's a whole other thread.

macpatti

Also, weren't there eye-witnesses who saw Krishna and other deities? Lots of eye-witness accounts of Greek gods, as well.

I know of no reputable, historically significant “eyewitness” accounts of Greek or Roman gods. Consequently, no one makes a case for their real existence. It is commonly recognized that the ancient Greek and Roman accounts of the “gods” are mythological personifications of natural forces or attempts to explain why events progress as they do (“Fate”). I have certainly never come across a serious defense of the historical reliability of the ancient stories of the Greek and Roman deities but I have seen many such defenses of Christianity (See, for instance, N T Wright’s fairly recent 800 page historical examination of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, “The Resurrection of the Son of God”). Concerning Krishna, etc., most of these accounts are obvious legendary accounts that cannot be traced any closer than centuries after the purported events occurred. Furthermore, the religions that arise from the teachings of the Buddha or Krishna do not rely on the historicity of the miracle stories that are attached to them. With Jesus, the very origin and meaning of the religion is tied to the reality of the resurrection.

KimmyEB

Concerning Krishna, etc., most of these accounts are obvious legendary accounts that cannot be traced any closer than centuries after the purported events occurred. Furthermore, the religions that arise from the teachings of the Buddha or Krishna do not rely on the historicity of the miracle stories that are attached to them. With Jesus, the very origin and meaning of the religion is tied to the reality of the resurrection.

If they're obviously legends, then why do people subscribe to that religion still today? I can say the same for Christianity. To me, Christianity is as ridiculous as Hinduism, in terms of it being "true." Also, why does it matter whether or not their religion started a different way than Christianity? All religions started differently, have different creation stories, deities...some have similarities, while others are different. Lastly...the reality of the resurrection? What reality?

adrian_indy

The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion. History records that:

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.

The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.

In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.

In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.

The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus."

In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. Zoroaster was also born of a virgin. (Many common beliefs between what Zoroaster taught and Christian doctrines, Wayne)

In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki. Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.

One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:

Been male.

Lived in pre-Christian times.

Had a god for a father.

Human virgin for a mother.

Had their birth announced by a heavenly display.

Had their birth announced by celestial music.

Been born about DEC-25.

Had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant

Met with a violent death.

Rose again from the dead.

Almost all were believed to have:

Been visited by "wise men" during infancy.

Fasted for 40 days as an adult."

macpatti

If they're obviously legends, then why do people subscribe to that religion still today? I can say the same for Christianity. To me, Christianity is as ridiculous as Hinduism, in terms of it being "true." Also, why does it matter whether or not their religion started a different way than Christianity? All religions started differently, have different creation stories, deities...some have similarities, while others are different. Lastly...the reality of the resurrection? What reality?

I don’t know of anyone who follows the ancient Greek and Roman religions today. Regarding Buddhism and “Krishna,” those religions do not emphasize the historical reliability of the traditions regarding their “founders.” In fact, they make a big deal about the fact that their religion is more of a philosophy about how to live rather than objective claims about historical events. Concerning Christianity being as “ridiculous” as Hinduism, etc., I respectfully suggest that is because you have not examined the value of its historical claims. There are plenty of world-class historians who defend the strength of the Christian claims about the history of early Christianity. Concerning the “reality” of the resurrection, I mean the event that radically changed the early followers of Jesus so that even when their bodies were torn to shreds by wild animals or they hung dying on crosses upside down they continued to profess with absolute confidence that Jesus had risen from the dead and they saw it.

macpatti

The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion. History records that:
Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.
The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.
In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.
In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.
The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus."
In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. Zoroaster was also born of a virgin. (Many common beliefs between what Zoroaster taught and Christian doctrines, Wayne)
In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki. Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.
One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:
Been male.
Lived in pre-Christian times.
Had a god for a father.
Human virgin for a mother.
Had their birth announced by a heavenly display.
Had their birth announced by celestial music.
Been born about DEC-25.
Had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
Met with a violent death.
Rose again from the dead.
Almost all were believed to have:
Been visited by "wise men" during infancy.
Fasted for 40 days as an adult."

Cutting and pasting a series of out-of-context ancient myths falls prey to all kinds of logical fallacies. I’m betting that if I look carefully at your list I’ll find all kinds of historical and factual problems. For example, the “virgin” Myrrha was no such thing when she gave birth to Adonis. In the myth, Adonis was the product of incest. I have no idea where you get the claim that Adonis was born in Bethlehem. The original myth itself has no connection to Bethlehem at all. You leave out a “possibility” in your list: Jesus was born of a virgin woman.

adrian_indy

The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion. History records that:
Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her.
The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings.
In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.
In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.
The Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus."
In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. Zoroaster was also born of a virgin. (Many common beliefs between what Zoroaster taught and Christian doctrines, Wayne)
In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki. Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.
One source is quoted as saying that there were many mythological figures: Hercules, Osiris, Bacchus, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and Horus who share a number of factors. All were believed to have:
Been male.
Lived in pre-Christian times.
Had a god for a father.
Human virgin for a mother.
Had their birth announced by a heavenly display.
Had their birth announced by celestial music.
Been born about DEC-25.
Had an attempt on their life by a tyrant while they were still an infant
Met with a violent death.
Rose again from the dead.
Almost all were believed to have:
Been visited by "wise men" during infancy.
Fasted for 40 days as an adult."

Cutting and pasting a series of out-of-context ancient myths falls prey to all kinds of logical fallacies. I’m betting that if I look carefully at your list I’ll find all kinds of historical and factual problems. For example, the “virgin” Myrrha was no such thing when she gave birth to Adonis. In the myth, Adonis was the product of incest. I have no idea where you get the claim that Adonis was born in Bethlehem. The original myth itself has no connection to Bethlehem at all. You leave out a “possibility” in your list: Jesus was born of a virgin woman.

You can nit pick the list all you like, it still a fact that almost every supernatural claim and religious event claimed to belong to Jesus are traditions taken from older religions and gods. And yes, I copied and pasted because I was in a rush and didn't have time to write much. I thought a christian could appreciate that since they have been copying and pasting their morality from an ancient book for centuries.

KimmyEB

If they're obviously legends, then why do people subscribe to that religion still today? I can say the same for Christianity. To me, Christianity is as ridiculous as Hinduism, in terms of it being "true." Also, why does it matter whether or not their religion started a different way than Christianity? All religions started differently, have different creation stories, deities...some have similarities, while others are different. Lastly...the reality of the resurrection? What reality?

I don’t know of anyone who follows the ancient Greek and Roman religions today. Regarding Buddhism and “Krishna,” those religions do not emphasize the historical reliability of the traditions regarding their “founders.” In fact, they make a big deal about the fact that their religion is more of a philosophy about how to live rather than objective claims about historical events. Concerning Christianity being as “ridiculous” as Hinduism, etc., I respectfully suggest that is because you have not examined the value of its historical claims. There are plenty of world-class historians who defend the strength of the Christian claims about the history of early Christianity. Concerning the “reality” of the resurrection, I mean the event that radically changed the early followers of Jesus so that even when their bodies were torn to shreds by wild animals or they hung dying on crosses upside down they continued to profess with absolute confidence that Jesus had risen from the dead and they saw it.

I'll give you that Buddhism represents itself as more of a philosophy, as there is no actual deity or anything like that, but I think you'd find a yourself in the middle of a ****storm if you went up to a group of Hindus and told them that their religion, which is older than your own, if we're to trust history (hey, if you expect me to believe the Bible is historically accurate, then I'm going to believe all the religious texts are historically accurate, then), has no historical claims.

For these reasons alone, I don't trust any of it entirely. You argue that the bible is historically accurate based on...what? World-class historians have found proof? Archaeologists dig up stuff representing the Hindu religion...they dig up all sorts of stuff. I respect that people have faith...that's a personal thing that each person has their own feelings about. But I find it very disrespectful for a person of one faith to dismiss the rest on their own claims that "history has proven it so"...when no, it has not. Unless I missed a very-important memo, a dead man's resurrection has never been proven. I simply cannot even FORCE my brain to trust that something like that happened, just because some people wrote a story about it.

macpatti

I thought a christian could appreciate that since they have been copying and pasting their morality from an ancient book for centuries.

Let's try to debate without resorting to insulting jabs at eachother. Think we can do that?

macpatti

I think you'd find a yourself in the middle of a ****storm if you went up to a group of Hindus and told them that their religion, which is older than your own, if we're to trust history has no historical claims.

I would never walk up to a group of Hindus and insult their religion. I've had very respectful discussions with Hindus though dicussing this very matter and there was no ****storm. I can discuss/debate/defend Christianity without getting pissed and offended if it's done a certain way.
I'll address your other comments in a bit.

macpatti

You can nit pick the list all you like, it still a fact that almost every supernatural claim and religious event claimed to belong to Jesus are traditions taken from older religions and gods. And yes, I copied and pasted because I was in a rush and didn't have time to write much. I thought a christian could appreciate that since they have been copying and pasting their morality from an ancient book for centuries.

Your reply is an unconvincing attempt to cover up what anyone must consider “sloppy” research and support for a claim. Showing similarity between stories is not a proof of origin. This is the well-known “genetic fallacy.” Similarity does not imply origin. Just because you can show, for instance, there are ancient stories of national leaders being killed by a blow to the head doesn’t mean the story of JFK is just a repackaged ancient story. Citing ancient stories about virgins does not at all prove the virgin birth of Jesus is merely a repackaging of them. You have to look at each account in their context in order to make a historical judgment about it and whether there is any connection between them. I don’t see any reason to think you have provided anything that shows the biblical story is based on ancient pagan ones.

adrian_indy

If they're obviously legends, then why do people subscribe to that religion still today? I can say the same for Christianity. To me, Christianity is as ridiculous as Hinduism, in terms of it being "true." Also, why does it matter whether or not their religion started a different way than Christianity? All religions started differently, have different creation stories, deities...some have similarities, while others are different. Lastly...the reality of the resurrection? What reality?

I don’t know of anyone who follows the ancient Greek and Roman religions today. Regarding Buddhism and “Krishna,” those religions do not emphasize the historical reliability of the traditions regarding their “founders.” In fact, they make a big deal about the fact that their religion is more of a philosophy about how to live rather than objective claims about historical events. Concerning Christianity being as “ridiculous” as Hinduism, etc., I respectfully suggest that is because you have not examined the value of its historical claims. There are plenty of world-class historians who defend the strength of the Christian claims about the history of early Christianity. Concerning the “reality” of the resurrection, I mean the event that radically changed the early followers of Jesus so that even when their bodies were torn to shreds by wild animals or they hung dying on crosses upside down they continued to profess with absolute confidence that Jesus had risen from the dead and they saw it.

I'll give you that Buddhism represents itself as more of a philosophy, as there is no actual deity or anything like that, but I think you'd find a yourself in the middle of a ****storm if you went up to a group of Hindus and told them that their religion, which is older than your own, if we're to trust history (hey, if you expect me to believe the Bible is historically accurate, then I'm going to believe all the religious texts are historically accurate, then), has no historical claims.

For these reasons alone, I don't trust any of it entirely. You argue that the bible is historically accurate based on...what? World-class historians have found proof? Archaeologists dig up stuff representing the Hindu religion...they dig up all sorts of stuff. I respect that people have faith...that's a personal thing that each person has their own feelings about. But I find it very disrespectful for a person of one faith to dismiss the rest on their own claims that "history has proven it so"...when no, it has not. Unless I missed a very-important memo, a dead man's resurrection has never been proven. I simply cannot even FORCE my brain to trust that something like that happened, just because some people wrote a story about it.

Was just reading about the ancient Hindu religious texts. They claimed there was a large city where the Gods lived, it was between two rivers, but eventually swept away by a flood. Everyone thought it was a legend, until a person studying India's coast found a large ancient city under the water with sonar. And with satellite tech, we can see two ancient, dried up river beds on it's side. Guess they had real gods as well.

And don't forget about Homer and the Trojan War. Always thought of as myth...until they found Troy in Turkey and found a war had been fought there. Homer also said Achilles was the son of the Gods and indestructible except for his heal. Well, if he was right about some, I guess he was right about cyclops as well.

macpatti

I'll give you that Buddhism represents itself as more of a philosophy, as there is no actual deity or anything like that, but I think you'd find a yourself in the middle of a ****storm if you went up to a group of Hindus and told them that their religion, which is older than your own, if we're to trust history (hey, if you expect me to believe the Bible is historically accurate, then I'm going to believe all the religious texts are historically accurate, then), has no historical claims.

For these reasons alone, I don't trust any of it entirely. You argue that the bible is historically accurate based on...what? World-class historians have found proof? Archaeologists dig up stuff representing the Hindu religion...they dig up all sorts of stuff. I respect that people have faith...that's a personal thing that each person has their own feelings about. But I find it very disrespectful for a person of one faith to dismiss the rest on their own claims that "history has proven it so"...when no, it has not. Unless I missed a very-important memo, a dead man's resurrection has never been proven. I simply cannot even FORCE my brain to trust that something like that happened, just because some people wrote a story about it.

I doubt Hindus would be all that upset if I question specific historical claims of their tradition. In fact, I’ve read many of the principal documents upon which their religion is based and there is next to nothing so far as historical claims upon which the religion rests. The Upanishads, for instance, are a series of philosophical/religious reflections on reality. I see nothing that depends on accepting any particular historical claim. Concerning historians and proof, etc., there are accepted methods of historical investigation and standards of “proof.” Speaking in broad generalities, historians look for mutually supporting lines of historical causality that best explain historical effects for which we have converging lines of evidence to support. Christianity does very well when you apply such criteria.

KimmyEB

I thought a christian could appreciate that since they have been copying and pasting their morality from an ancient book for centuries.

Let's try to debate without resorting to insulting jabs at eachother. Think we can do that?

Well...Christians have been "copying and pasting" their morality from an ancient book for centuries. It's true. Just the terms "copy and paste" weren't around centuries ago. That's not an insult...that's just the truth.

KimmyEB

I'll give you that Buddhism represents itself as more of a philosophy, as there is no actual deity or anything like that, but I think you'd find a yourself in the middle of a ****storm if you went up to a group of Hindus and told them that their religion, which is older than your own, if we're to trust history (hey, if you expect me to believe the Bible is historically accurate, then I'm going to believe all the religious texts are historically accurate, then), has no historical claims.

For these reasons alone, I don't trust any of it entirely. You argue that the bible is historically accurate based on...what? World-class historians have found proof? Archaeologists dig up stuff representing the Hindu religion...they dig up all sorts of stuff. I respect that people have faith...that's a personal thing that each person has their own feelings about. But I find it very disrespectful for a person of one faith to dismiss the rest on their own claims that "history has proven it so"...when no, it has not. Unless I missed a very-important memo, a dead man's resurrection has never been proven. I simply cannot even FORCE my brain to trust that something like that happened, just because some people wrote a story about it.

I doubt Hindus would be all that upset if I question specific historical claims of their tradition. In fact, I’ve read many of the principal documents upon which their religion is based and there is next to nothing so far as historical claims upon which the religion rests. The Upanishads, for instance, are a series of philosophical/religious reflections on reality. I see nothing that depends on accepting any particular historical claim. Concerning historians and proof, etc., there are accepted methods of historical investigation and standards of “proof.” Speaking in broad generalities, historians look for mutually supporting lines of historical causality that best explain historical effects for which we have converging lines of evidence to support. Christianity does very well when you apply such criteria.

I don't even understand any of that, much less have an answer to this. That all went over my head.

I'm asking, why is the proof you understand to be wholly true "better" than proof that others accept to be wholly true? Simply because you believe it to be? Historians and archaeologists debate nonstop on what is and is not "factual evidence." So why should I trust what one has to say over the other on faith alone?

adrian_indy

You can nit pick the list all you like, it still a fact that almost every supernatural claim and religious event claimed to belong to Jesus are traditions taken from older religions and gods. And yes, I copied and pasted because I was in a rush and didn't have time to write much. I thought a christian could appreciate that since they have been copying and pasting their morality from an ancient book for centuries.

Your reply is an unconvincing attempt to cover up what anyone must consider “sloppy” research and support for a claim. Showing similarity between stories is not a proof of origin. This is the well-known “genetic fallacy.” Similarity does not imply origin. Just because you can show, for instance, there are ancient stories of national leaders being killed by a blow to the head doesn’t mean the story of JFK is just a repackaged ancient story. Citing ancient stories about virgins does not at all prove the virgin birth of Jesus is merely a repackaging of them. You have to look at each account in their context in order to make a historical judgment about it and whether there is any connection between them. I don’t see any reason to think you have provided anything that shows the biblical story is based on ancient pagan ones.

We aren't talking once historical fact like a head shot in the JFK assassination, we are talking about virgin births, 3 wise men, death and ressurection, ascending into heaven, the 40 days of fasting, Dec. 25th, all ideas borrowed from more ancient myths. One or two could be explainable, but there is not a single unique part of the Christian mythology. He might not even be the only christ of that time. Hell, even Dionysus, Born of Zues and a human mother, Semele, died, ressurected on the third day and ascended into heaven. he gave great emphasis on the after life. Heck, he even had a confrontation with an authority figure just like Jesus and Pilot. And did I mention he blessed wine? Pretty strange coincidences. And speaking of sloppy history, I can't find any non-christian historians from the time when Christ supposedly lived, died and started off a zombie plague in the streets of J-town that confirm any of this. Dead relatives walking the streets and not a single mention. Strange, I thought someone might think that would be interesting enough to make a note of.

macpatti

So why should I trust what one has to say over the other on faith alone?

For anyone who does not believe, but is seriously interested in wanting to, I always suggest they do their own research. Read books written by theologians, historians, experts from each religion. Read books written by atheists. Watch debates between experts. Study the various religions and see which, if any, makes the most logical sense to you. My faith, Catholicism, has mysteries that we cannot understand. I would never claim to know everything, nor would I ever claim to have absolute "proof" for anyone. I am, however, always willing to discuss my religion, defend it when questioned, or debate on the issue. I'm not the type to beat anyone over the head with it and try to convert everyone I come in contact with.