"Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling"

[Skwim]

"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."
source
​

So, we find the Christian focusing on the inner peace and security the prospect will experience by believing, and the non-believer trying to use reason and logic to show the believer the error of his thinking. As the article suggest; it comes down to a basic difference in thinking style. So, my suggestion to make converts---one way or the other---is to focus on changing the style of thinking. Show why it's better to rely on one's gut feeling/reason than not.

Anyone of either side wanna take a stab?

Relying on one's gut feeling is better because . . . .

Relying on one's reason is better because . . . .
​

 

[Storm]

"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."
source
​

So, we find the Christian focusing on the inner peace and security the prospect will experience by believing, and the non-believer trying to use reason and logic to show the believer the error of his thinking. As the article suggest; it comes down to a basic difference in thinking style. So, my suggestion to make converts---one way or the other---is to focus on changing the style of thinking. Show why it's better to rely on one's gut feeling/reason than not.

Anyone of either side wanna take a stab?

Relying on one's gut feeling is better because . . . .

Relying on one's reason is better because . . . .
​

Haven't read the full article yet, but the OP presents a false dichotomy, which ignores the significant number of believers who base their faith on experience, as well as theologies which do not assert an omnimax God. Some God-concepts are not even benevolent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., my suggestion to make converts---one way or the other---is to focus on changing the style of thinking. Show why it's better to rely on one's gut feeling/reason than not.

Anyone of either side wanna take a stab? ...

No, not really, and for the following reason. How you come to believe what you believe does not necessarily reflect on the accuracy of that belief. Suggesting otherwise is sometimes referred to as the fallacy fallacy. For example, should someone argue that

64 / 16 = 4 by canceling out the '6' in numerator and denominator​

​

the result remains accurate no matter how faulty the reasoning.

 

[Storm]

Read the article. As I suspected, it doesn't distinguish between theologies, much less probe reasoning.

Correlation =/= causation.

 

[JustWondering]

"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."​

This corresponds to my experiences talking to theists and atheists.
​

 

[Tonymai]

There is a fundamental difference between believing in God and experiencing the presence of the Heavenly Father within oneself. "The kingdom of Heaven is within you."

 

[blackout]

also personal interpretation/s of one's own life experience/s.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You know I could say that a belief in reason boils down to a gut feeling too. Anyone wanna take a stab at proving casaulity is real?

 

[Reptillian]

"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."
source
​

So, we find the Christian focusing on the inner peace and security the prospect will experience by believing, and the non-believer trying to use reason and logic to show the believer the error of his thinking. As the article suggest; it comes down to a basic difference in thinking style. So, my suggestion to make converts---one way or the other---is to focus on changing the style of thinking. Show why it's better to rely on one's gut feeling/reason than not.

Anyone of either side wanna take a stab?

Relying on one's gut feeling is better because . . . .

Relying on one's reason is better because . . . .
​

Whos to say that gut feelings and reason are incompatable? After all, gut feelings must have an evolutionary origin. They must have an advantage, and as such must have some basis in reason. If I'm walking through the woods at night and I have a gut feeling that some predatory animal is watching me, then I'm going to take that seriously. Maybe I haven't actually seen the tiger lurking in the shadows, but assuming its there and being prepared has a definite survival advantage. On the other hand, if I'm always worried about tigers all the time, then I'll waste a lot of energy worrying and it will be disadvantageous. Therefore the gut feeling will only kick in when I have a reasonable concern that I might be under a predator's survailance.

 

[Skwim]

Haven't read the full article yet, but the OP presents a false dichotomy, which ignores the significant number of believers who base their faith on experience, as well as theologies which do not assert an omnimax God. Some God-concepts are not even benevolent.

I assume the "gut feelings" include personal experiences. As for specific theologies, I think these are chosen more for how they fit the emotional needs of the individual rather than their logical superiority.

No, not really, and for the following reason. How you come to believe what you believe does not necessarily reflect on the accuracy of that belief.

What is the accuracy of belief? And, what is the standard by which you judge this accuracy?

Suggesting otherwise is sometimes referred to as the fallacy fallacy.

By whom?

For example, should someone argue that

64 / 16 = 4 by canceling out the '6' in numerator and denominator​

the result remains accurate no matter how faulty the reasoning.

So what? It could also = 4 if you canceled the two sixes and the one. The argument would have to depend on the validity of the operation. It's no more valid to cancel the two sixes and the one, letting the four standing alone, as it is to just cancel the two sixes. Neither operation is a legitimate mathematical operation, so regardless of the fact that 64/16 = 4, the argument using the process is faulty. It is not a reasonable thing to do---to say the least.

Read the article. As I suspected, it doesn't distinguish between theologies, much less probe reasoning.

Correlation =/= causation.

So if it wasn't intuition that was behind the greater likelihood of believing in god, how do you explain the finding that . . .

"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."
source: cited link
​

You know I could say that a belief in reason boils down to a gut feeling too. Anyone wanna take a stab at proving casaulity is real?

Did that to a considerable extent last June. See HERE

Whos to say that gut feelings and reason are incompatable? After all, gut feelings must have an evolutionary origin. They must have an advantage, and as such must have some basis in reason.

I don't think anyone would say they're not compatible.

 

[Storm]

I assume the "gut feelings" include personal experiences.

Hmmmmmmm....

I really don't think so. While I can see conclusions drawn from certain experiences being attributed to "gut feelings," experience and intuition are not related. For example, the altered neurological states of theophany are no more intuitive than stubbing one's toe. How we interpret them may be.

As for specific theologies, I think these are chosen more for how they fit the emotional needs of the individual rather than their logical superiority.

In many cases, I'll grant you, but not all. Maybe not even a majority.

Personally, there are many theological propositions I would love to believe, like a protective parent-type God, but I do not precisely because they are rationally inferior.

So if it wasn't intuition that was behind the greater likelihood of believing in god, how do you explain the finding that . . .

"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."
source: cited link​

Findings are irrelevant if the study is flawed. I believe I've pointed out two very pertinent flaws.

 

[Skwim]

Hmmmmmmm....

I really don't think so. While I can see conclusions drawn from certain experiences being attributed to "gut feelings," experience and intuition are not related. For example, the altered neurological states of theophany are no more intuitive than stubbing one's toe. How we interpret them may be.


In many cases, I'll grant you, but not all. Maybe not even a majority.

Personally, there are many theological propositions I would love to believe, like a protective parent-type God, but I do not precisely because they are rationally inferior.

And I don't think the study is suggesting that the gut v. reason is necessarily an either/or situation. The article did say,

"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."
​

Findings are irrelevant if the study is flawed. I believe I've pointed out two very pertinent flaws.

Depends of the flaw. Going back to my psych 1and 2 college days, I remember constructing experiments (never carried out) in which it was shown just how this can come about.

 

[Storm]

And I don't think the study is suggesting that the gut v. reason is necessarily an either/or situation. The article did say,

"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."
​

Actually, that was a huge red flag to me, and I'struggling to lend benefit of the doubt to the researchers. Piety is not the whole of belief, and "church on Sunday" is CERTAINLY not the whole of religion!

Depends of the flaw. Going back to my psych 1and 2 college days, I remember constructing experiments (never carried out) in which it was shown just how this can come about.

... and? Are the flaws I pointed out not pertinent? Why?

 

[Skwim]

... and? Are the flaws I pointed out not pertinent? Why?

I assume you're referring to

"it doesn't distinguish between theologies,"
​

and

"much less probe reasoning."
​

In order to claim they're pertinent I guess you'd have to show why. Why should it distinguish between theologies any more than it has; limiting the religions to those with a belief in god. It doesn't appear their conclusions were any more focused than this; although, the reference to "Sunday pews" in the article may indicate otherwise.

As for "probing the reasoning," it doesn't appear this was considered a factor. It looks like they were only interested in intuition v reason, and that's all.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of all concepts for 'god', we cannot use only rationality to determine our position on certain metaphysical claims.

Or to put simply, since we cant prove or disprove god, we cant 'know', you just have to decide what you want to 'believe' in.

 

[Storm]

Given that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of all concepts for 'god', we cannot use only rationality to determine our position on certain metaphysical claims.

Or to put simply, since we cant prove or disprove god, we cant 'know', you just have to decide what you want to 'believe' in.

Ah, but we can use our rationality to come to that decision.

 

[Skwim]

Ah, but we can use our rationality to come to that decision.

Exactly. Or, as some do, their gut feeling.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

"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."
source
​

So, we find the Christian focusing on the inner peace and security the prospect will experience by believing, and the non-believer trying to use reason and logic to show the believer the error of his thinking. As the article suggest; it comes down to a basic difference in thinking style. So, my suggestion to make converts---one way or the other---is to focus on changing the style of thinking. Show why it's better to rely on one's gut feeling/reason than not.

Anyone of either side wanna take a stab?

Relying on one's gut feeling is better because . . . .

Relying on one's reason is better because . . . .
​

Relying on reason is better because there's no guesswork involved. There's no speculation, no metaphysical conjecture. With the god-idea, and it's constituent beliefs of eternal punishment/reward, there's no guarantees those things are real. Even the staunchest believers, if they are honest enough with themselves, cannot say they 100 % know for an absolute fact that their beliefs are truth, their god is real, and that they will have an enjoyable afterlife. To me, reason trumps faith, every time. I spent most of my life as a Christian, and got nowhere with it. I was still miserable. I still could not overcome my suffering, my fears, my anxieties. That's what I like about Buddhism. Buddhism believes in reason over faith. Buddhism is spirituality that is practical, without all the superstition and speculation. Buddhism, at least for me, works in the here and now. I can enjoy the benefits of practicing Buddhism right here, right now. I don't have to wait for an unsure afterlife.

 

[Storm]

Exactly. Or, as some do, their gut feeling.

Not what I meant.

I meant that we can apply rationality to faith to produce a superior theology.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That assumes however that rationality can be applied to metaphysical concepts such as 'God' which is a particularly difficult one given that common concepts for 'God' typically include elements claiming it to be beyond our comprehension... which undermines the case for the applicability of rational tools (which I personally agree certainly make for a far more useful dialogue as opposed to simply screaming at each other that our own philosophical positions are correct and that the other is wrong, evil and must be killed... however we cannot be certain that those assumptions are in fact true given that the applicability of rationality is not necessarily reliable).