Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on July 05, 2017, 05:43:33 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a report about atheists being less open minded than religious people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html
**********
Religious people are more tolerant of different viewpoints than atheists, according to researchers at a Catholic university.
A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas.
“Somewhat surprisingly, when it came to subtly measured inclination to integrate views that were diverging and contrary to one’s own perspectives, it was the religious who showed more openness."
***********
Cheers.
Sriram
-
It depends on the atheists, also I think it is only a section of atheists. It depends who they asked.
Atheists can believe in many different things, other than God. So they could believe in ghosts or different dimensions, just not God.
But on the internet, yes, I think there are large numbers of atheists who are very narrow minded.
They would probably call themselves, realists.
They tend to try and force their own sense of reality on everyone, including other atheists.
They don't see a different POV, only that others are wrong because they don't share their opinion. ( in fact some don't even acknowledge it is their opinion, but think their opinion is science instead)
People don't change, just because it's the 21st century.
A dogmatic person hangs on to their sense of reality and forces on others because imo they are insecure, they need boundaries, life without boundaries scares them silly.
They can be religious or atheists. Have a religious framework, or their interpretation of a scientific one.
The atheists are obvious, they are usually dogmatic about science to the point that they have one view of scientific interpretation and dismiss others as quackery.
The religious are the same, but have latched onto a religious world view instead.
I don't think atheists as a whole are more narrow minded, and the research was done by Catholics, so they aren't exactly unbiased.
I think a proportion of the human race fits into that category, some are religious and some atheist.
It's because people have a range of personalities.
-
Researchers at the Catholic University of Louvain ...
Pretty much stopped reading there, fully expecting a lengthy round of "Nasty atheists don't like something we like waaaaagh."
-
I stopped at 'researchers in a Catholic university...' too...
-
Me too!
-
Just because it's biased, doesn't mean you can't discuss it.
Nothing like proving them right, by refusing to engage :o.
-
Just because it's biased, doesn't mean you can't discuss it.
Just because it's biased, I'm not going to waste any of my precious lifespan reading it.
-
Just because it's biased, I'm not going to waste any of my precious lifespan reading it.
So if you see something written by a Catholic you just automatically refuse to read it?
So anything from a religious source isn't worth considering?
How can you be critical of things you refuse to read?
As I said "Nothing like proving them right, by refusing to engage :o. "
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a report about atheists being less open minded than religious people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html
**********
Religious people are more tolerant of different viewpoints than atheists, according to researchers at a Catholic university.
A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas.
“Somewhat surprisingly, when it came to subtly measured inclination to integrate views that were diverging and contrary to one’s own perspectives, it was the religious who showed more openness."
***********
Cheers.
Sriram
Not an unbiased survey then!
-
Assuming that the study is biased is biased.
-
Assuming that the study is biased is biased.
Most probably. I really can't be arsed to find out though.
-
So if you see something written by a Catholic you just automatically refuse to read it?
So anything from a religious source isn't worth considering?
How can you be critical of things you refuse to read?
As I said "Nothing like proving them right, by refusing to engage :o. "
Oh look, someone making up something that I didn't say.
-
Well Catholics are more tolerant of.......child abuse, poverty (especially when you have vast resources you could use to alleviate it) etc, etc.......
So a lazy generalisation is used as an ad hom on the study? Were you trying to provide evidence for the conclusion?
-
So a lazy generalisation is used as an ad hom on the study? Were you trying to provide evidence for the conclusion?
Yes it was, but the report reads like a lazy attack on atheists, so goose gander. I probably shouldn't have bothered posting on it as it's Sririam just provoking as usual. In fact edit I shouldn't have posted so I'll remove it now.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a report about atheists being less open minded than religious people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html
Sriram
Shaker
''Researchers at the Catholic University of Louvain ...''
Pretty much stopped reading there,
-
You're on top of the quote function Vladdychops - well done :)
-
Yes it was, but the report reads like a lazy attack on atheists, so goose gander. I probably shouldn't have bothered posting on it as it's Sririam just provoking as usual. In fact edit I shouldn't have posted so I'll remove it now.
Trentvoyager, defender of atheiana, archbishop of the Dogma versus academic research.
-
Trentvoyager, defender of atheiana, archbishop of the Dogma versus academic research.
Have sex and travel.
-
You're on top of the quote function Vladdychops - well done :)
Thank you.
When a great big atheist is caught closing his mind to academic research about atheists closing their minds it deserves the most loving presentation.
-
It's a crap article. Wtf is wrong with the Indie these days? They did that shit about 'no historical Jesus' last week.
-
So if you see something written by a Catholic you just automatically refuse to read it?
So anything from a religious source isn't worth considering?
How can you be critical of things you refuse to read?
As I said "Nothing like proving them right, by refusing to engage :o. "
You'll have no problem reading this then:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/06/29/no-a-new-study-doesnt-show-atheists-are-more-closed-minded-than-believers/
-
It's a crap article. Wtf is wrong with the Indie these days? They did that shit about 'no historical Jesus' last week.
I don't read it but one friend comments in the stories on FB so thet pop up. The friend's comment is always something about what inane white the story is.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a report about atheists being less open minded than religious people.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html
**********
Religious people are more tolerant of different viewpoints than atheists, according to researchers at a Catholic university.
A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas.
“Somewhat surprisingly, when it came to subtly measured inclination to integrate views that were diverging and contrary to one’s own perspectives, it was the religious who showed more openness."
***********
Cheers.
Sriram
I am in the somewhat fortunate position of being able to download the research paper in a couple of clicks, and so I have read it and would like to comment from that position.
First on the dismissal of the study simply on the basis that it is from the Catholic University of Louvain - this is a completely unreasonable, this university is very well regarded (ranked I think 4th in Belgium and in the top 150 in the world) and the 'Catholic' bit is somewhat of a misnomer, referring to its heritage rather than current status. Certainly you should not conclude that the researchers are catholic - that isn't necessarily the case. Also the study involves an author from Stanford too.
However the study itself is rather odd, in terms of its methodology and how that is used to develop its conclusions. So the measures of 'intolerance' are generated as follows:
Participants are presented with three statements and asked to indicate their agreement on an 8 point scale. The three statements are:
“Child adoption by homosexual couples is a positive advance for society”
“The meaning of life is something entirely personal”
“In a house, rooms must be painted with light colors”
Of those only the first is a clear ethical position statement - the second is very ambiguous and the third clearly a 'red herring' used for some control purposes.
But intolerance isn't judged on the basis of the agreement (or otherwise). Nope it is judged as follows. Participants are then asked to write as many arguments in favour and against each statement - then they are asked to rank their agreement with each statement. You are deemed intolerance if you are unable to think up many arguments against your earlier position on the statements and if you give a relatively low score to those statements against your position.
Now I don't see how that really measures tolerance at all. So lets try a variant question. Imagine the statement was:
"Society and the law should treat people the same regardless of their race"
Now I would have thought if I most strongly agreed with this statement that would indicate that I was more tolerant than someone who strongly disagreed. But that isn't what the study would find.
If I strongly agreed with the statement, struggled to find many arguments against it and thought those arguments to be weak I would be considered intolerant. Another person who strongly disagreed with the statement, but could generate more arguments in favour and considered they had some merit would be considered more tolerant that I would.
This seems non-sense.
-
Thanks for that, Prof D. Excellently explained.it does seen a very strange approach.
-
Thanks for that, Prof D. Excellently explained.it does seen a very strange approach.
Unfortunately the study does not provide the 'raw' data on agreement with the three statements, nor does it break down the final 'intolerance' measure based on the contribution of each of the three statements. However I would expect that the first statement “Child adoption by homosexual couples is a positive advance for society” is most contributory.
But there is another point here - the study was performed in France, Spain and the UK, in all of which gay adoption is legal and in effect the 'settled position'. I think it is therefore far more likely that individuals who agree with that position will struggle to think of arguments against and to see significant merit in those argument. Contrast that with those 'railing against the settled position' who may disagree but recognise they are fighting against the settled view and therefore feel obliged to find merit in the orthodox and legal position.
Bottom line - I struggle to see how someone who wholeheartedly agrees with equality on the basis of sexuality (which this question is assessing) can be deemed less tolerant than someone who argues against equality on the basis of sexuality. But that is what the methodology used in this study is likely to do.
-
From the description of the methodology the study sounds very odd.
-
You'll have no problem reading this then:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/06/29/no-a-new-study-doesnt-show-atheists-are-more-closed-minded-than-believers/
I've read it. The most useful thing were the quotes from the study rather than the optimistic for atheism (They obviously have overlooked Dawkinsian injunctions to tolerate less) tone of the in between bits.
-
From the description of the methodology the study sounds very odd.
It is - imagine you were a participant and the statement was:
“Ensuring equality for people regardless of their race is a positive advance for society”
I would give that my wholehearted support. I would feel pretty uncomfortable proving 'arguments against' that statement, but perhaps could - I would, however be unable, on principle, to provide any support whatsoever for any argument against. Yet if I did this, nail my colours to the mast of race equality which most people would conclude to be a cornerstone of tolerance, I would be indicated to be intolerant under this methodology.
It is bizarre.
-
I have noticed that this thread became very rapidly unpopular .......snigger.
-
I have noticed that this thread became very rapidly unpopular .......snigger.
That's nice, dear! Do you want custard creams with your tea?
-
It is - imagine you were a participant and the statement was:
“Ensuring equality for people regardless of their race is a positive advance for society”
I would give that my wholehearted support. I would feel pretty uncomfortable proving 'arguments against' that statement, but perhaps could - I would, however be unable, on principle, to provide any support whatsoever for any argument against. Yet if I did this, nail my colours to the mast of race equality which most people would conclude to be a cornerstone of tolerance, I would be indicated to be intolerant under this methodology.
It is bizarre.
Not sure about the use of the word tolerance eitheer. Just because you hold a strong position and can see no arguments for other positions does thst make you intolerant?
-
I have noticed that this thread became very rapidly unpopular .......snigger.
Yes, I noticed how noses were turned up, at the thought of reading the link 😂
No wonder some of the issues here are completely one sided :D
They turn their nose up.
-
Yes, I noticed how noses were turned up, at the thought of reading the link 😂
No wonder some of the issues here are completely one sided :D
They turn their nose up.
Or perhaps here, in Prof D's case provide an interesting analysis? Rather than a 'snigger'!
-
Or perhaps here, in Prof D's case provide an interesting analysis? Rather than a 'snigger'!
Yes he did, but no one else did :D
-
Yes he did, but no one else did :D
Which is not the sane as saying 'people turned up their noses the thought of reading the link' . Did everyone else do that?
-
Yes he did, but no one else did :D
He did a good job too; a critique sufficient to treat this paper with caution to extent of not taking it seriously (for the reasons outlined by Prof D).
-
He did a good job too; a critique sufficient to treat this paper with caution to extent of not taking it seriously (for the reasons outlined by Prof D).
Frankly I am struggling to see how on earth you can work out whether people are tolerant or intolerant based on responses to the following three statements:
“Child adoption by homosexual couples is a positive advance for society”
“The meaning of life is something entirely personal”
“In a house, rooms must be painted with light colors”
-
Which is not the sane as saying 'people turned up their noses the thought of reading the link' . Did everyone else do that?
Yes read the posts.
Turning up their noses is an expression btw, not literal...... ::)
-
Frankly I am struggling to see how on earth you can work out whether people are tolerant or intolerant based on responses to the following three statements:
“Child adoption by homosexual couples is a positive advance for society”
“The meaning of life is something entirely personal”
“In a house, rooms must be painted with light colors”
No especially the last one.
Lol
-
Yes read the posts.
Turning up their noses is an expression btw, not literal...... ::)
So did everyone else do that metaphorically?
-
So did everyone else do that metaphorically?
Look for yourself!
-
Look for yourself!
Your burden of proof.
-
Yes, I noticed how noses were turned up, at the thought of reading the link 😂
No wonder some of the issues here are completely one sided :D
They turn their nose up.
I certainly hope you aren't including me in those who 'turned up' their noses at the thought of reading the link, because that would be untrue. I read the whole of it, and then did a little research, which uncovered another link, which I duly brought to your attention(Post 20). I'm sure, in the interests of critical fairness, you also read my link, which included comments and thoughts from one of the authors of the study, Filip Uzarevic.
Incidentally, I also was impressed by Prof Davey's account, which I thought was thoughtful and well balanced.
-
If you want evidence that atheists are open minded and free thinking ....avoid Religionethics forum
... Snork.
-
If you want evidence that atheists are open minded and free thinking ....avoid Religionethics forum
... Snork.
There is one poster on here who has shown an interest in leaving on several occasions. But he never really has the courage of his convictions to follow it though, indefinitely.
-
There is one poster on here who has shown an interest in leaving on several occasions. But he never really has the courage of his convictions to follow it though, indefinitely.
... and another is in mid-flounce as I write.
-
... and another is in mid-flounce as I write.
Awww. I wouldnt ctiticise too much. A flounce every now and then does no harm and is perhaps even necessary for some posters. Cathartic even.
-
If you want evidence that atheists are open minded and free thinking ....avoid Religionethics forum
... Snork.
I think this forum is a haven of open mindedness and tolerance.
Look we even tolerate the non-sense you come out with Vlad - and your constant and irritating name changes.
-
... Snork.
Wasn't he one of the BananaSplits? Is that going to be your next name change Vlad?
-
Wasn't he one of the BananaSplits? Is that going to be your next name change Vlad?
Iirc that was a word the much-missed (by me at least) johnny canoe used to employ. No originality. Just appropriation.