September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« You Can’t Erase Gender, but You Can Sure Try | Main | 10 Years at STR and Counting... »

October 16, 2014


Frankly, the intellectual quality of all the objections in that WikiHow article are so low, that they're almost not worth considering.

This one comes up short for all the reasons Brett points out.

In this particular challenge, the only thing of any real interest was the reference to that study made by that graduate student at the University of British Columbia. The kid is a Dawker, as is his mentor at UBC, so we're dealing with a pretty severe bias going in.

With that said, the claim made by the study was a lot more moderate than the "enemy of faith" claim.

The actual claim of the study was that after you engage in rational analysis, your religious feelings will diminish.

No claim that the religious feelings don't come back.

No claim that rational analysis is the only form of rational activity. For example, judging by what I think they are calling analysis, looking in a microscope and recording your observations would not count as rational analysis.

No claim that other forms of rational activity, like looking in a microscope and recording your observations, don't increase your religious feelings.

In the other thread (is there really no hope ever of combining these into a single thread?) Charles had a bit to say about the quality of the study's methodology. All in all, though, I think a discussion of that study would be a lot more interesting than the less-than-sophomoric challenges from the WikiHow article.

The comments to this entry are closed.