Religion vs Science study help

[MikeW]

Hello, my name is Michael and I am a post graduate student currently performing research into the psychology of religion for my Msc with the Open University. My research is in measuring similarities and differences between scientific and religious thought. In this study I am looking at levels of open-mindedness between those who have religious belief and those who do not. It is a rebuttal to the new atheist movement. I am in need of participants and I was wondering if there would be any chance of anyone helping me out by taking my survey? It only takes 5 minutes to complete and it is completely anonymous. If you would like to look at the survey this is the link:

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/434062/Composite-Actively-Open-Minded-Scale

I really would appreciate greatly any help you could give me. If you have any questions please feel free to email me at michaelwhitehouse@live.co.uk or post here . Sorry if this is in the wrong section. Thank you for your time.

[cursuswalker]

Hello, my name is Michael and I am a post graduate student currently performing research into the psychology of religion for my Msc with the Open University. My research is in measuring similarities and differences between scientific and religious thought. In this study I am looking at levels of open-mindedness between those who have religious belief and those who do not. My hypothesis is that those with faith will be just as open minded as those without.It is a rebuttal to the new atheist movement. I am in need of participants and I was wondering if there would be any chance of anyone helping me out by taking my survey? It only takes 5 minutes to complete and it is completely anonymous. If you would like to look at the survey this is the link:

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/434062/Composite-Actively-Open-Minded-Scale

I really would appreciate greatly any help you could give me. If you have any questions please feel free to email me at michaelwhitehouse@live.co.uk or post here . Sorry if this is in the wrong section. Thank you for your time.

This phrase renders your research worse than useless, regardless of results:

"My hypothesis is that those with faith will be just as open minded as those without.It is a rebuttal to the new atheist movement."

Allow me to correct that for you:

"My hypothesis is that those with faith will be just as open minded as those without.It MAY PROVIDE a rebuttal to the new atheist movement DEPENDENT ON RESULTS"

So then, before I decide whether to take part, may I ask more about your sampling? What is the list of religious/non-religious fora on which you are posting this? Can I also ask why you are informing potential participants of the desired result in advance of collecting evidence from them?

This is the definition of Bad Science.

I will declare my bias, as you have. I am a Natiuralist Druid and a "new atheist"

[Mountainheart]

Did your survey: LOL five mins is a bit optimistic but results should be interesting. Are you able to send results to people who took part?

It would be interesting to understand your definitions of 'religious' and 'scientific'. I am definitely a person with spiritual beliefs: but I follow no religion and have no belief in a separate 'supernatural' 'God'. I'm also a scientist by training (BSc).

[cursuswalker]

I just did the survey. Question 10 "Do you believe in the existence of god(s), the supernatural, or a spiritual aspect to life?" is a nonsense, as there are manyb people who have no belief in the supernatural and yet do think there is a spiritual aspect to life. So I had to answer NO, even though that does not reflect my actual view.

[Mountainheart]

I just did the survey. Question 10 "Do you believe in the existence of god(s), the supernatural, or a spiritual aspect to life?" is a nonsense, as there are manyb people who have no belief in the supernatural and yet do think there is a spiritual aspect to life. So I had to answer NO, even though that does not reflect my actual view.

I found quite a few questions to be a bit ambiguous. One thing that also needs to be considered is that being a-theist doesn't necessarily equate to having no concept of spirituality. 'God' doesn't have to equate to deity.

[cursuswalker]

Did your survey: LOL five mins is a bit optimistic but results should be interesting. Are you able to send results to people who took part?

It would be interesting to understand your definitions of 'religious' and 'scientific'. I am definitely a person with spiritual beliefs: but I follow no religion and have no belief in a separate 'supernatural' 'God'. I'm also a scientist by training (BSc).

So what is your comment on my criticism of the research methodology? I think that any acedemic with integrity will throw out the results as worthless by definition.

[cursuswalker]

I just did the survey. Question 10 "Do you believe in the existence of god(s), the supernatural, or a spiritual aspect to life?" is a nonsense, as there are manyb people who have no belief in the supernatural and yet do think there is a spiritual aspect to life. So I had to answer NO, even though that does not reflect my actual view.

I found quite a few questions to be a bit ambiguous. One thing that also needs to be considered is that being a-theist doesn't necessarily equate to having no concept of spirituality. 'God' doesn't have to equate to deity.

Quite. Question 10 should be split in three. I have no belief in gods or the supernatural, but do think there is a spiritual aspect to life, but I had to respond that I did not if I was to avoid being lumped in with theists.

[DJ Droood]

well, I think all you have to do now is print off this thread, punch holes in the corner, tie it together with yarn and pass it in!

[cursuswalker]

well, I think all you have to do now is print off this thread, punch holes in the corner, tie it together with yarn and pass it in!

If only. Unfortunately this kind of thing is sold as rigourous research to the public all the time.

Standing by for the Ad hom...

[Mountainheart]

Did your survey: LOL five mins is a bit optimistic but results should be interesting. Are you able to send results to people who took part?

It would be interesting to understand your definitions of 'religious' and 'scientific'. I am definitely a person with spiritual beliefs: but I follow no religion and have no belief in a separate 'supernatural' 'God'. I'm also a scientist by training (BSc).

So what is your comment on my criticism of the research methodology? I think that any acedemic with integrity will throw out the results as worthless by definition.

Well I certainly agree that you should enter any research project with an open mind so no research should have the *aim* of being a rebuttal. We were taught to start with a null hypothesis to avoid such problems.

[Mountainheart]

To add to this:

"My hypothesis is that those with faith will be just as open minded as those without."

I think it will completely depend on the type of person rather than the type of belief. There are both religious *and* scientific fundamentalists (Dawkins seems to me to be an example of the latter); people who are certain that they are right. And there are open-minded people in both groups.

Overall I would turn the hyothesis round and say that 'those with faith are as likely to be closed-minded as those without'. I think that in the world in general there are more closed minded than open minded people.

[DJ Droood]

I think that in the world in general there are more closed minded than open minded people.

And what exactly is meant by "closed minded" and "open minded"? Open or closed to what? How does "minded" work, functionally? I don't want to hear any argumets in favour of, say, pedophilia...no amount of research, nuanced argument or celebrity endorsement would change my position that the sexual exploitation of children is wrong. I have "closed" my "minded" on that topic and arrived at my position...same with the "argument" about the existence of gods. I know there are none, it has ceased being a topic of much interest to me (in the same catagory of interest and importance as "name the characters in the Harry Potter series"), so my minded is closed on that topic...until such a time as Thor or Ug the Unreliable becomes manifest to my feeble senses.

So isn't it a matter of mental efficiency to "close" your mind to certain things?....I am satisfied that the earth is spherical and am not ashamed to say I have "closed" my mind to the concept of a flat earth...my aging hamspters running on the rusty wheel in my head only have so much energy to expend on problems and notions....can't I have a closed-off section somewhere to store stupid/boring/irrelevant ideas that I will never use?

Here is a closing line for the paper "His mind was so open his brains were dribbling out of his ears."

(btw, is the athiest movement really "new"? Glad to be buying in on the IPO! This should pay off handsomely. )

[Lily]

In addition to what everyone else said, (another trained scientist, a-theist but spiritual person here), it is also wrong to assume

-that religionists are not open to science... It may well be that are open minded about some things, and close-minded about others, something the survey does not manage to distinguish (or does it) - (some manage perfectly well to be "hard scientists" and can even be accomplished academics - until they come to the subset of evolutionary thought or climate change; some religionists may have adopted doctrines from a different religion as absolute truth - pagan creationists e.g.)

- or that all religion or spirituality has to do with moral guidelines, etc. etc., or that moral guidelines cannot be derived from other aspects of life / while coexisting with a religion/spirituality (pagan by religion, humanist by morality etc etc)!
- or that open-mindedness has something to do with choosing between believing or disbelieving certain categoreis (some are so open minded they accept almost anything as truth)

I really, really wonder if your adviser has adequately evaluated your strategy.
also, what is the "new atheist" movement?

dhonour... how can a scientist not be a "fundamentalist (of science)", or rather: how can the scientific method not be absolute?

[Mountainheart]

...same with the "argument" about the existence of gods. I know there are none"

In my view that's a fundamentalist position, then. The word 'know' gives you away...



Thx
David

[DJ Droood]

...same with the "argument" about the existence of gods. I know there are none"

In my view that's a fundamentalist position, then. The word 'know' gives you away...



Thx
David

guilty!

[Mountainheart]

how can a scientist not be a "fundamentalist (of science)", or rather: how can the scientific method not be absolute?

Hi Lily: most science deals in * probabilities* not *facts*. A theory is the most likely story based on the most recent information about a subject: it is not an absolute truth.

A fundamentalist says 'I know I am right' rather than 'I am probably right'.

Thx
David

[Lily]

...same with the "argument" about the existence of gods. I know there are none"

In my view that's a fundamentalist position, then. The word 'know' gives you away...

that's why I worte a-theist - I would like it to be stronger than "agnostic".
I have no evidence for gods, I personally have none, and have plenty of theories at hand that can explain the world without deities - however you could always postulate an uncreated entity behind everything.

Hi Lily: most science deals in * probabilities* not *facts*. A theory is the best picture of the most recent information about a subject: it is not an absolute truth.
A fundamentalist says 'I know I am right' rather than 'I am probably right'.

Ok I see now. But I don't think Dawkins is a hard core fundamentalist. Surely if he's a scientist worth his salt, in the face of evidence he would change his opinion. But he ineeds to be a good marketer and he can say with enough certainty that he is right, and in the face of creationists he can't constantly recite the entire disclaimer.
OTOH I maintain that the scientific method in itself is "fundamentalist" as it is absolute. not the results. the method.

[DJ Droood]

Ok I see now. But I don't think Dawkins is a hard core fundamentalist. Surely if he's a scientist worth his salt, in the face of evidence he would change his opinion. But he ineeds to be a good marketer and he can say with enough certainty that he is right, and in the face of creationists he can't constantly recite the entire disclaimer.

I think that is precisely it with Dawkins, and polemicists in general, on most issues, especially when book sales are on the line. Being brash and opinionated (especially when the author is Infuriatingly intelligent) gets people talking and interested. My favourite newspaper columnist is a born again Catholic creationist war-loving right wing extremist with an axe to grind with Muslims....but he is brash, highly literate and a brilliant writer, so he is fun to "love to hate".

[Explorer]

Mike, somebody should have warned you before asking druids for their opinions.
Don't be alarmed, this is normal .

[DaRC]

Don't be alarmed, this is normal .

So does this mean that you know what is normal or probably have a theory on it?