Shared publicly  - 
Cliff Bramlett's profile photoMatt Johnson's profile photoJuan David Londoño's profile photoBrian Gauspohl's profile photo
I think Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Anselm would disagree.
Would they? I don't believe they're alive to agree or disagree. Besides, the article doesn't claim analytical thinking always erodes belief. "People who rely more on intuitive thinking are more likely to be believers, while the more analytical are less likely."
+Cliff Bramlett, you are certainly right in pointing out that the article takes a more balanced view of the topic, and I hope that people read the full article. However, the article's title certainly makes a more absolute, and I imagine purposefully, provocative statement concerning the relationship between analytical thought and belief, and it was to that I was responding. Please also take my post as colloquially meaning "their writings" such as one might say "Shakespeare says" when referring to the plays, as likewise Shakespeare can no longer speak (though certainly I think the spirits of these three great thinkers and good men live on, if not corporeally).
Religious people are also more able to cope with adversities than non-religious people... A study into coping and analytical thinking would be a good idea.
There are a lot of studies into coping, and links have been made with religious people being better able to. That's where I was coming from.

This is one study:;jsessionid=85492976314B72892A95E8DBFD1B7878.d02t01?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Not ignoring that highly educated and people with vast social support cope better too, but I was wondering more along the lines off 'over-thinking' problems as a result of constantly analyzing everything anyway
I've seen studies on both sides, but many more showing that religion makes no difference in putting effective coping strategies to work. The caveat is that people - myself included - pay more attention to studies that agree with our belief system. As often happens, +Dhakshi Maruthamuthu , it appears we are two people who are both firm in our convictions, so I for one agree to disagree. :)

I can only speak for myself, but I don't "constantly analyze everything". I have a very strong moral code, and if I encounter a viewpoint or situation that conflicts with that code, then I analyze or judge what I've encountered. If it isn't a debate, I either take whatever action I think the situation requires (stop the thief stealing the little old lady's purse) and move on.
Add a comment...