Those who identify with Christian beliefs less likely to believe in the paranormal
Well if their going to say that 15% of Mormons scored High enough in the range
of gullibility then it should be noted that that's not going far enough. They
should also qualify those 15% as to how long they have been members of the
church and if they weren't born into the church the additional question needs to
be asked from what other religion did they and their families come from.
Otherwise it would be like having a skewed population that included children
who believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. In
otherwords since the LDS church is growing at a significantly higher rate than
most other christian religions that 15% hasn't been filtered sufficiently enough
to identify the impacts of the other religions that newer members of LDS Church
have retained. Among our Native American members as a prime example many of
them still retain and even practice part of their ancient religions in order to
keep from being totally wiped out as a culture and a people from the effects of
this country's own Christian doctrine of Manifest Destiny. The research done is
This survey is pretty meaningless when you define gullibility as believing in
ghosts and UFOs but not angels, evil spirits, visions, and golden plates. The
ONLY thing that you can safely conclude comes toward the end of the
article--religion sets strict (and often arbitrary) limits on what kind of
supernaturalism one should and should not believe in. Gullibility has nothing to
do with it. At the end of the day, there is nothing less rational about UFOs and
physic ability than there is about angelic visitations, miraculous healings, and
Jesus walking on water.
SL:I think there is something different about religious dogma belief
and belief in other ideas such as UFOs and the supernatural. I would say the
former is more faith-based ie. no evidence and the latter can be formed by
deductive reasoning or observation of the world around us and conjecture, these
beliefs don't tend to be as concrete as religious dogmas, but many times are
reasoned assertion based upon a view of the outside world (phenomenas of animals
seemingly knowing the future, Nazi experiments, empirical studies, etc.)
There is an evengelical in my van pool. He says he doesn't believe in UFO's
because they aren't mentioned in the Bible. I have asked him if he believes the
earth is only a few thousand years old and he says yes, because that is in the
Bible. Given this, I think the methodology used to determine who is the most
guliable is flawed.Also how does one explain that LDS (Utahn's) are
the most likely to be taken by a scam artist?I am open to the
possibly of UFO's, does that mean I am guliable?
Gullible? How about the tale of a boat that left the Middle East and ended up in
the Americas about 2600 years ago?
I would not say gullible as I would naive. Our intrepretation of the bible is
off for various reasons, one, we think of the bible in our present day when the
bible was written for people who lived several thousands of years ago and no.2
the language was different back then, so when we try to interpret it we put this
into our language instead of trying to understand theirs.
The other thing is we are always looking for a map on how to live our life and
we usually go to the past to find that. Well, did you enjoy the way you were
raised, if not, probably should go in a different direction. Plus if you look to
the past and think we can live our life the way we did even 40 years ago it
probably is not going to work. If you think those were the good old days, yeah,
they were the good old!!!!! days. Probably not possibly. Doesn't mean we cannot
learn anything from them.
People who are not based in faith often have a deep need for something to
believe in and to fill the absence of spirituality. So....they often believe in
the occult, astrology, tarot cards, psychics, etc., etc. These things are empty
with no basis in true spirituality. But, these people are trying to fill the
void. Faith based on true eternal principles fills these needs and gives one
true meaning in life. It also gives one the power of discernment to be able to
recognize truth and seperate it from falsehood. In addition, having a prophet
of God to counsel us makes all the difference.
Evengelicals believe God is all powerful, AND most loving. They also believe if
someone gets through this live without accepting Jesus Christ, they will go to a
hell that is very painful and lasts forever and ever. This includes people who
are from non christian cultures.If this doesn't qualify as willing
to believe something which makes no sense, then what does? Once people swallow
religious things which make no sense, their critical thinking is weakened.
Unfortunately I was gullible enough to read this article, make a comment and
confirm my stupidity.
All I can say about religion is, "Pshaw!"
If only the Little Green Men on the UFOs would come and take the Libs back to
their own planet.....
this article is just so ironic coming from a mormon.> "While
religious people are often the targets of fraud, that vulnerability may have
more to do with trust than general gullibility"you could easily
replace "trust" with "faith". how many mormons donated money
to the prop8 cause--the lord's cause--(one family donated their whole life
savings) when it is most likely that eventually homosexuals will be granted the
right to marry in every state?how many mormons spent crazy amounts
of money on food storage right before the year 2000? how many will do it right
before the year 2012?> "The reason conservative religious
people have lower belief in the occult and paranormal comes from their adherence
to their religious beliefs."can anyone say "seer
stone", masonry, miracles (paranormal), healing, prophecy/revelation from
the holy ghost (difference between psychics?), spirits, angels, gods,
devils/demons, spirit world, offerings, prayer, worshipping?>
"Stark also had some advice for parents who don't want their children to
believe in paranormal claims. 'Education won't do it,' he said. 'If you don't
want your kid to believe in Bigfoot don't send him to school, send him to Sunday
Stark must be the worst religious scholar working today. Trust De Groote to
give him a forum.Other commenters have pointed out how silly the
study's framing of superstition is, so I'll just point out that belief in
astrology, bigfoot and UFOs - stupid though it might be - is morally superior to
religious superstition. The former don't require institutions that promote
irrationality as a virtue, they don't saddle people with sexual guilt (and often
despair) their entire lives. Wars aren't fought over them nor do they lead to
the oppression of minorities. Importantly, many of the beliefs named as
examples of superstition (with the major exception of astrology) still allow for
a fairly accurate picture of the world. None of this can be said for religion
as the overwhelming majority of the world's faithful practice it.
I have long said this. There is a faith component that the religious and the
scientific have to have. I think it is gullible to think you are either
"the faithful" or "the faithless." I believe this article is
interesting and it starts the dialogue, a familiar dialogue, but this time I
learned something new. What I learned that is new is that gullible
is now used as a synonym for "faithful." Only, the surprising thing is
we are ALL gullible in some way and it may be impossible to impress upon others
what level of gullible(faith) is present.
Just look at the SETI group without scientific evidence of intelligent life of
life on other planets they have people downloading a screensaver to their
computers so people can accept data from SETI and then send back processed data
to SETI. And...the number of people doing this is in the millions!! Hello,
scientific principle anyone???? So, though we already know that the "faith
filled" are gullible we also know there is science type "faith"
that clearly demonstrates a gullibility in science to go along with the
gullibility in religion. If you have a belief in science you have faith in
science--was the premise of the experiment without prejudice? was the
conclusion? Was real data considered as "outliers?" Was it titrated
properly? Was the measure even made with a know accepted standard? Was the
calibration even completed?