i am not moving the goalposts
their conclusion from that study does not prove what it set out to prove = rubbish
that under stress people in average behave in a different way than they do without stress is a well known fact
i am pretty sure that there are people who have a religious like attachment to one issue or the other
but are people going to think of science when they are under stress as saviour as some people start to pray?



well expresses the issue
and going back to the study:

Abstract
Growing evidence indicates that religious belief helps individuals to cope with stress and anxiety. But is this effect specific to supernatural beliefs, or is it a more general function of belief – including belief in science? We developed a measure of belief in science and conducted two experiments in which we manipulated stress and existential anxiety. In Experiment 1, we assessed rowers about to compete (high-stress condition) and rowers at a training session (low-stress condition). As predicted, rowers in the high-stress group reported greater belief in science.

noticed that? the questions and environment were set to justify their postulate
so, as i said 'rubbish in rubbish out'

Why? Study is bullshit, waste of time discussing it.

You're pretty much making some nonsensical statement that has nothing to do wtih reality. Most people like you forget that science is fallible, which is why you have so much faith in it. All I'm saying is that people can have faith in science as much as they can in religion. That's all. It doesn't matter about the ramifications of their faith, or the ramifications of what they believe. This study was conducted to show that clinging to absolutes is a much a problem for theists as science freaks. And yes, you can have faith in science where you reject empirical evidence. Look at dark matter and dark energy. Both are undetectable, and both are simple patches to the big bang theory that have no true empirical backing. It's pure fairie dust. Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. If you actually look at the history of the hot big bang theory, it has gone through so many reveisions that it should have been proven wrong, but instead they keep on speading open the parameters and adding more bullshit to support it. Why don't they examine the fundamentals of it? Because they want to maintain their creationist story of the universe, and mainstream science democracy and peer review are preventing true scientific advancement. Therefore, you have faith in science. Science is not perfect, it is not infallible. And not all religion deals with fantasy. Buddhism is a very scientific religion that mixes the scientific method with mysticism. My own religion proves that there is a god through mystical experience, but that is a philosophical standpoint that is rudimentarily verified by experience and research. I don't care how much 'fantasy' you believe religion has, it is still faith in it just as much there is faith in the infallibility and supposedly non-biased mode of science.

Rofl. Just because they predict the answer doesn't mean it's wrong. How else should they have designed the study? It seems pretty rigorous to me. The reason why they came up with that prediction is because the belief in science is negatively correlated with a belief in God or religion.

hurrr durrr

and yes i'm skeptical of darkmatter/darkenergy

This post was edited by duffman316 on Jun 8 2013 08:06pm

Wow rowers who are fucked from rowing all day believe in force and gravity?
Who woulda ever thought..
DERRRRRRRRRPP!!!

the whole test was constructed to justify their prediction
where is the control group of religious people under stress to those questions and
where is the control group of religious people not under stress to those questions

if you ever have dealt with psychology or market research tests you know that you need a proper control group (or set of control questions) to obtain a genuine result
the approach of those psychologists is 'week' to say the least

You have not stated one reason why you are right and I am wrong except for bullshit answers. Science is not simply believing in natural laws. It also deals with theories and hypotheses which can be wrong, and must be infallible in order to continue in scientific discourse. However, some people have faith in science so much that they believe that they can accept everything in it with no scruples otherwise. Apparently you are in this camp with the rest of them.

You forget to mention that the vast majority of people do not believe every scientific theory.
Would make for a lot of conflict considering almost every theory has an opposite.

This post was edited by Lifebane99 on Jun 8 2013 08:10pm

I agree, but this doesn't mean that everyone doesn't cling to more absolute beliefs in the face of adversity. I believe that is a horse that has been dead and beaten for quite a long time. If we used another study for a control with the same methods, most likely, we would receive the same results, except one of them would use religious faith instead of faith in science. If you want, I could probably pull up some studies with religion to see if they behave in a similar manner. It doesn't matter how religious the people were in the control group, as they didnt' have one, and if it is shown through other, non-identical studies, that they turn to their faith in the face of adversity, would you still have something against this study?