if you're talking about religious texts, then yes, they're either full of contradictions (the Bible, the Quran) or unfathomable (Buddhist and Hindu texts)

All interested in this subject should check out an article in Scientific American titled "How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God".

>> How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God: Scientific American

It's an article about some studies that show how intuitive thinking, which is a sort of standard thinking most "run on", promotes religious beliefs while analytical and critical thinking, which generally takes more effort, does the opposite. It's interesting as it can tell us something about why some people believe while others don't.

edit :

Just a little quote from the study to hopefully pique your interest :

That sentence is particularly relevant to me. I gained an greater interest in general science and, in particular, astronomy some years ago. Subsequently, following the death of my Dad I was began to attend church regularly for the first time since I was a young schoolchild and, occassionally, reading the bible.

Here, on one side of the discussion were proven scientific facts - I read facts such as humans evolved from billions of years of countless recombined DNA and RDA and that the carbon atoms in our bodies were made in the heart of our Sun's nuclear furnace. Then I read, in the Bible, that God created Man, then because this all-knowing, all powerful diety didn't have the foresight to realise Man would be lonely, he thus created Woman. From a rib. Then there was Noah who lived to be 950. As you do. This, on top of the water-walking, water-to-wine claims was, to cut a long story short, like a slap to the face and, since then, religious claims have been as believable to me as Peter Pan and the Three Bears.

I wonder what percentage of people who, if they stopped and really thought about all the religious claims could honestly say that they believed them.

Interesting article.

I think this is a very interesting point, and one that has passed my mind before. I completely agree with you, it doesn't matter in the end whether or not we experience anything after death. Whatever happens, it won't be any different that what happened to every other person on this planet that lived and died. I think that believing in something after death isn't necessarily a state of denial though, I don't believe everything ends at death. We have no memory of what came before us, we will probably have no memory of our life in this physical form after our death ( if you think there is something after death ). Although this kind of compounds the sense of redundancy that comes with the " afterlife ", I think it is quite compelling as well as slightly precarious, I am not sure we are really able to comprehend what happens when we die. I don't think I have really concluded this comment, mainly because of how conflicted I am about the subject matter.

I find the tests and results quite interesting but not really convinced about the terminology used. It looks like they relate 'intuition' to system 1 (and especially religious faith). Intuition can get a bit vague at times as it encompasses many other things such as a quick impulse on fixing a computer problem. All of it is based on your previous cognitive experience. I'm guessing that if you were to witness something strange, your first impulse would be to examine and reason it and not turn to the supernatural.

The advancements in civilization and science in the past what? few thousand years is still extremely small in evolutionary terms for the brain to expand its prefrontal cortex where large percentage of the decision making activities take place. We also don't require the 'flight or fight' mechanism as much as before. It does seem strange though (or maybe even explains a lot) that when I read these religious texts, a lot of it seems to be based on fear - fear of dark, fear of death, fear of the unknown, sometimes even fear of the known, like the origin of our species....and when many of it gives the impression that it has the answers to everything, I find that it explaining absolutely nothing whatsoever.

it still manifests itself during other kinds of stress, and if unreleased, it becomes a threat to the health and well-being of a person

I think if one watches something "strange", the first impulse might be for the brain to assess whether what you're seeing can be a threat to you or not. Whether or not it is will likely be determined by intuition because that's quicker which can then lead to a quicker appropriate fear response which will motivate you to remove yourself from danger.

Anyways, about texts based on fear, meme theory explains that quite easily. In a way, ideas can be compared to genes. They are able to replicate from one mind to another. Incompatible ideas (ex. there is a god / there is no god) compete against eachother for a limited resource which is a finite amount of minds that can possess them and the "fitness" of any idea is determined part by what sort of environment the idea exists in. Religious ideas on the whole have lower fitness in an environment where those ideas can convincingly be replaced by scientific ideas which promote critical thinking.

Ideas that can stir emotional responses may have an advantage over ideas which do not. Ideas (or "memes") can also work together or co-exist in a way that raises fitness for all of the cooperating ideas. For example the idea that there is a God and the idea that there is a hell will probably be better in the competitive mindscape if they can combine to create the idea that there is a God and not believing in him/her/it will send you to hell after you die. This is a very quick description of something you could read a whole book about, but generally speaking, such a religious combo-idea would likely be able to outcompete an idea that there is a God .. but it doesn't affect your well-being whether or not you believe in him/her/it.

So, ideas that appeal to fear and other emotional responses replicate efficiently in the mindscape as they are generally more competitive.

Tore is like what I would be if I were more polite, eloquent, intelligent, and patient.

tore is what I would be like if i tried to rationalise everything

but i just question everything, even the fabric of reality and perception itself

Tore is what I would be like if I had a 12" penis.