Contrastivism, or the contrast theory of meaning is an epistemological theory proposed by Jonathan Schaffer that suggests that knowledge attributions have a ternary structure of the form ‘S knows that p rather than q’. (source: Wikipedia)
In regard to Free Will debate, both Compatibilist and Non-compatibilist are right in contrast to a certain position. Compatibilist are right if we talking about freedom from constraints, while Non-compatibilist are right if we are considering freedom from causation.
We can never know whether we are living in a Matrix or not (Skeptic is right), but we do know a lot of things by contrasting them. For instance, I know I am writing this on a blog, not a paper.
Islam is growing faster than any other religion, according to a study by the Pew Research Center. In fact, most of the world’s major religious groups are expected to rise in absolute numbers by 2050, the research finds, with Islam set to overtake Christianity and become the world’s dominant religion by 2070.
Size and projected growth of major religious groups, 2010-2050
Image: Pew Research Center
Those not affiliated with any religion, such as atheists and agnostics, will make up a declining share of the world’s total population by 2050, though their numbers are increasing in more secular nations such as France and the United States.
The increase in followers of major religions will be, in large part, due to fertility rates and the size of youth populations in less secular nations.
Projected annual growth rate of country populations, 2010-2050
Image: Pew Research Center
In 2050, Christianity will still be the world’s largest religious group, with around a third of the world’s population adhering to its various denominations.
Islam is catching up quickly, though: Muslims make up the only major religious group projected to increase faster than the world’s population as a whole.
Projected change in global population, 2010-2050
Image: Pew Research Center
One of the main factors driving the future growth of religions is where each group is geographically concentrated today.
Religions with many followers in developing countries – where birth rates are high, and infant mortality rates have in general been falling – are likely to grow quickly. As such, much of the worldwide growth of Islam and Christianity will take place in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, where the population is expected to rise by 12% by 2050.
Total fertility rate by religion, 2010-2050
Image: Pew Research Center
In contrast, the world’s religiously unaffiliated population is heavily concentrated in places with low fertility and ageing populations, such as North America, Europe, China and Japan.
The low birth rate in China and Japan will also see falling numbers of Buddhists, as a proportion of the world population, by 2050, although the absolute number will remain stable, at around 486 million.
Another important factor for the growth of religion is the current age distribution of each faith group.
Age distribution of religious groups, 2010
Image: Pew Research Center
In 2010, 34% of the world’s Muslim population was under 15 years old, while 30% of Hindus and 27% of Christians were also under 15.
The large youth demographic is among the reasons why the number of Muslims is projected to grow faster than the world’s overall population. Hindus and Christians are expected to roughly keep pace with worldwide population growth, which is at 27%.
All the remaining groups have smaller-than-average youth populations, and many of them have disproportionately high numbers of followers over the age of 59. In 2010, 11% of the world’s population was at least 60, but 20% of followers of the Jewish faith were 60 or older.
The final factor that affects the growth of the world’s religions is when people convert to other faiths or become unaffiliated.
Projected cumulative change due to religious switching, 2010-2050
Image: Pew Research Center
Over the next 30 years Christianity is expected to experience the largest net losses from religious switching, with 106 million predicted to leave the faith and only about 40 million people entering it as converts.
Pew has pointed out, however, that the research was conducted with current population data and assumptions made about demographic trends. This means many factors could alter the trajectories predicted in the report. For example, if a large share of China’s population were to switch to Christianity, that shift could bolster Christianity’s current position as the world’s most populous religion.
Alternatively, if disaffiliation were to become common in countries with large Muslim populations, as it is now in some countries with large Christian populations such as the United Kingdom, the rise in the number of Muslims worldwide would be less dramatic.
The conflict between science and religion may have its origins in the structure of our brains, researchers at Case Western Reserve University and Babson College have found.
Clashes between the use of faith vs. scientific evidence to explain the world around us dates back centuries and is perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.
To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network, the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite.
“When there’s a question of faith, from the analytic point of view, it may seem absurd,” said Tony Jack, who led the research. “But, from what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and emotional insight.”
Jack is an associate professor of philosophy at Case Western Reserve and research director of the university’s Inamori International Center of Ethics and Excellence, which helped sponsor the research.
“A stream of research in cognitive psychology has shown and claims that people who have faith (i.e., are religious or spiritual) are not as smart as others. They actually might claim they are less intelligent.,” said Richard Boyatzis, distinguished university professor and professor of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve, and a member of Jack’s team.
“Our studies confirmed that statistical relationship, but at the same time showed that people with faith are more prosocial and empathic,” he said.
In a series of eight experiments, the researchers found the more empathetic the person, the more likely he or she is religious.
That finding offers a new explanation for past research showing women tend to hold more religious or spiritual worldviews than men. The gap may be because women have a stronger tendency toward empathetic concern than men.
Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.
The new study is published in the online journal PLOS ONE. The other authors are Jared Friedman, a research assistant and recent graduate in Philosophy and Cognitive Science who will begin his PhD in organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve in the fall, and Scott Taylor, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Babson College.
The research is based on the hypothesis that the human brain has two opposing domains in constant tension. In earlier research, Jack ‘s Brain, Mind & Consciousness lab used functional magnetic resonance imaging to show the brain has an analytical network of neurons that enables us to think critically and a social network that enables us to empathize. When presented with a physics problem or ethical dilemma, a healthy brain fires up the appropriate network while suppressing the other.
“Because of the tension between networks, pushing aside a naturalistic world view enables you to delve deeper into the social/emotional side,” Jack explained. “And that may be the key to why beliefs in the supernatural exist throughout the history of cultures. It appeals to an essentially nonmaterial way of understanding the world and our place in it.”
Friedman said, “Having empathy doesn’t mean you necessarily have anti-scientific beliefs. Instead, our results suggest that if we only emphasize analytic reasoning and scientific beliefs, as the New Atheist movement suggests, then we are compromising our ability to cultivate a different type of thinking, namely social/moral insight.”
“These findings,” Friedman continued, “are consistent with the philosophical view, espoused by (Immanuel) Kant, according to which there are two distinct types of truth: empirical and moral.”
Experiments and results
The researchers examined the relationship between belief in God or a universal spirit with measures of analytic thinking and moral concern in eight different experiments, each involving 159 to 527 adults. Consistently through all eight, the more religious the person, the more moral concern they showed. But no cause and effect was established.
They found that both spiritual belief and empathic concern were positively associated with frequency of prayer, meditations and other spiritual or religious practices, but neither were predicted by church dinners or other social contact associated with religious affiliation.
While others theorize that mentalizing—interpreting human behavior in terms of intentional mental states such as needs, desires or purposes—has a positive association with belief, the researchers found none.
Like other studies, these experiments showed that analytic thinking discourages acceptance of spiritual or religious beliefs. But the statistical analysis of data pooled from all eight experiments indicates empathy is more important to religious belief than analytic thinking is for disbelief.
So why can the conflict between science and religion become so strong?
“Because the networks suppress each other, they may create two extremes,” Boyatzis said. “Recognizing that this is how the brain operates, maybe we can create more reason and balance in the national conversations involving science and religion.”
Using both networks
The researchers say humans are built to engage and explore using both networks.
“Far from always conflicting with science, under the right circumstances religious belief may positively promote scientific creativity and insight,” Jack said. “Many of history’s most famous scientists were spiritual or religious. Those noted individuals were intellectually sophisticated enough to see that there is no need for religion and science to come into conflict.”
They refer to Baruch Aba Shalev’s book 100 years of Nobel Prizes, which found that, from 1901 to 2000, 654 Nobel laureates, or nearly 90 percent, belonged to one of 28 religions. The remaining 10.5 percent were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers.
“You can be religious and be a very good scientist,” Jack said.
The researchers agree with the New Atheists that suspension of analytical thinking—at the wrong time—can be dangerous, and point to the historical use of religious differences to persecute or fight wars.
“Although it is simply a distortion of history to pin all conflict on religion,” Jack said. “Non-religious political movements, such as fascism and communism, and quasi-scientific movements, such as eugenics, have also done great harm.”
The researchers suggest, however, that taking a carefully considered leap of religious faith appears be an effective route to promoting emotional insight. Theirs and other studies find that, overall, religious belief is associated with greater compassion, greater social inclusiveness and greater motivation to engage in pro-social actions.
Jack said the conflict can be avoided by remembering simple rules: “Religion has no place telling us about the physical structure of the world; that’s the business of science. Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and purpose in our lives.”
To dig deeper into belief, the researchers are planning studies to learn if individuals who increase their empathy then increase their religious or spiritual belief, or vice versa.
And like their counterparts in Germany, these neuroscientists say the new picture is much more in keeping with our intuitive sense of our free will. When we form a vague intention to move, they explain, this mind-set feeds into the background ebb and flow of neural activity, but the specific decision to act only occurs when the neural activity passes a key threshold — and our all-important subjective feeling of deciding happens at this point or a brief instant afterward. “All this leaves our common sense picture largely intact,” they write.
Neanderthals and modern humans were interbreeding much earlier than was previously thought, scientists say.
Traces of human DNA found in a Neanderthal genome suggest that we started mixing with our now-extinct relatives 100,000 years ago.
Previously it had been thought that the two species first encountered each other when modern humans left Africa, about 60,000 years ago.
Sophisticated geometry – the branch of mathematics that deals with shapes – was being used at least 1,400 years earlier than previously thought, a study suggests.
Research shows that the Ancient Babylonians were using geometrical calculations to track Jupiter across the night sky.
It had been thought that complex geometry was first used by scholars in Oxford and Paris in medieval times.
They used curves to trace the position and velocity of moving objects.
But now scientists believe the Babylonians developed this technique around 350 BC.