I like arguing with religious people, but it is only rarely that I find a really challenging religious argument, largely because religious belief, although it often has a superficial logic, is rooted not in logic, but intuition. And so, most religious debates end up being more about a clash of logical premises, than logical arguments.
But just because religion has roots in intuition doesn’t mean intuition is all bad.
The findings, Gervais says, are based on a longstanding human psychology model of two distinct, but related cognitive systems to process information: an “intuitive” system that relies on mental shortcuts to yield fast and efficient responses, and a more “analytic” system that yields more deliberate, reasoned responses.
The study in this article is interesting to me, because it makes a point which I have long argued. Critical (analytic) thinking is what we should be encouraging, while atheism is just one possible result. I know some atheists will argue that atheism and science/rationalism go hand in hand, but I don’t think this is necessarily true.