11 incredibly beautiful sacred spaces in Southern California that inspire awe 60%

By Deborah Netburn0%

10/9/2023, 11:00:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Anecdotal, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 41.5% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 990 faulty-reasoning hits from 299 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,795 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.80% of the article peer group.

Southern California is filled with gorgeous Buddhist temples, meditation gardens, churches and synagogues that inspire awe. 
Here are some worth a visit. 
Get ready to be wowed. 
Here in Southern California, we don’t need opulent churches or glimmering temples to commune with God, the divine or our higher selves. 
Watching the rhythmic roll of the ocean might do it. 
Finding a quiet spot on a hike. 
Lighting a candle in your bedroom. 
Noticing a flower blooming in a crack in concrete. 
And yet, if you’re like me, you can acknowledge that there’s something special about stepping into a vast and beautiful space built for collective and private worship that causes your heart to swell. 
It might be the architecture, or the sheer size of the structure. 
Maybe it’s the resonance of all those collective prayers. 
Maybe it’s the deep hush. 
The dim lights. 
Listed here are some of the sacred spaces I’ve visited in and around Los Angeles that made me say “Wow,” over and over again. 
Many of the buildings had some extremely wealthy donors. 
It takes serious money to build monumental spaces that convey the permanence of the divine. 
Sometimes that money can be assembled through many small donations, but having congregants with deep pockets helps. 
Visitors of all faiths and no faiths are warmly welcomed at every place mentioned below, and questions are encouraged. 
A final note: This is not an exhaustive list and it does not include all of the region’s many different religions. 
Treat this guide as a first step into this awe-inspiring world and a small slice of what’s out there. 
If you have a suggestion for a missing location, email me at deborah.netburn@latimes.com and it may be included in future coverage. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.4%Deborah Netburn: 4.8%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias15.4%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 27.4%Deborah Netburn: 9.1%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic27.4%This article: 8.4%Deborah Netburn: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic8.4%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Deborah Netburn: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias4.0%This article: 41.5%Deborah Netburn: 16.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect41.5%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.7%Deborah Netburn: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.1%Deborah Netburn: 7.0%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias15.1%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 5.3%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 11.0%Deborah Netburn: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias11.0%This article: 11.0%Deborah Netburn: 10.1%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%Deborah Netburn: 3.9%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect16.7%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Deborah Netburn: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias8.0%This article: 13.7%Deborah Netburn: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect13.7%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.4%Deborah Netburn: 3.2%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.4%Deborah Netburn: 20.3%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization20.4%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.1%Deborah Netburn: 10.7%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion19.1%This article: 3.0%Deborah Netburn: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question3.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.4%Deborah Netburn: 4.9%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal21.4%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading5.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote8.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 41.1%Deborah Netburn: 21.2%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice41.1%This article: 15.7%Deborah Netburn: 9.8%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination15.7%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deborah Netburn: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Deborah Netburn: 8.3%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.0%

299 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.