Analytic Thinking Decreases Religious Beliefs

[iNow]

This came my way this morning and I found it interesting, so thought I'd share.

 

 

http://neurosciencenews.com/analytic-thinking-decrease-religious-belief-psychology-study

 

The study, which will appear in tomorrow’s issue of Science, finds that thinking analytically increases disbelief among believers and skeptics alike, shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief.

 

“Our goal was to explore the fundamental question of why people believe in a God to different degrees,” says lead author Will Gervais, a PhD student in UBC’s Dept. of Psychology. “A combination of complex factors influence matters of personal spirituality, and these new findings suggest that the cognitive system related to analytic thoughts is one factor that can influence disbelief.”

 

<...>

 

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.

 

“Our study builds on previous research that links religious beliefs to ‘intuitive’ thinking,” says study co-author and Associate Prof. Ara Norenzayan, UBC Dept. of Psychology. “Our findings suggest that activating the ‘analytic’ cognitive system in the brain can undermine the ‘intuitive’ support for religious belief"

 

This outcome strikes me as somewhat obvious, but perhaps a bit damning now that it's been supported with empiricism and neuroscience.

 

Aren't they saying that you must avoid reflection and analysis to maintain religious belief? Isn't it a consequence of this work that being unquestioning and willing to follow others uncritically are required for religious belief?

 

It's the intuitive shortcut piece that I think speaks to the specious nature of most religious mindsets.

[doG]

I actually found myself thinking just the other day about another thread where it seems to me that people without skepticism are broken. Nice to see some supporting material in that vein.

[iNow]

More here:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief

 

People who are intuitive thinkers are more likely to be religious, but getting them to think analytically even in subtle ways decreases the strength of their belief, according to a new study in Science.

 

The research, conducted by University of British Columbia psychologists Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan, does not take sides in the debate between religion and atheism, but aims instead to illuminate one of the origins of belief and disbelief. "To understand religion in humans," Gervais says, "you need to accommodate for the fact that there are many millions of believers and nonbelievers."

 

<...>

 

Analytic thinking undermines belief because, as cognitive psychologists have shown, it can override intuition. And we know from past research that religious beliefs—such as the idea that objects and events don't simply exist but have a purpose—are rooted in intuition. "Analytic processing inhibits these intuitions, which in turn discourages religious belief," Norenzayan explains.

 

Harvard University psychologist Joshua Greene, who last year published a paper on the same subject with colleagues Amitai Shenhav and David Rand, praises this work for its rigorous methodology. "Any one of their experiments can be reinterpreted, but when you've got [multiple] different kinds of evidence pointing in the same direction, it's very impressive."

[DrmDoc]

I've seen this article and I believe it provides a very cogent perspective. However, analytical thought, to my chagrin, has recently swayed my perspective somewhat to the contrary when considering and discussing the origin of the universe. Although some supreme supernatural being as a creator is not my position, I believe that finding and considering that something (the universe) can arise from nothing--or some theorhetical singularity or collision between multi-dimensional strings without explanation of their origins--is in an of itself a belief in magic and the mystical, which is little more than religion. Isn't quantum theory and all its eloquent mathmatical expressions of analytical thought little more than an effort to quantify the metaphysical? These are merely my observations and not an intent to make this a discussion about religion, which, like politics, I abhor.

Edited April 28, 2012 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

Isn't quantum theory and all its eloquent mathmatical expressions of analytical thought little more than an effort to quantify the metaphysical?

I would caution you not to dismiss it so quickly based on such limited grasp. After all, the computer you used that allowed you to submit your thoughts here above is based on those very expressions and quantifications.

Edited April 28, 2012 by iNow

[DrmDoc]

I would caution you not to dismiss it so quickly based on such limited grasp. After all, the computer you used that allowed you to submit your thoughts here above is based on those very expressions and quantifications.

I agree; however, holding a scientific frame of thought--relative to quantum theory--isn't easy wherein certain laws of physics (as we may currently understand them) do not seem to apply and where particles are ascribed mystical names relative to their nature such as up quark, down quark, and, most peculiarly, strange quark--strange indeed.

[iNow]

Here's a snippet from the actual study:

 

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.abstract

 

If religious belief emerges through a converging set of intuitive processes, and analytic processing can inhibit or override intuitive processing, then analytic thinking may undermine intuitive support for religious belief. Thus, a dual-process account predicts that analytic thinking may be one source of religious disbelief. Recent evidence is consistent with this hypothesis finding that individual differences in reliance on intuitive thinking predict greater belief in God, even after controlling for relevant socio-demographic variables. However, evidence for causality remains rare. Here we report five studies that present empirical tests of this hypothesis.

 

We adopted three complementary strategies to test for robustness and generality. First, study 1 tested whether individual differences in the tendency to engage analytic thinking are associated with reduced religious belief. Second, studies 2 to 5 established causation by testing whether various experimental manipulations of analytic processing, induced subtly and implicitly, encourage religious disbelief. . . Third, across studies, we assessed religious belief using diverse measures that focused primarily on belief in and commitment to religiously endorsed supernatural agents. Samples consisted of participants from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds.

 

 

Jerry Coyne actually spends some time taking readers through those five studies here: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/analytical-thinking-promotes-unbelief/

[ecoli]

I've seen this article and I believe it provides a very cogent perspective. However, analytical thought, to my chagrin, has recently swayed my perspective somewhat to the contrary when considering and discussing the origin of the universe. Although some supreme supernatural being as a creator is not my position, I believe that finding and considering that something (the universe) can arise from nothing--or some theorhetical singularity or collision between multi-dimensional strings without explanation of their origins--is in an of itself a belief in magic and the mystical, which is little more than religion. Isn't quantum theory and all its eloquent mathmatical expressions of analytical thought little more than an effort to quantify the metaphysical? These are merely my observations and not an intent to make this a discussion about religion, which, like politics, I abhor.

How do you know you're thinking analytically, as they define it in the study.

 

From the article: "Researchers used problem-solving tasks and subtle experimental priming"

 

Seems to me that speculations about magic being the cause of the universe is not really what they meant by the term.

[DrmDoc]

How do you know you're thinking analytically, as they define it in the study.

 

From the article: "Researchers used problem-solving tasks and subtle experimental priming"

 

Seems to me that speculations about magic being the cause of the universe is not really what they meant by the term.

Quantum theory is rooted in analytical thinking and experimentation (via particle collision), which is essential to any discussion on the origin of the universe. Quantum theory regards the nature of existence or physical reality at its smallest level wherein the accepted and verified laws of physics, applicable to the large, do not seem to apply. In my view, analytical thought and experimentation regarding phenomena outside the boudaries of physical law is an investigation of the metaphyical--which is an investigation of magic although that is not the focus of this thread or the article referenced above. My musings here were merely referencing a perspective on analytical thought via quantum theory that appears to lead to a perspective less analytical in nature.

Edited May 1, 2012 by DrmDoc

[eleggua]

This kind of research had been done since 1930. Most of it got the same results. Psychologists also compared religious radicals (nontraditional religion) and religious conservatives (traditional religion, far example catholicism). They found that religious radicals had higher IQ means. So it suggests that it is all about questioning, doubting and thinking - religious radicals question religion more than conservatives, and atheists do the most.

[iNow]

This kind of research had been done since 1930. Most of it got the same results. Psychologists also compared religious radicals (nontraditional religion) and religious conservatives (traditional religion, far example catholicism). They found that religious radicals had higher IQ means. So it suggests that it is all about questioning, doubting and thinking - religious radicals question religion more than conservatives, and atheists do the most.

Can you clarify what you mean by the term "religious radicals," and/or cite a study or article where I can read more about this?

[MonDie]

How does the test of religious belief work? Maybe religious people are willing to express a little more doubt if that makes them seem more rational. Our culture has formed a popular image of the rational atheist. Also, even some Christian religions embrace prudence. The catholic church taught that nobody could know for sure that they were "in God's grace," which could be thought of as a sort of disbelief.

Such ideals could have played a role in the experiment involving the statue although my idea is probably insignificant for the experiment involving the different fonts.

 

 

Religions are only the products of less science-oriented cultures, and I doubt that any culture fundamentally lacks rational thinking. If the experimental conditions aren't just impacting conformity or aspiration toward an ideal of being intellectual, we might observe a similar result for uneducated people expressing belief or disbelief in concepts that are beyond their understanding. Of course, this is not an attack on science because science values doubt more than religion does.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

How does the test of religious belief work?

Have you taken a moment to look to the source? Seems the best place to answer your question.

 

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Science-2012-Gervais-493-6.pdf

[MonDie]

Have you taken a moment to look to the source? Seems the best place to answer your question.

 

http://www2.psych.ub...rvais-493-6.pdf

 

I read the article, and the alternative interpretation given above is still by far the best thing I can come up with. Their hypothesis was based on the dual process model, and with regard to my idea that uneducated people might doubt complex scientific concepts for the same reason the religious people doubted superstitions, I now mention that studies have shown that when an expert gives an explanation that is too confusing to follow, the listeners tend to take the peripheral route by simply trusting in the expert's opinion.

 

However, I think they have more arguments for why religion is supported by intuitive thinking. Religious people usually justify their beliefs with personal experiences rather than appeal to authority, and interpretations of personal experiences can be strongly influenced by the type of intuitive thinking mentioned in the article.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die