Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief

[Garnaqsi]

Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief

A series of new experiments shows that analytic thinking can override intuitive assumptions, including those that underlie religious belief - Marina Krakovsky (Scientific American).

 

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."

 

One of their studies correlated measures of religious belief with people's scores on a popular test of analytic thinking. The test poses three deceptively simple math problems. One asks: "If it takes five machines five minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?" The first answer that comes to mind—100 minutes—turns out to be wrong. People who take the time to reason out the correct answer (five minutes) are, by definition, more analytical—and these analytical types tend to score lower on the researchers' tests of religious belief.

 

But the researchers went beyond this interesting link, running four experiments showing that analytic thinking actually causes disbelief. In one experiment, they randomly assigned participants to either the analytic or control condition. They then showed them photos of either Rodin's The Thinker or, in the control condition, of the ancient Greek sculpture Discobolus, which depicts an athlete poised to throw a discus. (The Thinker was used because it is such an iconic image of deep reflection that, in a separate test with different participants, seeing the statue improved how well subjects reasoned through logical syllogisms.) After seeing the images, participants took a test measuring their belief in God on a scale of 0 to 100. Their scores on the test varied widely, with a standard deviation of about 35 in the control group. But it is the difference in the averages that tells the real story: In the control group, the average score for belief in God was 61.55, or somewhat above the scale's midpoint. On the other hand, for the group who had just seen The Thinker, the resulting average was only 41.42. Such a gap is large enough to indicate a mild believer is responding as a mild nonbeliever—all from being visually reminded of the human capacity to think.

 

Another experiment used a different method to show a similar effect. It exploited the tendency, previously identified by psychologists, of people to override their intuition when faced with the demands of reading a text in a hard-to-read typeface. Gervais and Norenzayan did this by giving two groups a test of participants' belief in supernatural agents like God and angels, varying only the font in which the test was printed. People who took the belief test in the unclear font (a typewriterlike font set in italics) expressed less belief than those who took it in a more common, easy-to-read typeface. "It's such a subtle manipulation," Norenzayan says. "Yet something that seemingly trivial can lead to a change that people consider important in their religious belief system." On a belief scale of 3 to 21, participants in the analytic condition scored an average of almost two points lower than those in the control group.

 

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."

 

The study also gets high marks from University of California, Irvine, evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala, the only former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science to have once been ordained as a Catholic priest, and who continues to assert that science and religion are compatible. Ayala calls the studies ingenious, and is surprised only that the effects are not even stronger. "You would expect that the people who challenge the general assumptions of their culture—in this case, their culture's religious beliefs—are obviously the people who are more analytical," he says.

 

The researchers, for their part, point out that both reason and intuition have their place. "Our intuitions can be phenomenally useful," Gervais says, "and analytic thinking isn't some oracle of the truth."

 

Greene concurs, while also raising a provocative question implicit in the findings: "Obviously, there are millions of very smart and generally rational people who believe in God," he says. "Obviously, this study doesn't prove the nonexistence of God. But it poses a challenge to believers: If God exists, and if believing in God is perfectly rational, then why does increasing rational thinking tend to decrease belief in God?"

 

Any takes on the last question? I've found the article in this week's edition of Scientific American and thought it was interesting.

[nuune]

Wax interesting la dhaho ma jiro, you are either a believer in God, or Kaaffir jaahil mulxid murtad ilaah ka furtey oo Jahannama sugeyso iney diirato, labadaas wax ka dhaxeeyo ma jiro, wixii diintooda ka suuban ka baxey after reading few books and articles of interesting waxaan leeyahey naari idin cuntey,

 

mulxid murtad kuffaar diintiisa ka baxey oon walwal iyo walaac ku jirin waan waayey aniga, farxadii baa ka suushey, summum bukmun cumyun fahum laa yarjicuuna

[Abu-Salman]

I've seen another article next to that one stating again that most American Doctors were quite religious and around half of them going to their churche/mosque/temple regularly and yet they are among the busiest, most well-offs.

 

I suppose it is all about one's own mindset and preconceptions, since many of the genius throughout history were more or less spiritual minded if not fervent believers (Newton, Pasteur, even Einstein did believe in a higher force ordering and guiding physical laws etc).

 

Now, science do not happen in a social vacuum (there are no totally "objective" scientists, hence science) as epistemiologists underlined; my opinion is that only superficial knowledge engender spiritual doubts while a more holistic, deeper knowledge and thinking leads to the opposite (my scientific readings over the long run tend to confirm exactely my belief, the wisdom in its concomitant legislation etc).

 

And the role of science or scientific expertise should not be exaggerated anyway, as neophytes tend to; Newtonian physics was considered as definitive befor the Quantum revolution, yet even a science as fundamental as physics is constantly evolving.

 

As for rationality versus intuition, they both have their place and it is naive to expect "rational thinking" to leads to higher truths in a human context; in the decision making field, intuition, "sleeping over a problem" etc may often produces dramatically better answers as hinted by the concerned experts (particularly when the load of information or factors to analyse tend to be overwhelming)...

[burahadeer]

caydiiba bilaabantay:D

[Mario B]

Garnaqsi, now that you have proven the non-existence of God and you have also proven that we are indeed all atheists, let's now move to the small matter of "Somaliland", do you think they should cede?

[Blessed]

errm.. would it be too clever of religious little to enquire about the sample size, sampling strategy?

[NGONGE]

^^ Baah! Sample, Shmable. These guys wasted their time proving this theory of theirs. They should have read Nabi Ibrahim's story; he proved the same thing long before. Analytic thinking does indeed undermine belief but, surely, someone with an analytical is not going to stop at the first instance of doubt in his belief and would rather carry on through the valleys of doubt and hills of certainty his entire life. Why else does god instructs us to look, ponder and marvel at his creation!

[Blessed]

I'm not really interested in the detail to be honest or this constant debate about faith. It just seems a bit fraudulent of these researchers to make that sort of generalisation when they haven't been clear about the research process.

[AYOUB]

Garnaqsi;824681 wrote:

But the researchers went beyond this interesting link, running four experiments showing that analytic thinking actually causes disbelief. In one experiment, they randomly assigned participants to either the analytic or control condition. They then showed them photos of either Rodin's The Thinker or, in the control condition, of the ancient Greek sculpture Discobolus, which depicts an athlete poised to throw a discus. (The Thinker was used because it is such an iconic image of deep reflection that, in a separate test with different participants, seeing the statue improved how well subjects reasoned through logical syllogisms.) After seeing the images, participants took a test measuring their belief in God on a scale of 0 to 100. Their scores on the test varied widely, with a standard deviation of about 35 in the control group. But it is the difference in the averages that tells the real story: In the control group, the average score for belief in God was 61.55, or somewhat above the scale's midpoint. On the other hand, for the group who had just seen The Thinker, the resulting average was only 41.42. Such a gap is large enough to indicate a mild believer is responding as a mild nonbeliever—all from being visually reminded of the human capacity to think.

Haha. Legjar ferenji niman baa akhriya psudoscience iyo been, but that's just laughable.

[Raamsade]

nuune;824686 wrote:

Wax interesting la dhaho ma jiro, you are either a believer in God, or Kaaffir jaahil mulxid murtad ilaah ka furtey oo Jahannama sugeyso iney diirato, labadaas wax ka dhaxeeyo ma jiro, wixii diintooda ka suuban ka baxey after reading few books and articles of interesting waxaan leeyahey naari idin cuntey,

 

mulxid murtad kuffaar diintiisa ka baxey oon walwal iyo walaac ku jirin waan waayey aniga, farxadii baa ka suushey, summum bukmun cumyun fahum laa yarjicuuna

Lol... odeygan sheekada wey ka hoos baxdee, bal yaa qaban doona? Waryaa Nuune, war is deji. Iska dhaaf xanaaqa iyo dhiigkarka. Haddii kale, Diinlaawayaal baa computer screen kaaga soo dhex dusi doona si ee kuu gaaleeyaan.

[Raamsade]

One of the great appeals of organized religions is that they simplify otherwise complex world into pre-packaged set of binary choices. Good and Evil. Xalaal and Xaraam. Heaven and Hell. Dos and Donts. Why bother with the tough task of thinking for yourself when you can relegate that to others. That is why we have Churches, Mosques, Synagogs, Temples and by extension self-help gurus because no one wants to take respensibility for themselves... people are enticed by the idea that everything will be hunky-dory if you pray this way and read these verses. But the surrender of independent thought means you're prone to being misled as we often see with religious people. Muslims all over the world are blowing themselves and others up on the believe that they're going to go to heaven. None of them have paused for a second and asked: wait a minute, is this even true?

[N.O.R.F]

Dr. Jeffrey Lang

Everyone’s journey to Islam is unique, but Dr. Lang’s is surely an interesting one.

 

When young Jeffery asked his father about the existence of heaven as they walked their dog along the beach, it was apparent that this child possessed a highly inquisitive mind.

 

There perhaps was also a sign that he would subject things to a logical scrutiny and validate them from a rational perspective. Little surprise was it, then, that one day he would end up being a professor of mathematics, a matter where there is no place for anything but logic.

 

During his senior years at the Notre Dame Boys High, a Catholic school, he formed certain rational objections against belief in the existence of a Supreme Being. Discussions with the school Priest, his parents, and classmates could not convince him of the existence of God, and to the dismay of the Priest and his parents, he turned into an atheist at the age of eighteen. He was to remain so for the next ten years throughout his undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral studies. It was a little before or after his becoming an atheist that he first saw the following dream:

 

"It was a tiny room with no furniture, and there was nothing on its grayish-white walls. Its only adornment was the predominantly red-and-white patterned carpet that covered the floor. There was a small window, like a basement window, above and facing us, filling the room with brilliant light. We were in rows; I was in the third. There were only men, no women, and all of us were sitting on our heels and facing the direction of the window. It felt foreign. I recognized no one. Perhaps I was in another country. We bowed down uniformly, our faces to the floor. It was serene and quiet, as if all sound had been turned off. All at once, we sat back on our heels. As I looked ahead, I realized that we were being led by someone in front who was off to my left, in the middle, below the window. He stood alone. I only had the briefest glance at his back. He was wearing a long white gown, and on his head was a white scarf with a red design. And that is when I would awaken."

 

During the next ten years of his atheist life, he was to see the same dream several times. He would not be disturbed by the dream, however, for he would feel strangely comfortable when he awoke. But not knowing what it was, he could not make any sense out of it and thus gave no importance to it despite its repetitions.

 

Ten years later in his first lecture at the University of San Francisco, he met a Muslim student who attended his mathematics class. He was soon to develop a friendship with him and his family. Religion, however, was not the topic of discussion during the time he shared with that Muslim family, and it was much later that one of the family members handed to him a copy of the Quran.

The Quran was always way ahead of my thinking; it was erasing barriers I had built years ago and was addressing my queries

He was not looking for a religion. Nevertheless, he started reading the Quran, but with a strong prejudice. “You cannot simply read the Quran, not if you take it seriously. You either have surrendered to it already or you fight it. It attacks tenaciously, directly, personally; it debates, criticizes, shames, and challenges. From the outset it draws the line of battle, and I was on the other side.” Thus he found himself in an interesting battle. “I was at a severe disadvantage, for it became clear that the Author knew me better than I knew myself.” It was as if the Author was reading his mind. Every night he would make up certain questions and objections, but would find the answer in his next readings as he continued his readings in the accepted order. “The Quran was always way ahead of my thinking; it was erasing barriers I had built years ago and was addressing my queries.” He fought vigorously with objections and questions, but it was apparent that he was loosing the battle. “I was being led, working my way into a corner that contained only one choice.”

 

It was early 80’s and there were not many Muslims at the University of San Francisco campus. He discovered a small place at the basement of a church where a few Muslim students made their daily prayers. After much struggle in his mind, he came up with enough courage to go and visit that place. When he came out of that place a few hours later, he had already declared the shahadah, the proclamation of a new life – “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is His messenger.”

 

After he made his proclamation, it was the time for the afternoon prayer and he was invited to participate. He stood up in rows with other students behind a prayer leader named Ghassan, and started following them in prayer:

 

"We bowed down in prostration with our faces on the red-and-white carpet. It was serene and quiet, as if the sound had been turned off. And then we sat back on our heels again. As I looked ahead, I could see Ghassan, off to my left, in the middle, below the window that was flooding the room with light. He was alone, without a row. He was wearing a long white gown and on his head was a white scarf with a red design. The dream! I screamed inwardly. The dream exactly! I had forgotten it completely, and now I was stunned and frightened. Am I dreaming? I wondered. Will I awaken? I tried to focus on what was happening to determine whether I was asleep. A rush of cold flowed through my body, making me shudder. My God, this is real! Then the coldness subsided, succeeded by gentle warmth radiating from within. Tears welled up in my eyes."

 

Everyone’s journey to Islam is unique, varying from one another in many different ways, but Dr. Lang’s is an interesting one. From one who challenged the existence of God, he became a firm believer in God. From a warrior who fought a fierce battler against the Quran, he became one who surrendered to it. From one who never knew love and who only wanted to live a comfortable materialistic life until he died and became “long-forgotten soil underneath an unmarked grave”, he turned into one whose life became full of love, mercy, and spiritualism. “God will bring you to your knees, Jeffery!”, said his father when he denied the existence of God at the age of eighteen. Ten years later, that became a reality. He was now on his knees, and his forehead on the ground. The highest part of his body that contained all of his knowledge and intellect was now on the lowest ground in complete submission before the Majesty of God.

 

Like all Muslim reverts, Dr. Lang felt that he was favored by God’s mercy and that it was God Himself who directed him to Islam. “I perceived that God was always near, directing my life, creating the circumstances and opportunities to choose, yet always leaving the crucial choices to me. I was awestruck by the realization of the intimacy and love that reveals, not because we deserve it, but because it is always there and all we have to do is turn to Him to receive it. I cannot say with certainty what the meaning of that vision was, but I could not help seeing in it a sign, a favor, and a new chance.”

 

References

 

Bibliography:

 

Dr. Jeffrey Lang, “Struggling to Surrender”, Beltsville, 1994.

 

Dr. Jeffrey Lang, “Even Angels Ask”, Beltsville, 1997.

 

Source: http://www.welcome-back.org/

[Chimera]

As if atheists never invented systems that simplified and pre-packaged entire complex societies. Ever heard of communism? Where was the free thought in this case? Indeed, an atheist system like Communism is responsible for the death of at least 100 million people in both Russia and China, this is a death toll a million 'muslim' suicide-bombers could never match, and the irony in this comparison is the reality that the percentage of suicide-bombers in the 1.5 billion global muslim population is next to nothing, indeed the majority of Muslims ask themselves various existential questions on a daily basis, and they remain firmly muslim.

 

Atheists usually accuse religious people of having 'blind faith' while they ignore their own 'blind doubt'. Their spiritual poverty is cloaked as being 'enlightened' or 'thinking independently', when they are basically immoral anarchists in collision with general society. Their disorganised beliefs go against the human nature of 'order' and 'organisation', all of which are deeply rooted in religion. They try to invoke the 'false dilemma' fallacy to ridicule religious practicioners and their orderly way of life, yet they live in societies based on 'rules' and 'laws' and on 'morals', which they themselves follow and apply in daily life; i.e others thought out 'how they should behave in society', and the atheists sheepishly adhere to it abidingly.

 

Deep down they know the beliefs they hold go against human nature, and its a scary dark feeling of loneliness, and while they will never admit it; secretly they envy the masses that are content with following an organised religion. It's why they indulge and occupy themselves completely with materialistic objects and wealth to compensate, because somewhere along the way in their lives, in the vortex of their mind, certain neurons clashed with others and made their nervous system incapable of religious thought. It's a brain-defect comparable to problematic youth that suffered trauma during their childhood and as a result in adulthood they are incapable of processing emotions.

 

Their minds are majoritely analytical, with a small minority intuitive, while from the study above we know amongst religious people its more balanced. Which is why when educated religious people analyse their own religion and their place in it, they do not engage in 'blind doubt' instead they scrutinise it, and then accept it through intuition. Its an emotion the Atheists unfortunately have lost, hence their absolutist stance on any matter pertaining God or Heaven.

 

It's quite clear that Atheists suffer from delusions of grandeur, a comical self-perception that they are more 'unique' than the rest of religious humanity, because they rejected the concept of a higher intelligence, which is tantamount to an Ant in a forest in Zambia rejecting the concept of a higher intelligence living at the International Space Station. Indeed that disbelieving Ant would go as far as telling all the other Ants that they are ignorant sheep for believing in something they do not have the means to 'prove'.

 

It makes them feel special in society, they are societal rebels equivalant to 70s Punk rockers fighting the establishment, However those 70s Punk rockers eventually do away with childish things and naturally melt with society, while atheists maintain their brain-defect until they hit the grave, because we are dealing with a cult here, one a religious person should feel empathy with, for the only reason we do not share their dark inner lonely thoughts is because our neurons successfully transmitted and processed information, and the building blocks of our nervous system remained intact.

 

This is why we are content in life.

[Garnaqsi]

*Blessed;824983 wrote:

I'm not really interested in the detail to be honest or this constant debate about faith. It just seems a bit fraudulent of these researchers to make that sort of generalisation when they haven't been clear about the research process.

What do you mean by 'they haven't been clear about the research process'? I had no luck tracking down the original paper, but I would be darn surprised if they didn't outline the research process at the start of the paper and provide all the relevant statistics.

[Garnaqsi]

NGONGE;824973 wrote:

^^ Baah! Sample, Shmable. These guys wasted their time proving this theory of theirs. They should have read Nabi Ibrahim's story; he proved the same thing long before. Analytic thinking does indeed undermine belief but, surely, someone with an analytical is not going to stop at the first instance of doubt in his belief and would rather carry on through the valleys of doubt and hills of certainty his entire life. Why else does god instructs us to look, ponder and marvel at his creation!

I don't know whether to take you seriously or not, to be honest.