BBC Focus Magazine

[Shadowwolf]

A new University of British Columbia study finds that analytic thinking can decrease religious belief, even in devout believers

The study, which is published in the April 27 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.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426143856.htm

More detail on the story our own James Lloyd ran here.

[10_Rufus]

Now how long before some sort of backlash occurs?

well in seriousness, that is very interesting, and explains a lot, I think.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I rather think that the "backlash" has already begun Rufus, as I have noted a steady rise in outspoken church leaders condemning what I would view as perfectly rational atheistic commentry as militant attacks upon religion and its percieved place in society.

Either way it does rather suggest that anyone of a religious persuasion would try to avoid rational thought for fear of undermining their own belief doesn't it?

This is one of the reasons why I find it hard to accept that anyone with a scientifically analytical way of thinking can have any really serious religious belief, but I got nowhere with that one did I?

[Nails]

This is one of the reasons why I find it hard to accept that anyone with a scientifically analytical way of thinking can have any really serious religious belief, but I got nowhere with that one did I?

We are natural-born dualists and holding two contradictory positions in one brain is not uncommon.

[M Paul Lloyd]

That's probably the best explanation I think I have ever heard Nails, thanks.

I still wonder how such a dichotomy can exist within the mind-set of someone predisposed towards rational thought but at least it has a reason.

[Shadowwolf]

Cognitive dissonance is also related, reasonable information as far as I know is to be had here at Wiki

[M Paul Lloyd]

This is all very illuminating stuff and could help explain a whole array of associated conflicting beliefs.

Going beyond the Wiki link (which was most illuminating thankyou Mr,S ) I have found all sorts of situations where it can be applied and it seems to be quite a widespread phenomena. The religious scientist idea being just one small area of a much wider whole.

It could (in my entirely inexpert opinion) even help explain such debilitating conditions as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder wherby someone has found themsleves carrying out acts which conflict deeply with their core beliefs and the inability to reconcile that conflict leads to mental disorder? Possibly?
To be honest I cannot think of a more clearcut example of how such a condition could go horribly wrong whilst belief in a deity, which is a fundamentally benign concept, is far more easily reconciled even when that person is forced through their work to carry out experiments which conflict with their religious beliefs.
It also helps explain how terrorists, who are fundamentally evil, can reconcile a religious motive for acts of utter carnage and destruction!!

Intruigingly I see a degree of Cognitive Dissonance within the very concept itself in that it is viewed by the world of Psycology as both a good and a bad thing, depending upon how it is applied.

[worldmaker]

Thinking about this analytically.... (had to get that in), I wonder whether this reflects an underlying basis for religious believe - infantile approaches to the world?

Children don't analyse, they don't have the mental function to think things through objectively (I'll be there's a really clever way of stating all this in boffin-speak). The adult brain can do this, but often doesn't, whether this is through a lack of effective training or just genetics (a lot of people like to excuse their behaviour nowadays by saying "it's genetic").

At the heart of infantile behaviour is a strong element of trust in parents to look after and comfort them, and adults who grow up with this fixation need an adult comfort figure to look up to, Big Brother, God, The Giant Gherkin, etc. Take that away, or threaten to and their throw a tantrum, crusade, (no body expects the) Spanish Inquisition, etc.

[Colm]

analytic thinking can decrease religious belief

Of course! Even most religions themselves admit (though they probably wouldn't use the word admit) that their religion is all about faith and the ability not to use analytic thinking!
You start analytic thinking, then you start looking for evidence.
But once you're looking for evidence, you are not using faith.

I didn't think we'd need a study to tell us that!

[M Paul Lloyd]

I didn't think we'd need a study to tell us that!

True.

[SteveCallaghan]

We are increasingly (Dawkins et al) told that religious belief is physiologically predetermined as an evolutionary development, coinciding with being intelligent enough to deduce our own mortality. So... what is it that allows the agnostic to doubt and the atheist to be bold enough to state non-existence of a superpower/an afterlife? Has anyone worked out whether there have always been the same rough percentages of agnostics and atheists, albeit joining in the partying in some cultures or attending other gatherings to avoid persecution, or whether this is an increasing phenomenom? This would make an interesting piece of work. If some are looking at this field, please post, as I should love to follow the process.

[Shadowwolf]

Welcome along good sir

I've personally no idea if anyone is looking at that aspect and I'm not aware of any user of this here forum being involved in that kind of research, maybe lurking, who knows. If it does crop up I'm sure it will get some mention round these here parts.

I also find it somewhat intriguing as agnosticism is almost practically atheism that is for some reason hedged, some atheists just categorically state what agnostics have already acknowledged when they note that there is no evidence to believe the religious claims being put forward. It would seem that a general agnostic places more weight upon needing to essentially know the entire verse before deciding whether or not there is a god in it. Whereas the atheist reaches a conclusion based on the evidence to date, if there is no evidence then we provisionally assume that until such evidence comes along, nothing is there. Everyone does this all the time for many gods, fantastical creatures and supernatural entities or phenomena, we don't sit in the middle giving equal merit to the chance of their existing, if we have no good reason to date for their existence then it is simplest to assume that they don't. However, in the case of particular dogmas there isn't even an option for 'maybe' as they fail by their own internal structure, agnosticism in those cases is probably tied to a refusal for whatever reason to categorically acknowledge the impossibility of a faith they were undoubtedly raised in.

Now in science it is true that nothing is 100% fact, that absolute certainty is never guaranteed, there might be some incredible discovery that completely overturns the prevailing knowledge and perhaps evolution or the BBT is completely mistaken. However, the chances of either of those being overturned diminish as they receive more and more confirmation, and do so to a point where for all intents and purposes they are as close to fact as one may get in science. So I think it fair that even though we don't know the entire verse, as we have not one iota of evidence for any religious claim or deity and thus not even provenance for the idea, we may then quite reasonably conclude that there is nothing there.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Hello and welcome Steve, good to have your input.
I am no expert only someone with a great need to understand what it is that makes people believe in an afterlife, eternal all seeing god and so forth.
Now whilst I have the greatest respect for Mr. Dawkins in my humble opinion I think he may be wrong, at least in part.
You see I don't think we 'evolved' towards religion as part of our becoming intelligent enough to deduce our own mortality but rather that when we were struggling against the odds for our very survival in the dark of a cold night surrounded by wild and vicious predators it was a simple step to unload all our anxiety upon some delusion (possibly not helped by extreme hunger) which, once the hard times had passed, we looked back upon it all as a source of great solace and from this basic survival delusion so we began to form ever more complex and organised ways of offsetting our fears and problems.

Possibly. ?

[SteveCallaghan]

Interesting, both, so thanks.
Shall continue to drop by...
Steve