UBC social psychologists Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan conducted an experiment among 650 subjects to determine the relaitonship between analytical thinking and belief. The experiment were conducted in two stages. In the initial stage, they asked the subjects to rate on a scale how important their beliefs were on God or angels. Once done, the subjects proceeded to the next stage and were asked to perform some "mathematical computations, answered questions posed in "hard-to read fonts" and were shown a photo of Rodin's sculpture of a man in a reflective position."
While the researchers had no intention of promoting atheism or degrading religion, their study indicated that analytical thinking weakens the subjects' faith.
***
Analytical thinking is a tool. Two different persons could have a different purpose for using analytical thinking. The use of analytical thinking lies would depend on the subjects' pre-understanding of their relationship with the world at large. Logically, if two persons hold 2 different or opposing world perspectives, then they wouldn't not apply analytical thinking in the exact manner.
From one perspective, the study shows that analytical thinking weakens the subjects' faith. However, it could also have revealed the weak or the shallow understanding of the subjects' faith.
What do you think?
Petty and Cacciopo developed the Elaboration Likelihood Model which states that there two pathways to forming an attitude (or making a decision) - the central route and the peripheral route. In the central route, the individual examines the substantive pros/con issues, weighs the evidence,debates the issue, etc. and comes to a conclusion. In the peripheral route, the individual uses heuristics or rules (e.g, expert opinion) to make a decision. There is much less mental processing in the peripheral route than in the central route. Attidues formed via the central route are much stronger, those formed via the peripheral route are easier to change.
ReplyDeleteBasing one's beliefs on faith follows the peripheral route. It is not surprising then, that when presented with evidence, these beliefs tend to fall.
Human beings by nature seek knowledge and the order of things as these are essential to a innate drive to control one's environment. In the past, humankind did not have science. All they had were beliefs based on faith in the authority of mystics and religious/spiritual leaders to predict how "things" work and how the future will unfold.
Faith based on church authority is an anachronism. In St. Augustine's time, faith was all he had. He might have thought differently if he had science. In time, faith based on authority alone will disappear.
A point well taken.
DeleteI am reminded of those who are awed by the immensity, the beauty, and the mystery of the world, of mere existence, and senses the Presence that goes by several names: 'God', 'Force', 'Pure Being', "Pure Nothingness". It is Presence whose presence is intuited, but cannot be conceptualized. It is unspeakable, but one has to speak of it. This is not based on evidence nor on the relgious texts. It is a human encounter of something that has no confines, of something that is beyond human. It IS, but it is not a thing, otherwise, we could confine it in the exactness of a word, a concept. Now, for as long as we do not anthropomorphize it, that is, we do not project any human emotions to 'it' such as 'God is jealous', or "God is angry', then this faith, this conviction, this assurance that a Presence was intuitively felt, requires no evidence. And, he who encounters it, understands the experience for what it is, has no need for evidence.
Aristotle said that the sense of awe, wonder is the beginning of Philosophy. He was speaking of that Presence that does not require evidence. For a belief that is claimed to be based on evidence will certainly be weakened when it is proven that no evidence to back the claim exists.