‘Scientific’ Study Says People of Faith Are Stupid

The Christian Diarist ^ | April 28, 2012 | JP

[CHRISTIAN DIARIST]

In a study published yesterday in the journal Science, researchers from Canada’s University of British Columbia posit that people who believe in God are not analytical thinkers.

That’s a disingenuous way of saying people of faith are stupid.

“Religious belief is intuitive,” explained Ara Norenzayan, co-author of the study, “and analytical thinking can undermine intuitive thinking. So when people are encouraged to think analytically, it can block intuitive thinking.”

In other words, when religious people analyze their beliefs, they become less devout. They go from stupid to smart, like Norenzayan and fellow co-author Will Gervais.

So how did the researchers test their hypothesis?

They recruited 650 or so Canucks and Yanks to participate in their study. They showed some participants images of artwork that supposedly encouraged analytical thinking – like Rodin’s statue, “The Thinker.” Other participants were shown images that did not encourage such thinking.

After viewing the images, researchers measured participants’ religious beliefs through a series of questions. The participants who viewed the images promoting analytical thinking were more likely to experience a decrease in religious belief, the researchers claimed.

And that supposedly included devout believers.

“There’s much more instability to religious belief than we recognize,” said Norenzayan. Apparently so, if a person of faith can look at a few pictures and suddenly lose his or her religion.

As it turns out, there was less to the miraculous de-conversions than the researchers claimed in their study.

Their experiment didn’t really turn devout believers into total atheists, Norenzayan fessed up. Yet, he maintained, if people routinely thought analytically, like scientific researchers do, there would be fewer people of faith.

The study by Norenzayan and Gervais is nothing more than junk science.

It is an insult to people of faith who are well-educated; who arrived at their religious beliefs by analytical thinking.

And it reflects poorly on the judgment of editors at the journal Science.

[CHRISTIAN DIARIST]

At least 50 Nobel Prize-winning scientists have professed belief in God. Were they not analytical thinkers?

[Rodm]

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous “I think therefore I am”. Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées (”Thoughts”), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s last words were, “May God never abandon me.”
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...’ As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty.” Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860’s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.” Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a “tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition” with the goal “toward God!”

[hinckley buzzard]

Science, like Nature, has discredited itself by unethical editorail practices relating to the AGW scam. No serious scientist accepts these magazines now as primary sources. They no longer qualify as "journals" outside the hermetically sealed academic bell jar.

[beethovenfan]

So I guess C. S. Lewis was stupid? I think not.

[mountainlion]

“Religious belief is intuitive,” explained Ara Norenzayan, co-author of the study, “and analytical thinking can undermine intuitive thinking.

So the religious beliefs in Global warming, Evilution, Darwin, undermines their intuitive thinking!

[Poison Pill]

Why didn’t your list include any scientists born in the 20th Century?

[Red6]

The continuation of the make belief argument that science and religion are at odds, that secularism is somehow the logical consequence of rational thought and the empirical scientific mind. BS-

Self flattery by the ignorant and for the ignorant.

[AmericanVictory]

Gosh, I never realized that G. Washington, a person of faith, wsa not able to think analytically and outsmart those Brits. I guess that’s why we are still British colonies.

[bray]

More agenda driven science. Amazing that the data matched their theory.

Pray for America

[chesley]

Here's a better experiment.

Select a random group of religious and non-religious thinkers. Then give them a quiz with moral questions requiring analysis for solution.

Ask for their solution to the moral problem. See which group has answers that work better, and which group can defend their answer better analytically.

Difficult to do? Perhaps. It might even require as much work as it does to make your answers come out the way you want regardless of the results. I mean, in these kinds of studies if 2 + 2 must equal '5', the, by Gaia, it WILL equal '5'

[Jaidyn]

The opposite is true for Christians I know, and have read about. Nearly all Christians strive to be the best they can in every moral aspect of life. That includes knowledge. How many young Christians refuse to do their homework, or try their best on tests? How many slack off in their career fields? None of us are perfect, but perfection is a goal to strive for. Analytical thinking and intuition go hand-in-hand for Christians. And what we absolutely don’t know, we put in the hands of God. The non believers believe man has all the answers, and generally paint themselves in a corner.

[mc5cents]

Dinesh D’Souza examines this kind of nonsense in his book “What’s So Great About Christianity”. He does an excellent job of exploding the myth that believers are anti-science. In fact it is just the opposite. A very good book. I believe that C.S. Lewis also has a bit to say about fools such as these also.

[Yashcheritsiy]

“Religious belief is intuitive,” explained Ara Norenzayan, co-author of the study, “and analytical thinking can undermine intuitive thinking.

The problem is that there's no reason to think, or at least to always think, that "analytical" thinking is superior to "intuitive" thinking.

After all, "analytical" thinking concluded that the Jews were a blight on the German body politic, and that the best way to deal with them was to industrially exterminate them.

Besides - anybody who wants to dismiss "intuitive" thinking needs to sit down and read a little about Albert Einstein.

[Yashcheritsiy]

He does an excellent job of exploding the myth that believers are anti-science.

The layman would be amazed at just how much scientific advancement has been the result of "intuitive" thinking. The only people who hold to a rigid equation of "science = vastly superior analytical thinking" are fetishists who themselves know little about science.

[kcvl]

Ara Norenzayan is a social psychologist at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. His areas of research include evolutionary and cognitive approaches to religious thought and behavior, issues of cultural variability and universality in human psychology, and relations between culture and evolution. He received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Michigan in 1999. Prior to UBC, he was a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre de Recherche en Épistemologie Appliquée (CREA), École Polytechnique, Paris, after which he served on the faculty of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. When not snowboarding or plotting his next travel, he is an Associate Professor in the Psychology Department at UBC, and a Faculty Associate of the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.

[mtg]

Key words here are “Scientific study”. The Wisdom of God is so far above scientific knowledge, these people wouldn’t be able to see it if it slapped them in face.

[17th Miss Regt]

Well, yes they were analytical thinkers. Otherwise they would not have won the prizes. But they were also Christians so they were stupid.

(Absolute silence on what that implies for the Nobel prize selection process....)

Pride on parade.

[Poison Pill]

At least 50 Nobel Prize-winning scientists have professed belief in God.

Do you know where I could find that list?

[kcvl]

Rate my professor...

Easy = talks down to students like they haven’t graduated high school; “helpful” = spends 10 mins answering a typical dumb question; “clear” = repeats himself ad nauseum. Defends his specialisation (evol. psych) without provocation. I love social psych but it’s a snorefest with him. Do NOT take if you’ve taken cultural. If not, I rec. Assanand.

Boring class. My perception of Ara was that he believed he was above the class. He would engage with the class but would already know the answer he was after: so, what is the point of engagement besides a simple manipulation?

Boring as hell. Major mark boost though. Took this course 2 years ago and half of his exam questions were basically off the CD-ROM questions. See if this is still true. People just brought laptops and watched downloaded movies and TV shows. Not sure why they were in class in first place because all you gotta do is memorize the CD-ROM questions.

****in’ biceps! a little too inspired by statistics.
Report this rating

[Raycpa]

I hope the author doesn’t own a pistol, he might shoot himself.The author uses a scientifically unsound study to prove atheists like himself are better scientists.