A study has just come out that argues that analytical thinking weakens religious belief, while at the same time, intuitive thinking may strengthen religious feelings.
Though the article comes out in a new issue of Science, this idea has been hypothesized for the last few years. For example, last September neuroscientist Joshua Greene and colleagues at Harvard University
asked hundreds of volunteers recruited online to answer three questions with appealingly intuitive answers that turn out to be wrong. For example, "A bat and ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?"
Although $0.10 comes easily to mind (it's the intuitive answer), it takes some analytical thought to come up with the correct answer of $0.05. People who chose more intuitive answers on these questions were more likely to report stronger religious beliefs, even when the researchers controlled for IQ, education, political leanings and other factors.
In the same study, another group of volunteers wrote a paragraph about a time in their lives when either following their intuition or careful reasoning led to a good outcome. Those who wrote about intuition reported stronger religious beliefs on a questionnaire taken immediately afterward.
First, from the critical thinking side, it seems obvious as to why analytic thought might lessen religious belief. After all, when you start to think critically, you stop accepting things purely "on faith." So when people look at their texts or beliefs through a critical lens, they naturally begin to question the religious tenets that they held throughout their lives.
And yet religion is not just intellectual -- it is designed to be predominantly emotional and spiritual. It is supposed to make us feel things -- it is supposed to generate a sense of awe and wonder, build connections to others, elevate our compassion for those in need, and make us work to right the wrongs in this world.
So what does this mean for religion today? It means that for our world today, religion has to strive to be both intellectually sophisticated and emotionally resonant.
If religion is simplistic, or dogmatic, or anti-scientific, then as soon as new information or new ideas arise, it will shut itself off from the outside world. And as soon as it closes the door on new ideas, religion will stop being relevant.
And if religion is stale, or boring, or uninspiring, then no one will want to be part of it.
But if religion speaks to our deepest longings, if it inspires us to become better people, and if it can embrace not only faith but doubt, as well, then it will have the potential to become a great force for good in this world.
As Mayor Cory Booker said in a post on The Christian Left:
"Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people; before you tell me how much you love your God, show me in how much you love all His children; before you preach to me of your passion for your faith, teach me about it through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give."
Instead, the real question is how we use our religious beliefs to improve ourselves and our world.
Follow Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiMitelman
x=price of ball
$1+x=$1.10
x=$1.10-$1
x=10 or ten cents
What you have left to learn is that facts alone are useless for living.
Funny it may sound, but this is a critical point. I mean, how many astrophysicists are feeling all their mathematics, and getting it right, because they feel its truth. I am Australian, (and indigenous by remote ancestry), and many indigenous Australian children, have been found to be exceedingly good at mathematics, at primary school, and in the first few years of high school, but living in a culture as we are, which insists upon us feeling every choice we make, once the calculus kicks in, our children begin not to want to have to do well at school any more. What will enable all people living in cultures which insist upon our obedience to ten commandments by which we sustain the fullness of feelings and intuition, to gain headway in an economy which was tempered by economists that could find partial mathematical spoofs on god not existing, (usually by ignorance of the number one).
But if it is true that God gave free will does that not imply a lack, or a surrender of control?
Do not the many teachings and teachers all say the same thing, albeit in oft very different tongues?
Prophesy is dismissed as nonsense by so many simply due to arrogance. What else today is dismissed due to ignorance?
History repeats, the people, the places may change, but the game remains the same. Evil, and good would read those words. At the very end of the day, if neccesary prophesy, amongst other things, can be used as a very effective control method. If this world was entirely enamored with evil, one expert general would be all that would be required, with the right words, in the right time, like rabid dogs there would ne no pulling you apart.
Those who even unknowingly serve evil, will grab shovels. Those who are good will grab hammers. History will know of the truth, whatever legacy many think they are building, has already been torn from them.
The line from supernatural to natural is only one of interpretation.
In the practice of an inter-faith observance of belief, my grief, my thoughts about the right to decide based on principal, and a general resistance to anti-semitism, are very intuitive in my assertion not to foresake Yahweh. On the other hand, my ability to show compassion has been inherited maternally with an accommodation of having to assert rational and reasoning skills, before my family is motivated towards deliverance or false empathy. I have understood the oedipal theory, yet my honor rests in the spirit that men who reach their essence in compassionate gentility can do so in grace.
So the conclusion of this study is that analytic thinkers are more likely to be non-believers, and lazy thinkers are more likely to be religious.
The Talmudist develops a legal mind through study and dialogue. If the above be the case, then the Talmudist steeped in religion also has an analytical mind. Intuition plays only a small role at best in understanding the svora (contents) of a sugya (Talmudic passage). But analysis within the parameters of this particular religion becomes essential in the distillation of faith, comprehension of the inner workings of ritual practices, Biblical exegesis and the methods of hermeneutics, and the underpinnings of the law that of jurisprudence.
Mere, word games?
But the study did not measure increasing intuitive thought strengthened religious feelings. It measured the effect of giving people analytical problems before testing the religiosity of them, vs a control group tested for religiosity without being exposed to analytical problems. Also they tested to see if Analytical people are more or less likely to be religious, through their choice of language.
Put simply, the claim that intuitive thing increase religious feelings is incorrect. And misleading - since it is a teleological claim for the existence of god. Simply put, the scientists did not measure or intend to measure what you are trying to claim - their work shows that an increase in analytical mindsets diminishes religiosity - that is all the study was trying to establish.
I intuitively agree with the sentiment of the above, but my analytic brain tells me that religions have been all too relevant for millennial, while only grudgingly accepting change.
Yes, religion makes us feel things. All while also getting us to believe incorrect things. And while teaching awful moral teachings. It does all of that by the same means of appealing to our intuition. It's rubbish. If religion tries to get me to feel something, I double my analytical efforts and ignore my emotions. I don't want intuitive rubbish corrupting and infecting my brain!
"It means that for our world today, religion has to strive to be both intellectually sophisticated and emotionally resonant."
Translation, religion has to strive for intellectual sophistry. To make itself seem to intellectual when it isn't. The aim of intellectual work isn't to have a complicated and sophisticated framework that merely looks good. The best intellectual work is very simple and unsophisticated, it simplifies and combines ideas so that a simple idea gives you a far deeper understanding of the world. The only thing we should strive for religion to be is either intellectually correct or abandoned.