by VorJack
There’s an interesting study that recently came out of the University of Chicago, produced by a team of scientists headed by Nicholas Epley. The team surveyed a number of religious people, asking questions about the moral beliefs they hold, about the moral beliefs that they believe are held by others, and about the beliefs of God. According to the New Scientist:
The researchers started by asking volunteers who said they believe in God to give their own views on controversial topics, such as abortion and the death penalty. They also asked what the volunteers thought were the views of God, average Americans and public figures such as Bill Gates. Volunteers’ own beliefs corresponded most strongly with those they attributed to God.
What He says, or what you say?
Pullquote: God may have created man in his image, but it seems we return the favour.
That last part shouldn’t be very surprising. Since most religions attempt to derive morality from the will of God, one would expect to find his followers adapting their moral beliefs to his decrees. What God says is right, is right. (Or perhaps what is right, God says, but that’s another argument.)
But the study went on with a new twist. The scientists used several tricks that would reliably alter the stated beliefs of the subjects. Steven Novella compares this to push polling, and points out, “We are more susceptible to such suggestions when we are not aware that they are being made – when we think we’re just answering a survey, not the target of attempts to change our opinion.”
When these tricks were used, the scientists found that it led to the expected shifts in belief for those people being tested, but also shifts in the beliefs being attributed to God.
God on the brain
Pullquote: We must realize that the default mode of human psychology is to grab onto comforting beliefs for purely emotional reasons, and then justify those beliefs to ourselves with post-hoc rationalizations.
The study went on to run fMRI scans on the subject’s brains while they contemplated their own beliefs, the beliefs of God and the beliefs of “average Americans.” The results are intriguing:
In the first two cases, similar parts of the brain were active. When asked to contemplate other Americans’ beliefs, however, an area of the brain used for inferring other people’s mental states was active. This implies that people map God’s beliefs onto their own.
Novella seems a bit flip when talking about the fMRI scans. He has pointed out previously that fMRI scans are easy to misinterpret. This leads to such problems as getting readings from a dead salmon. Still, that just means that fMRI has to be done carefully by professionals before the results can be trusted.
Taken as a whole, the study seems to indicate that believers attribute their own moral beliefs to God. Obviously, religion and culture play a role in shaping those beliefs. But once shaped, the believer can buttress that belief by attributing it to God.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to atheists, since we’ve always maintained that the faithful conveniently find their own morality reflected in God’s decrees. “I believe it, (therefore) the Bible says it, that does it!.” But as Novella points out, some humility is called for. We’re just as human and fallible as the believers:
I suspect, however, that the same psychological processes are at work even in those without faith. It would be interested to repeat this study but substitute some other authority for God, like the scientific consensus, leading experts, or Einstein. The reason for my suspicion is other psychological experiments that show that we tend to arrive at conclusions for mysterious (to us) subconscious reasons and then rationalize those conclusions, mainly to convince ourselves that we are rational beings.
Perhaps what this study really shows is that our process of forming beliefs is not as straight-forward as we’d like. It reminds us of the need for caution and humility when facing serious questions. If we take the shortcut of drawing support from some authority figure, we may find we’re really just drawing from our own prejudices.
Vorjack,
I’d be interested in your take on this example (anecdotal as it is).
I know many, many people who were rabble rousers before finding Christianity. They loved extra-marital sex, booze, drugs, etc., etc.
They had a conversion experience. Then they learned that Christians don’t drink, smoke or chew. Over time, they began to hate the very behaviors that they once loved. That’s not a comfortable transition. It’s not comforting. In fact, it’s often quite the opposite.
I’m not disputing the premise of your post; I agree with it, in fact. However, I think that examples such as the one above offer a counterpoint that has merit, namely, that (often?) peoples’ behavior changes radically in an attempt to conform with what they believe God is asking of them. If that counterpoint has any merit at all, then wouldn’t it be that case that at least sometimes, people actually conform to to God’s image rather than the other way around?
Or to attempt to put it differently: How would one explain it when the beliefs to which one converts are not at all emotionally comforting but are rather very disruptive?
I think that the key point in your anecdote is here:
“Then they learned that Christians don’t drink, smoke or chew.”
According to the study, we project our own beliefs on whichever authority figure that we’re discussing. So in the case you posit, they aren’t really conforming to god’s image, but instead to the image of god that has been conveyed generation to generation through Christianity, and now, in turn, to your friend. And this image has, ostensibly, been created in much the same way that the study suggests.
Religion acts as one of societal pressures to act differently than you’d rather. Religion is not the only one. Like, have a job instead of slack around at home. Drink Pepsi, your friends do. Well, these attractive people in the commercial look prettier and have more fun than your friends, so drink Pepsi. In the way that people don’t sometimes think we have free will, sometimes we use it against our actual wishes. I want to eat this whole cake by myself, but I know I shouldn’t. “Will power.” Power to will over the original free will.
I don’t see how conforming to a religious conversion, although uncomfortable, really seems like a mystery to you. People who are gay may either stay with their religion that opposes homosexuality – and I’ve known people to willfully remain in a self-loathing position or try to conform their nature to appease god’s judgment, or they will observe their religion is “wrong” and find a “right” one – one that accepts and welcomes homosexuals as they are. This in turn may cause personal discomforts as any deconverted person may face – basic loss of the benefits of conforming to the rules of their community, leaving the church and being proud rather than ashamed of their homosexuality (or whatever reason that someone decides to leave a particular church).
Coming to a new town, or starting a new job, one finds a lot of different habits and mores that, if one doesn’t want to get on everyone else’s bad side, one will conform or move somewhere else, or quit and find a different job. None of this is comfortable to everyone. If someone drinks, smokes, or chews tobacco, and the group they want to join says, we don’t do that here, then they will be internally motivated to give those habits up. If there are positions in the group, say the top 3 leadership positions may either drink, smoke, or chew tobacco (but not all 3), then one is motivated to actually not just belong to the group, but to attain leadership, to go above and beyond the general duties of the group, rather than be cautious, distant, and in danger of falling away from the group. Group acceptance is a huge motivator – and really that’s all this is an example of. If certain positions within the group afford leniency, motivation is toward those positions, to even “super-belong” to the group, as an incentive to work hard for the group. Nobody wants to do hard work for the group, but they will, rather than fall away and do whatever they like instead.
This can happen with or without a deity figure. People who join a gym can’t drink, smoke, or chew tobacco, not if they want to be healthy, for example. But if you work your butt off in the gym, you can have a cigar or a drink every once in a while, people will not think worse of you, because they know you worked hard. It’s probably a weak example, but Christians can actually drink, smoke, or chew, it’s just the in-culture of that particular group that forbids it. If you want to belong to the group, you will be shamed out of your bad habits pretty easily, or you will look for a more agreeable group to your habits – find the god you want to worship rather than the one who binds you by artificial social rules.
I’ve known several Christians who are chain smokers. Even pastors and priests.
There’s also the point that the person may not be comfortable with that particular lifestyle – and the church becomes a foil that aids the person to attain this goal of abandoning said lifestyle.
brg: “what they believe God is asking of them”
God would ask nothing as God would require nothing, want nothing, nor be gratified by anything – would it?
Peer Pressure, it works.
Anti-vaccine, anti-global warming, 2012 and anti-moonlandig are people that just behave like that.
They might be atheists but still they take the anti-vaccine just like a religion.
It’s human nature to look for patterns around you. You are more likely to “recognize” patterns if they align with things you have seen / believed in the past. In this way, all humans will see patterns according to their personal bias. Skeptics may be more likely to analyze items that don’t seem to fit with their known patterns or biases, therefore leading to new patterns and new biases… it’s a never ending cycle!
If we could put a name and a definition to this phenomena it would be a great foil to use against dogma.