Are "thinkers" less religiously faithful?

This research is based on the “2 systems” understanding of how the mind works: that we process experience first on an intuitive level, and then go on to engage our analytical tools to either build a case for our intuitive conclusions or (more rarely) check the validity of the intuitive conclusion.

The religious impulse originates on the intuitive level. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that. People just have “a sense” of an underlying mystery associated with a feeling of awe. What happens next is that the other system, the analytical one, gets recruited to provide a rational basis for that feeling.

That rational system operates by seeing if it can construct a coherent story that accounts for the intuition. Studies show that if a story emerges that seems to hang together in a fairly satisfactory way and provides a pretty good causal explanation in support of the intuition, then our inclination will be to accept it as truth. All religions are, in my view, the various stories that have emerged from this process.

But, as I said up top, there is yet a further degree to which the rational system can become involved, and that is to actually undertake a rigorous check of the validity of the story. The research that the article mentions is part of a much larger body of research that confirms this fact of human nature: we rarely take this step. We are usually satisfied with having arrived at some kind of plausible story, and are then loathe to challenge it any further.

We do this in all kinds of domains, not just the religious. But in the context of religion, there is immense resistance to seeing the story as just a story and challenging it. The stories get enshrined as unassailable.

I think that the tragedy in all this is that the basic intuition of sacred awe is a collateral casualty. That intuition is a magnificent aspect of what it means to be human. But because the stories we spin to explain it don’t hold up well to analysis, we often determine that the intuition itself is invalid and to be ignored. But I think that’s a big mistake. Whether or not we buy into the stories of “god” or “heaven” or “nirvana” or “soul”, this basic sense of mystery that is out of reach to cognition is at the core of our being and drives most of what we consider “good” about humanity.

I don’t think that religious faith is a phenomenon with just one cause. People believe for all sorts of reasons. Some people believe because it’s how they were raised, some people believe because of an experience they had, and some people believe for intellectual reasons (I don’t take this list to be exhaustive, by the way). Any of these reasons can be disputed, of course, but that’s not the point here. The point is that each way of believing is open to different methods of revision.

When we talk about “thinkers” being less religiously faithful, we need to keep in mind that there are plenty of intellectuals who do have religious faith. This suggests, then, that being a “thinker” only undermines some of these ways of believing. But this shouldn’t be surprising: “thinkers” tend to lack all sorts of beliefs that they once had. Specifically, being a “thinker” tends to undermine the “I believe x because my parents believe x” way of believing. Sometimes they find alternative beliefs, sometimes they find alternative reasons for the same beliefs.

Given the number of beliefs that people hold for no other reason than because they were raised with the belief, we should expect many beliefs to fade with learning. This doesn’t necessarily speak to anything about the beliefs themselves, however. It may simply speak to the way in which they were formed. As such, we cannot take the ability of a belief to fade as evidence of its falsity. Anyone who really wants to count as “thinker” must undertake a rigorous reinvestigation of the question to see if the rational option is to adopt alternative beliefs or alternative reasons for the same beliefs.

I’m a thinker type personality. An ENTP extroverted, intuitive thinking, perceiving
I am highly intuitive as well as analytical and while not religious I do resonate with many philosophies and am open minded about the mysteries of the universe. I have read that those with my personality/brain functions lend themselves to be more attracted to eastern philosophies which encompass and emphasize a “big picture” orientation. I’d agree.

I think, therefore I am….........a fence sitting agnostic.

@ucme Wrong, it should be ” I AM, therefore I think.” lol

Durr, i’m tinkin…i’m tinkin….i’m tinkin…..

@Coloma Not all things that exist can think. Existing is a necessary condition for thinking, but thinking is not a necessary condition for existing. That’s why it’s “I think; therefore, I am.” The thinking is being used as proof of the existing because the existing comes before the thinking.

@SavoirFaire I was being humorous, then again, if we wish to split hairs, nobody is thinking, thinking happens, but non-duality is whole other can of worms, ;-)

I’m almost 40 and I still don’t understand what being called a ‘believer’ really means. All of us have our own standards of what qualifies as evidence. Personally I think what really determines whether someone resorts to critical thinking instead of blind faith is how authoritarian they are. With authoritarianism usually comes conformity. Conformity is the polar opposite of critical thinking.

@Coloma No problem. I’m no Cartesian either!