How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God

Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises

By Daisy Grewal | May 1, 2012 |
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-critical-thinkers-lose-fait
h-god
faith, god, critical thinkers Faith and intuition are intimately related. Image:
iStock/artpipi
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this groundbreaking adventure into the worlds of psychopaths, the renowned ps
ychologist Kevin Dutton argues that there is a fine line between a brilliant...
Read More
Why are some people more religious than others? Answers to this question often f
ocus on the role of culture or upbringing. While these influences are important
, new research suggests that whether we believe may also have to do with how muc
h we rely on intuition versus analytical thinking. In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David
Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that peo
ple who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in
God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased p
eoples belief in God. Building on these findings, in a recent paper (http://www.s
ciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493) published in Science, Will Gervais and Ara N
orenzayan of the University of British Columbia found that encouraging people to
think analytically reduced their tendency to believe in God. Together these fin
dings suggest that belief may at least partly stem from our thinking styles.
Gervais and Norenzayans research is based on the idea that we possess two (http:/
/www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661303002250) different ways of
thinking that are distinct yet related. Understanding these two ways, which are
often referred to as System 1 and System 2, may be important for understanding o
ur tendency towards having religious faith. System 1 thinking relies on shortcut
s and other rules-of-thumb while System 2 relies on analytic thinking and tends
to be slower and require more effort. Solving logical and analytical problems ma
y require that we override our System 1 thinking processes in order to engage Sy
stem 2. Psychologists have developed a number of clever techniques that encourag
e us to do this. Using some of these techniques, Gervais and Norenzayan examined
whether engaging System 2 leads people away from believing in God and religion.
For example, they had participants view images of artwork that are associated wi
th reflective thinking (Rodins The Thinker) or more neutral images (Discobulus of
Myron). Participants who viewed The Thinker reported weaker religious beliefs o
n a subsequent survey. However, Gervais and Norenzayan wondered if showing peopl
e artwork might have made the connection between thinking and religion too obvio
us. In their next two studies, they created a task that more subtly primed analy
tic thinking. Participants received sets of five randomly arranged words (e.g. hi
gh winds the flies plane) and were asked to drop one word and rearrange the other
s in order to create a more meaningful sentence (e.g. the plane flies high). Some
of their participants were given scrambled sentences containing words associated
with analytic thinking (e.g. analyze, reason) and other participants were given sen
tences that featured neutral words (e.g. hammer, shoes). After unscrambling the sent
ences, participants filled out a survey about their religious beliefs. In both s
tudies, this subtle reminder of analytic thinking caused participants to express
less belief in God and religion. The researchers found no relationship between

participants prior religious beliefs and their performance in the study. Analytic
thinking reduced religious belief regardless of how religious people were to be
gin with.
In a final study, Gervais and Norenzayan used an even more subtle way of activat
ing analytic thinking: by having participants fill out a survey measuring their
religious beliefs that was printed in either clear font or font that was difficu
lt to read. Prior research (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17999571) has sho
wn that difficult-to-read font promotes analytic thinking by forcing participant
s to slow down and think more carefully about the meaning of what they are readi
ng. The researchers found that participants who filled out a survey that was pri
nted in unclear font expressed less belief as compared to those who filled out t
he same survey in the clear font.
These studies demonstrate yet another way in which our thinking tendencies, many
of which may be innate, have contributed to religious faith. It may also help e
xplain why the vast majority of Americans tend to believe in God. Since System 2
thinking requires a lot of effort (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/139/4/66
5), the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when poss
ible. Evidence suggests that the majority of us are more prone to believing than
being skeptical. According to a 2005 poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/thr
ee-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx) by Gallup, 3 out of every 4 Americans
hold at least one belief in the paranormal. The most popular of these beliefs a
re extrasensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, and ghosts. In addition, the r
esults help explain why some of us are more prone to believe that others. Previo
us research has found that people differ in their tendency to see intentions (ht
tp://pps.sagepub.com/content/5/3/219.short) and causes (http://www.sciencedirect
.com/science/article/pii/S0010027709000146) in the world. These differences in t
hinking styles could help explain why some of us are more likely to become belie
vers.
Why and how might analytic thinking reduce religious belief? Although more resea
rch is needed to answer this question, Gervais and Norenzayan speculate on a few
possibilities. For example, analytic thinking may inhibit our natural intuition
to believe in supernatural agents that influence the world. Alternatively, anal
ytic thinking may simply cause us to override our intuition to believe and pay l
ess attention to it. Its important to note that across studies, participants rang
ed widely in their religious affiliation, gender, and race. None of these variab
les were found to significantly relate to peoples behavior in the studies.
Gervais and Norenzayan point out that analytic thinking is just one reason out o
f many why people may or may not hold religious beliefs. In addition, these find
ings do not say anything about the inherent value or truth of religious beliefsth
ey simply speak to the psychology of when and why we are prone to believe. Most
importantly, they provide evidence that rather than being static, our beliefs ca
n change drastically from situation to situation, without us knowing exactly why
.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psych
ology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to wri
te about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer
prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas
AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Daisy Grewal received her PhD in social psychology from Yale University. She is
a researcher at the Stanford School of Medicine.