Belief in God and “Gut Feelings”
| by | Kyle Butt, M.Div. |
In September of this year, Stephanie Pappas wrote an article for LiveScience
titled, “Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling.” In that article,
she explained that researchers from Harvard University recently
“discovered” that people who are more apt to trust their first
intuitions are more likely to believe in God than those people who stop
and reflect on those intuitions. In order to test this idea, the
researchers gave participants a math test that consisted of three
problems with questions such as: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total.
The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”
(Pappas, 2011). As Pappas explained, the intuitive answer is 10 cents,
but that is wrong. Those who gave answers such as 10 cents, instead of
the correct answer of 5 cents for the test were “one-and-a-half times
more likely to believe in God than those who got all the answers right”
(Pappas, emp. added). Using this and other test results, the
researchers concluded that intuitive thinkers, or those who follow their
gut feelings, are more likely to believe in God than more reflective
types. David Rand, one of the researchers, stated: “It’s not that one
way is better than the other. Intuitions are important and reflection is
important, and you want some balance of the two. Where you are on that
spectrum affects how you come out in terms of belief in God” (Pappas).
Now let us take a critical look at what is really going on with this most recent Harvard “study.” First, why do you think LiveScience
is reporting on a study about belief in God? Do you think it is because
the scientific community has had a sudden change of heart and now
believes the concept of God to be one that can be verified
scientifically? Of course not. On the contrary, this “study” is in LiveScience
in an attempt to reduce belief in God to a function of a certain type
of brain chemistry or thought process—and an inferior one at that.
Notice that David Rand concludes that “where you are on the spectrum
affects how you come out in terms of belief in God.” If it so happens
that you are an intuitive thinker, then you do not really control
whether you believe in God or not, it is just that your thinking is more
open to the possibility. If you are a more “reflective” thinker, then
there is a good chance you cannot help your lack of a belief in God; it
is just the way you think. In other words, belief in God is a function
of your physical chemistry (an ultimately evolution) rather than your
God-given ability to rationally make a choice.
Furthermore, notice that while the researchers were quick to say that
one way of thinking is not superior to the other, it was the “intuitive”
thinkers who got the very simple math problems wrong, and those are the
people who tend to believe in God more. Observe the implied deficiency
associated with a belief in God. Those who are more likely to believe in
God cannot even answer simple math problems. It should be noted that
this “study” was of an extremely small group of people and had no
substantial “scientific” information to add to the question about belief
in God.
Unfortunately, it is true that many in the religious world erroneously
believe in God due to emotions and feelings rather than reason and
evidence. True biblical faith is not founded on personal feelings and
emotions, instead it is based on reflection (i.e., reason and evidence, 1
Thessalonians 5:21). While the Harvard study may hint at how some
people in the religious world come to belief in God, the study fails to
account for those whose faith is legitimate—being based on reflection of
the evidence. Further, in the same way that many believe in God based
on “intuition” rather than “reflection,” a fair assessment would be to
note that there are just as many people who fail to believe in God
because they are unwilling to draw the conclusions that come from proper
reflection of the evidence (e.g., design in the Universe, causality,
etc.). An appropriate counter study to this Harvard research, which
would provide a more complete picture of the truth, would be to
determine how many do not believe in God because of an
inherent bias against Him (due, for instance, to some event in their
past or a desire to live without moral restraint) and/or because those
individuals have a tendency in their lives to not draw appropriate
conclusions that are warranted by the evidence (in contradiction to the
Law of Rationality; Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131).
Attempts by the atheistic scientific community to reduce belief in God
to genetics, brain cells, digestion, or the color of a person’s eyes are
legion—and all equally unsuccessful. The bottom line is that belief in
God will never be successfully linked to any physical trait, pattern of
brain cells, genetic variation, and certainly not to a method of
reasoning that causes a person to miss simple math problems. On the
contrary, all those who sincerely desire to use proper reasoning (Acts
26:24) to follow the truth where it leads (John 18:37), will arrive at
the correct conclusion that God exists (Miller,
2011). If people do not believe in God, it is not because of their
genes or their “reflective” capacities; it is because they have refused
to properly assess the evidence that God has provided. Sadly, those
people will be “without excuse” on the Day of Judgment (Romans 1:20).
REFERENCES
Miller, Dave (2011), “Is Christianity Rational?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977.Pappas, Stephani (2011), “Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling,” LiveScience, http://news.yahoo.com/belief-god-boils-down-gut-feeling-104403461.html.
Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).
No comments:
Post a Comment