Study: Religious beliefs linked to poor understanding of physical world

[NeoGreen]

https://ascienceenthusiast.com/study-religious-beliefs-linked-poor-understanding-physical-world/?fbclid=IwAR2FCP83E4CUPfG5s34TGhgHGR8pFqAmDVb270mNRB6eWzi_ZgQQhrFykK4

Study: Religious beliefs linked to poor understanding of physical world
by Dan Broadbent

I suppose you can file this under “things we already knew but now we have actual data that supports it.” A study published in Applied Cognitive Psychology found a link between religious beliefs and a poor understanding of the physical world around us. This is consistent with what we would expect to see. In the past, when a phenomenon that couldn’t explained using known science at the time was observed, it was called a “miracle” or an “act of god.” As our knowledge of natural phenomenon grew, fewer and fewer things were attributed to the acts of a god, as we now had explanations for things that previously seemed to be supernatural.

(snip)

The results showed that supernatural beliefs correlated with all variables that were included, namely, with low systemizing, poor intuitive physics skills, poor mechanical ability, poor mental rotation, low school grades in mathematics and physics, poor common knowledge about physical and biological phenomena, intuitive and analytical thinking styles, and in particular, with assigning mentality to non‐mental phenomena. Regression analyses indicated that the strongest predictors of the beliefs were overall physical capability (a factor representing most physical skills, interests, and knowledge) and intuitive thinking style.

So, in other news: Water is wet. The sky is blue. The Earth is an oblate spheroid. The pope helps priests rape children. And the less you understand about the natural world, the more likely you are to believe in a god.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/acp.3248

As Neil deGrasse Tyson eloquently explained back in 2011:

Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] […]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on – so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.

[RKP5637]

1. Absolutely!!! n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Faith means suspension of disbelief insofar as you can't believe or replace belief in

contrary evidence. This is why the evangelicals and other fundamentalists are opposed to education.

How else can "believers" accept the parting of the Red Sea, and Noah's Great Flood when it's never happened again or can be explained by science?

[MineralMan]

3. If you believe in God, you don't have to learn physics.

So, there's that. Physics, chemistry, biology, and the other sciences are hard classes. Only the smart kids take them. You have to study, and stuff like that.

But, since God did it all, you can skip that stuff. Much better.

[zipplewrath]

4. Jesuits might disagree

The Jesuits, nevertheless, have made numerous significant contributions to the development of science. For example, the Jesuits have dedicated significant study to earthquakes, and seismology has been described as "the Jesuit science".[157] The Jesuits have been described as "the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century."[158] According to Jonathan Wright in his book God's Soldiers, by the eighteenth century the Jesuits had "contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes – to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics, and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula, and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light."[159]

The Jesuit China missions of the 16th and 17th centuries introduced Western science and astronomy. One modern historian writes that in late Ming courts, the Jesuits were "regarded as impressive especially for their knowledge of astronomy, calendar-making, mathematics, hydraulics, and geography."[160] The Society of Jesus introduced, according to Thomas Woods, "a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible."[161] Another expert quoted by Woods said the scientific revolution brought by the Jesuits coincided with a time when science was at a very low level in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus

[NeoGreen]

6. Outliers...

...what portion of 'believers' are jesuits?

Their scientific understanding does not measurably move the metaphorical believer scientific understanding needle.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. I get that this is a thing. But when you suppress science with one hand, and then allow a select few

to pursue it with the other hand, I'm not sure you deserve any accolades for the advancements found by the unfettered group you favored.

I mean, they kicked off the 17th century with the Inquisition of Galileo Galilei

The Jesuits were allowed certain leeway, and even resources and education commensurate of their (church related) political position. Some of which they would not have had access to otherwise.

But they wouldn't have had access, largely because of the RCC.

[zipplewrath]

9. But it does put a kink in the supposed "link"

The OP was about some supposed "link" between ignorance and belief. I'm dubious there is a link. Too many very intelligent scientists over history that had strong religious beliefs of one sort or another. Correlation is not causation.

[NeoGreen]

10. Dysrationalia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia

Dysrationalia
Dysrationalia is defined as the inability to think and behave rationally despite adequate intelligence. It is a concept in educational psychology and is not a clinical disorder such as a thought disorder. Dysrationalia can be a resource to help explain why smart people fall for Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent encounters.

(snip)

Examples

One example that can be related to dysrationalia centers on two former Illinois schoolteachers who pulled their children from the local public school in the area because discussions of the Holocaust are a part of the history curriculum. These parents, who are presumably competent due to their college education, believe that the Holocaust is a myth and should not be taught to their children. This is an example of a problem in belief formation regardless of intelligence.

A survey was given to Canadian Mensa club members on the topic of paranormal belief. Mensa members are provided membership strictly because of their high-IQ scores. The survey results show that 44% of the members believed in astrology, 51% believed in biorhythms, and 56% believed in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. All these beliefs have no valid evidence.

There are many examples of people who are famous because of their intelligence, but often display irrational behavior. Martin Heidegger, a renowned philosopher, was also a Nazi apologist and used the most fallacious arguments to justify his beliefs. William Crookes, a famous scientist who discovered the element thallium and a Fellow of the Royal Society, was continually duped by spiritual mediums yet never gave up his spiritualist beliefs. Kary Mullis, an American biochemist and 1993 Nobel Prize winner, is also an astrology supporter and a global warming and HIV/AIDS denier.

[NeoGreen]

11. Did you read the paper?...

...it doesn't claim 'causation'.

The results showed that supernatural beliefs correlated with all variables

Your attempt (reliance?) upon a 'Strawman' is noted.

[zipplewrath]

13. Link

noun
1. a relationship between two things or situations, especially where one thing affects the other.
"investigating a link between pollution and forest decline"

[NeoGreen]

15. Still not 'causation' as you erroneously discounted in your failed attempt of a Strawman...

...

The OP was about some supposed "link" between ignorance and belief. I'm dubious there is a link. Too many very intelligent scientists over history that had strong religious beliefs of one sort or another. Correlation is not causation.

...which you seem to be doubling down on.

Deflect on bro'.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. From a known thesaurus

Synonyms of 'correlation'
Explore 'correlation' in the dictionary
(noun) in the sense of correspondence
There is a correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
Synonyms
correspondence , link , relation , connection , equivalence , interrelationship

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/correlation

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Difficult to say, without restoring from backup and trying something else.

Possibly the world could have done better, overall, than the Jesuits without the religious suppression of scientific inquiry.
Possibly the Jesuits themselves, could have done better than they did, in a non-religious university type setting.

On the other hand, at the time, the concentration of resources into the hands of the Jesuits allowed them to research in ways that might not have been otherwise funded at the time. So it may have been a net benefit.


Not knowing the answers to these questions (and more that I have perhaps not thought of yet), I don't think we can assume the 'head start' the Jesuits got (and even the contributions they did make) disprove the study in any way.

[NeoGreen]

8. Plus, the jesuits are often asscociated with creating...

...Atheists due to their pursuit of science, as even expressed in some common literature...

...No. I mean because of the feeling against them in England. You remember the Gordon riots, and all the tales about the Jesuits being behind the King's madness and many other things. By the way, Stephen, those Fathers were not Jesuits, I suppose? I did not like to ask straight out.'

'Of course not, Jack. They were suppressed long ago. Clement XIV put them down in the seventies, and a very good day's work he did. Sure, they have been trying to creep back on one legalistic pretext or another and I dare say they will soon make a sad nuisance of themselves again, turning out atheists from their schools by the score; but these gentlemen had nothing to do with them, near or far.'

The Reverse of the Medal, by Patrick O'Brian

[Cartoonist]

12. Jesuit studies

Where is their research on the existence of god? Did they even ask themselves the question?

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Anecdotes might make the best waffles.

[Voltaire2]

18. Luckily jesuits are well trained in maths

and rhetoric and wouldn’t make this sort of clumsy mistake.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. I'm sure there are some communist atheists somwhere we can blame for this.

[Duppers]

16. 😅

[Voltaire2]

19. You were doing fine until you disparaged

all people of faith as snot eating imbeciles.