Religious belief and factual belief -- different creatures

After more than ten years of blogging away at this here Church of the Churchless, I've ceased being surprised at how strongly religious believers hold onto their beliefs. 

Partly because I understand the attraction of faith-based believing, since I was into this myself for thirty-five years. It feels good to consider that you are part of a special group that's especially beloved by God, and are privy to cosmic secrets unknown to others.

And partly because I've seen so many examples of religious believers discounting good arguments, solid facts, and other reasonable evidence that should, one would think, cause them to question whether what they believe is actually true.

A piece by T.M. Luhrmann in the New York Times, "Faith vs. Facts," helped me to better understand why religious beliefs are so resistant to change, even in the face of persuasive arguments to the contrary.

Basically, Luhrmann says, faith is connected to a whole different set of psychological features than facts. Which makes sense, since God, spirit, soul, angels, heaven, Jesus, miracles, and the like aren't observable things, but thoughts related to feelings and moral sentiments.

Most of us find it mind-boggling that some people seem willing to ignore the facts — on climate change, on vaccines, on health care — if the facts conflict with their sense of what someone like them believes. “But those are the facts,” you want to say. “It seems weird to deny them.”

And yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures. People process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set. Even what they count as evidence is different. And they are motivated differently, based on what they conclude. On what grounds do scholars make such claims?

First of all, they have noticed that the very language people use changes when they talk about religious beings, and the changes mean that they think about their realness differently.

You do not say, “I believe that my dog is alive.” The fact is so obvious it is not worth stating. You simply talk in ways that presume the dog’s aliveness — you say she’s adorable or hungry or in need of a walk. But to say, “I believe that Jesus Christ is alive” signals that you know that other people might not think so. It also asserts reverence and piety. We seem to regard religious beliefs and factual beliefs with what the philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls different “cognitive attitudes.”

Second, these scholars have remarked that when people consider the truth of a religious belief, what the belief does for their lives matters more than, well, the facts.

We evaluate factual beliefs often with perceptual evidence. If I believe that the dog is in the study but I find her in the kitchen, I change my belief. We evaluate religious beliefs more with our sense of destiny, purpose and the way we think the world should be. One study found that over 70 percent of people who left a religious cult did so because of a conflict of values. They did not complain that the leader’s views were mistaken. They believed that he was a bad person.

Interesting. This seems roughly right, the 70 percent figure. In my experience, true or false usually isn't as important to a religious believer as good or bad. 

A skeptic can point out all the reasons why their religious beliefs are almost certainly wrong, and the believer's faith will remain firm. Whereas, as Luhrmann says, they would readily change their mind about a factual issue that they were wrong about-- such as where their dog is at the moment.

Religious beliefs meet different sorts of needs than factual understandings. One's religion can be eminently satisfying even if it is completely wrong.

Feeling part of a close-knit religious community; being told that a divine being is taking care of you; having an assurance that death isn't the end, but the beginning of a new form of existence; not having to worry about making moral decisions, because the religion makes many of them for you -- these are strong motivations to keep on believing even when the facts argue otherwise. 

Luhrmann writes:

Finally, scholars have determined that people don’t use rational, instrumental reasoning when they deal with religious beliefs. The anthropologist Scott Atran and his colleagues have shown that sacred values are immune to the normal cost-benefit trade-offs that govern other dimensions of our lives.

Sacred values are insensitive to quantity (one cartoon can be a profound insult).They don’t respond to material incentives (if you offer people money to give up something that represents their sacred value, and they often become more intractable in their refusal). Sacred values may even have different neural signatures in the brain.

...People aren’t dumb in not recognizing the facts. They are using a reasoning process that responds to moral arguments more than scientific ones, and we should understand that when we engage.

Comments

[George Poergie puddin 'n pie]

Ppl should be abLe to believe in whatever they want. If it brings them comfort or gets them through, then to be honest, surely that is a very good thing.

However just because YOU believe something to be true doesn't mean that it is or shouldn't he challenged.

And this is the main problem with religious belief. For me its a pretty simple test, the more they try and foist their beliefs on others, the more bullshit and brainwashing is probably involved.

Take the Quakers for example, they seem a pretty decent bunch, they don't force their rubbish on anyone else - they simply try help others - that sort of religion should never be persecuted or criticised - in fact I can't think of many more admirable things one could do in life.

[Cassiodorus]

Hi Brian,

How are you? I just discovered your blog. I'm curious about a few things- I get the impression that you are not a philosophical materialist (I could be wrong on that) and probably reject a reductionist account of mind. Do you consider such views as "faith" or "religious belief"?

[x]

http://skepdic.com/brights.html

[777]

There are many believes which are all True

Even succesvol voodoo is true

Higher up on the energized chakra level are
those, exciting the heart chakra and can't stop singing / dancing shouting
They correspond somewhat with Indra ,Shiva admirers

Real catholics feel between them and the next and can be JUST

Somewhat higher the Shankar followers, the Hatha , Ramakrishna, The Ramana
followers
Many fakes there but also with great honesty

It all depends on past associations

You know
In the astral sphere 1/7 are endless more different sects and cults than on this planet
The Wodan people the old indians with their objects of veneration are still there
Many have earned a right to be there peacefully for very long times

As a matter of fact one exits there due to a desire to learn more and give back some debts

But there is one important difference between there and here
Every soul sees a kind of power as a light up there, so there are few atheists. There are some souls refusing opening their eyes

777

[George Poergie puddin 'n pie]

777,

Now may I ask kind sir, how the giddy gumdrops do you know anything about the astral plane and the 7 levels of the totem pole?

When was the last time you saw the light of the wodan ppl?

I like a good bullshit story as much as the next man, but you really can spin them.

[observer]

George,

This blog is known as probably the main ex-satsangi site and is visited by disillusioned followers and sometimes the more fundamental religious types (who post occasionally but probably just read so that they can scoff lol)

You might have noticed that some have complained about satsangis not divulging their inner experiences and now that 777 is doing just that, they seem to have disappeared and stopped blogging!

I enjoy 777's comments... way to go!

[x]

If 777's inner experiences are anything like what Brian underwent, it's a miracle Brian can write a coherent sentence.

[One Initiated]

There are two rockstars on this website:

1) Brian and 2) 777

Everyone enjoys whatever these two guys writes!!

[yo]

777,

In the Universe are trillions and trillions of stars. In my mind there is no doubt there are many worlds besides our Earth with sentient beings.

Do you see beings from other worlds in the astral plane? Or, are you aware only of beings from our Earth such as the old Indians, the Shankar followers, the Hatha, Ramakrishna, the Ramana followers you mention? If so, do you have anything to say about them?

[George Poergie puddin 'n pie]

I think it's highly likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe.

I think it's highly likely that noone has ever made, nor ever will, make contact with that life.

I think it's highly likely that noone on this 'earthly plane' has ever made contact with any other plane, other than the little green goblins and pixies and lights floating around in their pips after a good puff on the peace pipe.

[yo]

I wonder why George ppp thinks it is unlikely there is life elsewhere in the universe.

Carl Sagan, a scientist respected by many, said that it was mathematically unlikely that there were not other worlds with "life". Probably, there are millions of them. That was his opinion. Others disagree, but think about it...

Astronomers focused the Hubble telescope on a small spot in the constellation "Fornax" and found about 10,000 galaxies in that minute area of the visible universe alone. Our galaxy, The Milky Way has 100-200 billion stars and there are billions of galxies in the visible universe, some of which are much larger than the Milky Way. The total number of stars is estimated at about 100 octillion. This does not include the number of planets and other bodies associated with these stars. So, we have a big number here. Even if life on earth is a freakish coincidence it would also be a freakish coincidence if there were not another freakish coincidence somewhere in that incomprehensible number.

I have no comment on what others purport to have witnessed. I'm just talking about numbers and mathematical odds.

[George Poergie puddin 'n pie]

Yo

You've got me wrong, I think it's highly 'likely' - not 'unlikely' - that there is other life.

It's the making contact with that life, and the people who claim to have access to life from neverneverland, that make me wonder what in wodan's name they are on about. Nevertheless , please continue I've always enjoyed fairytales.

[Appreciative Reader]

In the astral sphere 1/7 are endless more different sects and cults than on this planet
The Wodan people the old indians with their objects of veneration are still there

There you go again, 777.

I’m going to repeat the question Georgie Porgie’s asked you, but minus the sarcasm : Would you tell us how exactly you know of these beings?

I’m not needling you or anything. I’m actually curious. You’re simply asserting here that there are these beings and these chakras and so on and so on. Just like the Christian may assert all kinds of things about the Holy Menage A Trois up in the sky. It would be great if you could take the time and effort to clearly say just what it is you have actually experienced, how you have had such experience(s), and describe the process by which such experience has led you to these observations/remarks about these super-beings that you wrote of.

I know I’m repeating myself, but we’ve asked you this so many times, and you never respond directly (but you do often respond tangentially). You know, you may well be right. I mean, who knows, and there’s always some chance. But here’s an analogy : Suppose you found yourself, somehow, transported to Middle-Ages Europe. There if you tried telling people that the earth moves round the sun, or similar things that we all know and take for granted, then no one would believe you, not even the very few rationalists you might encounter (although you’d be right). But if you clearly listed your observations, and using those observations built up your case, then people (at least those few rational people you might find there, who did not slavishly think as directed by Church and priest) would start believing you.

Could you try something like that here, do you think? Starting with these super-beings of yours? Tell us what your actual experiences are (in this connection), and how that leads to those remarks of yours about the super-beings. That would be interesting reading.

[observer]

AppR,

Unfortunately it seems like 777 has gone quiet for now. Hope he comes back.

He is speaking to satsangis and they know what he is talking about. These are the inner experiences some of the more fortunate ones have.

What you are suggesting if he should somehow transport back to the middle ages sounds like for him to become some sort of preacher or messiah. This is definitely not on the cards for satsangis, they are not here to save the world or in other words save people from themselves! (imo anyway :)

[VVIP]

"This is definitely not on the cards for satsangis, they are not here to save the world or in other words save people from themselves!"

Yes, of course! The "satsangis" are not actually capable of taking care of themselves leave alone saving the "world".