Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:23:55.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Cognitive and Neuropsychological Implications for Religious Disbelief

from II.I - Clinical Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2019

Alasdair Coles
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Joanna Collicutt
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Journal articles and chapters on the cognitive science of religious belief often begin by highlighting the seeming ubiquity of supernatural beliefs (e.g. Pennycook et al. 2012). It is indeed rather striking that most of the world’s population share a similar sort of belief in a deity or greater power. According to Zuckerman (2007), approximately 90 per cent of the world’s population believe in a deity. In 2011, more than 92 per cent of Americans polled by Gallup answered yes when asked ‘Do you believe in God?’ – a number effectively unchanged since 1944 (96 per cent; Gallup 2011). These sorts of observations lead naturally to the conclusion that religious belief must be grounded in common and, perhaps, foundational cognitive mechanisms. We agree, though in this chapter we will instead emphasise religious doubt, a common experience among religious and non-religious alike (Hunsberger et al. 1993). In the same Gallup poll cited above, the number of respondents who answered ‘no’ when asked ‘Do you believe in God?’ increased from 1 per cent in 1944 to 7 per cent in 2011. Moreover, only 80 per cent identified as theists, and 12 per cent identified as deists when asked to distinguish between having belief in a personal God (theism) versus believing in a universal spirit/higher power (deism) in a 2010 poll (Gallup 2011). Finally, in a 2006 version of the same poll, 73 per cent indicated that they were convinced that God exists, with the remainder of the sample indicating some doubt or disbelief (Gallup 2011).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asp, E. W., and Tranel, D.. 2013. False tagging theory: toward a unitary account of prefrontal cortex function. In Principles of Frontal Lobe Function, 2nd edn., ed. Stuss, D. T. and Knight, R. T., 383416. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Asp, E. W., Manzel, K., Koestner, B., Cole, C. A., Denburg, N. L. and Tranel, D.. 2012a. A neuropsychological test of belief and doubt: damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex increases credulity for misleading advertising. Frontiers in Neuroscience 6: 100–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asp, E. W., Ramchandran, K. and Tranel, D.. 2012b. Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, and the human prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychology 26: 414–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asp, E. W., Manzel, K., Koestner, B., Denburg, N. L. and Tranel, D.. 2013. Benefit of the doubt: a new view of the role of the prefrontal cortex in executive functioning and decision making. Frontiers in Neuroscience 7: 86.Google Scholar
Asp, E. W., Warner, K. A., Denburg, N. L. and Tranel, D.. N.d. Credulity and religious beliefs in patients with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex damage. Department of Neurology, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Atran, S., and Norenzayan, A.. 2004. Religion’s evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 27: 713–70.Google Scholar
Barbey, A. K., and Sloman, S. A.. 2007. Base-rate respect: from ecological rationality to dual processes. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 30: 241–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, J. L., and Keil, F. C.. 1996. Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: anthropomorphism in god concepts. Cognitive Psychology 31: 219–47.Google Scholar
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S. and Cohen, J. D.. 2001. Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review 108: 624–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D. and Carter, C. S.. 2004. Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8: 539–46.Google Scholar
Browne, M., Pennycook, G., Goodwin, B. and McHenry, M.. 2014. Reflective minds and open hearts: cognitive style and personality predict religious and spiritual thinking in a community sample. European Journal of Social Psychology 44: 736–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheyne, J. A., and Pennycook, G.. 2013. Sleep paralysis postepisode distress: modeling potential effects of episode characteristics, general psychological distress, beliefs, and cognitive style. Clinical Psychological Science 1: 135–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Neys, W. 2014. Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: Some clarifications. Thinking and Reasoning 20: 167–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Neys, W., Vartanian, O. and Goel, V.. 2008. When our brains detect that we are biased. Psychological Science 19: 483–9.Google Scholar
Duncan, J., and Miller, E. K.. 2002. Cognitive focus through adaptive neural coding in the primate prefrontal cortex. In Principles of Frontal Lobe Function, ed. Stuss, D. T. and Knight, R. T., 278–91. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Egan, A. 2008. Seeing and believing: perception, belief formation and the divided mind. Philosophical Studies 140: 4763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., and Stanovich, K. E.. 2013. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives in Psychological Science 8: 223–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup, . 2011. U.S. political ideology stable with conservatives leading. August 1. www.gallup.com/poll/148745/political-ideology-stable-conservatives-leading.aspx.Google Scholar
Gehring, W. J., and Knight, R. T.. 2000. Prefrontal-cingulate interations in action monitoring. Nature Neuroscience 3: 516–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervais, W. M., and Norenzayan, A.. 2012. Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science 336: 493–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, D. T. 1991. How mental systems believe. American Psychologist 46: 107–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. T. 1993. The assent of man: mental representation and the control of belief. In Handbook of Mental Control, ed. Wegner, D. M. and Pennebaker, J. W., 5787. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W. and Malone, P. S.. 1993. You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 221–33.Google Scholar
Glascher, J., Adolphs, R., Damasio, H., Bechara, A., Rudrauf, D., Calamia, M. et al. 2012. Lesion mapping of cognitive control and value-based decision making in the prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 14681–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guthrie, S. E. 1993. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasson, U., Simmons, J. P. and Todorov, A.. 2005. Believe it or not. Psychological Science 16: 566–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunsberger, B., McKenzie, B., Pratt, M. and Pancer, S. M.. 1993. Religious doubt: a social-psychological analysis. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion 5: 2751.Google Scholar
Inzlicht, M., McGregor, I., Hirsh, J. B. and Nash, K.. 2009. Neural markers of religious conviction. Psychological Science 20: 385–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M. and Good, M.. 2011. The need to believe: a neuroscience account of religion as a motivated process. Religion, Brain, and Behavior 1: 192212.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review 80: 237–51.Google Scholar
Kelemen, D. 2004. Are children ‘intuitive theists’? Psychological Science 15: 295301.Google Scholar
Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A. and Carter, C. S.. 2004. Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science 303: 1023–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandelbaum, E. 2014. Thinking is believing. Inquiry 57: 5596.Google Scholar
Muramoto, O. 2004. The role of the medial prefrontal cortex in human religious activity. Medical Hypotheses 62: 479–85.Google Scholar
Nadarevic, L., and Erdfelder, E.. 2013. Spinoza’s error: memory for truth and falsity. Memory and Cognition 41: 176–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennycook, G. 2014. Evidence that analytic cognitive style influences religious belief: comment on Razmyar and Reeve (2013). Intelligence 43: 21–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J. and Fugelsang, J. A.. 2012. Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition 123: 335–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J. and Fugelsang, J. A.. 2013. Belief bias during reasoning among religious believers and skeptics. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 20: 806–11.Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J. and Fugelsang, J. A.. 2014a. Cognitive style and religiosity: the role of conflict detection. Memory and Cognition 42: 110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J. and Fugelsang, J. A.. 2014b. The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values. Thinking and Reasoning 20: 188214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G., Trippas, D., Handley, S. J. and Thompson, V. A.. 2014c. Base-rates: both neglected and intuitive. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40: 544–54.Google Scholar
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A. and Koehler, D. J.. 2015. What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology 80: 3472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennycook, G., Ross, R., Koehler, D. J. and Fugelsang, J. A.. 2016. Atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers: four empirical studies and a meta-analysis. PLoS One 11: e0153039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Razmyar, S., and Reeve, C. L.. 2013. Individual differences in religiosity as a function of cognitive ability and style. Intelligence 41: 667–73.Google Scholar
Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter, J. J. and Davidson, R. J.. 2011. The integration of negative affect, pain and cogntive control in the cingulate cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12: 154–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G. and Greene, J. D.. 2012. Divine intuition: cognitive style influences belief in god. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141: 423–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Shreve-Neiger, A. K., and Edelstein, B. A.. 2004. Religion and anxiety: a critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review 24: 379–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E., Phillips, A. and Woodward, A.. 1995. Infants’ knowledge of object motion and human action. In Causal Cognition, ed. Sperber, D., Premack, D. and Premack, A., 4478. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., and West, R. F.. 2003. Evolutionary versus instrumental goals: how evolutionary psychology misconceives human rationality. In Evolution and the Psychology of Thinking: The Debate, ed. Over, D. E., 153. New York: Psychological Press.Google Scholar
Svedholm, A. M., and Lindeman, M.. 2012. The separate roles of the reflective mind and involuntary inhibitory control in gatekeeping paranormal beliefs and the underlying intuitive confusions. British Journal of Psychology 104: 303–19.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Leeuwen, N. 2014. Religious credence is not factual belief. Cognition 13: 698715.Google Scholar
Yonker, J. E., Edman, L. R. O., Cresswell, J. and Barrett, J. L.. 2016. Primed analytic thought and religiosity: the importance of individual characteristics. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 8: 298308.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, P. 2007. Atheism: contemporary numbers and patterns. In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. Martin, M., 4765. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×