Michael Shermer, in this month’s Scientific American, discusses the implications of a recent study on brain activity for different statements. The subjects were either sure something was right, sure it was wrong or uncertain. The study showed that it took much less time to believe a statement, which the scientists felt supported Spinoza’s Conjecture. Spinoza was a 17th-century philosopher who made the conjecture that the mere comprehension of a statement entails that you first believe it, whereas disbelief requires that you subsequently reject what you first accepted as true. They concluded that most people have a low tolerance for ambiguity, therefore it is easier and common for most people to believe something plausible, whereas skepticism, or the evaluation and rejection of what seemed plausible at first glance comes more slowly and is less natural.

This gets to one reason that many feel religion and scientific/rational thought are conflicting (rather than non-overlapping magesteria). Religion teaches people to accept simplistic explanations and the indoctrination of a dogma from a young age teaches them not to ask questions, but rather to accept many things as a given, without evidence. This is harmful, because it affects how we make decisions outside of the church, and it means people are more likely to confuse fantasy with reality, or choose a “reality” that is in line with their beliefs and disregard evidence to the contrary.

It is faster and easier to rely on our “gut instinct”, even when we are believing in something without any supporting evidence. In order for our society to advance, we must teach our children that it is okay to be skeptical and ask questions, in fact, it is harmful to simply “invent our own, convenient reality”. (**People who independently evaluate and then decide to believe in religion or in something else that is not scientifically understood, without any evidence, have made a conscious effort to do so and their belief is much more significant and meaningful. To each his own delusion, I always say!) Those who simply believe something because they were told to by an authority figure, may well be doing so because it is encoded in our DNA to be trusting and believe what we are told. Especially when the subject is more complicated and difficult to understand (i.e. science). If we reward our children for being curious and asking questions, and teach them when to rely on their instincts and when not to, they will learn to make better decisions. Sadly, I feel that many activities we value most encourage just the opposite (maybe this study helps explain why). [Examples: organized sports, religion, military, politics, nightly news.] Instead of indoctrinating them, teach your children to avoid Groupthink, to be individuals and not to succumb to the pack mentality, doing what’s expected or common. That means you, as a parent, need to spend more time with your children, and stop dumping them off at sports and other activities because you want someone else to babysit them.

“Shut up and do what your’re told.” “Because I told you so, that’s why.” “Here’s a convenient lie, will you now shut up and leave me alone!”

Similar Posts:

• Mohammed the Dancing Teddy Bear
• Dawkins on Atheism
• Local Creationist Revival
• Religulous: The Movie
• Fear of Science