Right off the bat, the title struck me as odd:

Dare you protest against God? Perspectives from a CWRU psychology study

From this atheist's perspective, it seems the question is something of a schizophrenic one. Because 'God' exists in the mind -- at least by an semi-stringent scientific standards we must conclude that -- the question is really about protesting against an imagined entity. Which is kinda crazy.

But sure, from another perspective, we can see the study as an investigation of types of belief and the cognitive response to internal dissonance between ideas.

The survey finding -

The researchers discovered if a person views God as cruel, then protest toward God is seen as more acceptable.

But when people see God as a kind and loving authority figure, then protest seems less acceptable. "In this case, protest could appear disrespectful to a good and fair leader," says Exline.

A couple things. First, isn't this a bit obvious? From a social standpoint, protesting against a loving parenting or village elder or some other authority figure certainly makes less sense than protesting against a cruel one.

Second, the description seems to reflect a focus on the individual removed from his/her social groups. My guess is that there is an integral cultural component to the issue. People don't pull their beliefs about a god out of a magic hat. They generally acquire them from others. Also, one's religious social group likely also influences beliefs about what type of relationship with this god is normative and/or expected.

Finally, as you might expect, my larger issue is reflected in the lead sentence:

Is it OK to protest God's actions—or inactions?

Ah . . . What god? Is this a precisely defined variable? Not only does the sentence assume the existence of a god, but also that this god performs actions, or at least can.

Really?!

In the least, scientists should quit perpetuating the idea that "God" is a neatly circumscribed variable. Why not "a god," "your/their god".... I know, it's more work. But science is work.

Isn't it possible that what the finding basically tells us is that whether or not a person thinks it's okay to protest against their god depends in part on what type of god a person believes? And right here we are back to my major issue. What type of god. Different types of 'god' does not equate to one GOD. Not in my book.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

A recent study out of the University of Buffalo has clearly revealed that the confirmation bias influences human cognitive habits in many areas of life. (Nearly all?) In their study, researchers looked into political beliefs and how even outright bogus ones can be easily supported.

Briefly, the confirmation bias consists of of the tendency to notice events and information that confirm your belief coupled with the failure to acknowledge events and information that could challenge and disconfirm your belief. In the article, Study Demonstrates How We Support Our False Beliefs, co-author Steven Hoffman says,

"Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

"In fact," he says, "for the most part people completely ignore contrary information."

Bingo, the confirmation bias in action. In this case, the belief in question was the bogus link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

A couple points in the article deserve to be highlighted. First, Hoffman says,

"The argument here is that people get deeply attached to their beliefs."

How often has it been a public relations problem that scientists are seen as coldly aloof, residing in their ivory towers of frigid facts? How often in public debates do the advocates of nonsense come across as more passionate, hence persuasive? And yet it is she who lacks deep attachments who should be trusted more.

Second, and in a related fashion, personal investment in a belief makes it much more difficult to move beyond.

"We refer to this as 'inferred justification,'" says Hoffman "because for these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war.

I wonder if it is more difficult for active members of churches to jettison their belief, for they have spent so much time and energy and perhaps money that they would prefer their thinking and action not stand on a questionable foundation. And so they buttress it with justifications and rationalizations.

Or so I think. But I could be wrong. I await further educational experiences, whether or not they confirm or disconfirm my present thinking.

What had he said? That more people should read the Bible. Because we need more atheists.

Which made sense to me. The first time I read the whole dang thing through as an adult I was amazed by what was in it. And further amazed that people could consider it a holy book.

But I'm not your average reader. In fact, there is no such animal as an average reader. As new research suggests. In, How you read the Bible is tied to fellow worshippers' education, Baylor researcher finds, I read:

Regardless of a person's educational background, he or she is less likely to approach the Bible in a literal word-for-word fashion when surrounded by a greater number of church members who went to college, according to a Baylor University sociology researcher.

Oh. So blunt familiarity with the Bible may not help liberate folk. Notice that the finding was not about the individual's education level, but that of their peers. Social environments matter.

For me this reinforces the idea that atheists and humanists need to speak up more. Why? We are members of many social groups. And a social group can influence the thinking of others, even if it is ever so subtly.

Research published in September of last year offers this proposition:

Intuitive thinking may influence belief in God

Does thinking style (variable one), influence belief in a supernatural "numero uno" (variable two)?

First, a nitpick about the news release and actual paper: The consistent, unqualified use of the word "God." There are quite a few assumptions that go into the use of "belief in God," or simply "God." I've raised these before. Suffice it to say that a more scientific wording would be "a god" or "an ultimate god."

That said, the studies that generated the finding were quite innovative and perhaps revealing. In the first study, the researchers from Harvard University measured intuitive problem-solving in individuals, via a number of math problems that lent themselves to intuitive short-cuts that resulted in incorrect answers. The finding:

Participants who gave intuitive answers to all three problems were 1 ½ times as likely to report they were convinced of God's existence as those who answered all of the questions correctly.

Interesting. Is belief in a god the result of taking a similar sort of mistake-prone, cognitive short-cut? Notice that intuition does not equal true. Nor does it always equal false.

A second study was equally revealing:

In another study, with 373 participants, the researchers found they could temporarily influence levels of faith by instructing participants to write a paragraph describing a personal experience where either intuitive or reflective thinking led to a good result. One group was told to describe a time in their lives when intuition or first instinct led to a good outcome, while a second group was instructed to write about an experience where a good outcome resulted from reflecting and carefully reasoning through a problem. When they were surveyed about their beliefs after the writing exercise, participants who wrote about a successful intuitive experience were more likely to report they were convinced of God's existence than those who wrote about a successful reflective experience.

It seems if we encourage intuitive thinking and the mental short-cuts it entails we are likely to promote more error-prone thoughts and conclusions/beliefs.

Of course, there is way more to the question of why people believe in an ultimate god than this. But thinking style may be a factor.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

A recent study out of the University of Buffalo has clearly revealed that the confirmation bias influences human cognitive habits in many areas of life. (Nearly all?) In their study, researchers looked into political beliefs and how even outright bogus ones can be easily supported.

Briefly, the confirmation bias consists of of the tendency to notice events and information that confirm your belief coupled with the failure to acknowledge events and information that could challenge and disconfirm your belief. In the article, Study Demonstrates How We Support Our False Beliefs, co-author Steven Hoffman says,

"Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

"In fact," he says, "for the most part people completely ignore contrary information."

Bingo, the confirmation bias in action. In this case, the belief in question was the bogus link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

A couple points in the article deserve to be highlighted. First, Hoffman says,

"The argument here is that people get deeply attached to their beliefs."

How often has it been a public relations problem that scientists are seen as coldly aloof, residing in their ivory towers of frigid facts? How often in public debates do the advocates of nonsense come across as more passionate, hence persuasive? And yet it is she who lacks deep attachments who should be trusted more.

Second, and in a related fashion, personal investment in a belief makes it much more difficult to move beyond.

"We refer to this as 'inferred justification,'" says Hoffman "because for these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war.

I wonder if it is more difficult for active members of churches to jettison their belief, for they have spent so much time and energy and perhaps money that they would prefer their thinking and action not stand on a questionable foundation. And so they buttress it with justifications and rationalizations.

Or so I think. But I could be wrong. I await further educational experiences, whether or not they confirm or disconfirm my present thinking.