In my last blog I wrote about the American paradox of a thriving country populated by people many of whom hold fantastical beliefs. The fact that significant portions of the population hold supernatural beliefs or choose to ignore scientific findings has stirred a lot of apprehension and concern regarding the course of the country. My personal view is “beware of generalizations.”
First, let’s look at some survey-based statistics. According to a 2018 survey of the Pew Research Center, 29% of Americans believe in astrology, 33% believe in reincarnation, and 42% in the spiritual powers of inanimate things like mountains, trees and crystals. Twenty eight percent believe they talked to God and God talked back to them. Only 41% believe in physics, i.e., in the laws of nature as explained by science. A 2013 Harris poll found that 42% believe in ghosts. Other surveys show a majority of Americans to believe in angels and demons and one fourth in witches. Most of these beliefs in the supernatural have nothing or very little to do with devotion to this or that religion.
Religious beliefs do seem though to affect people’s understanding of how nature works, and particularly in relation to the creation of cosmos and the evolution of species. For example, 25% of Americans take the creation of cosmos and species as told in Genesis to be factually correct and a 2017 Gallup poll found that 38% of Americans believe in creationism as the explanation of human origins. Surveys by Yale University and Gallup poll taken this year (2018) found that 29% to 40% of Americans are unconvinced that climate change is happening.
Given these statistics, are we right to ask: “so what?” That is, does it matter on an individual or societal level whether people hold such views? I think It depends on how these beliefs play out socially, politically, and intellectually. Many evolution theorists and psychologists argue that beliefs in supernatural powers and causes gave early humans a way to explain the mysteries of nature and to cope with adversities, disease, and calamities. Attributing powers to invisible and visible agents (spirits, demons, thunder, and such) provided an explanation as well as a comforting response of the type “if I worship and show respect, they may leave me alone.” The evolutionary view is, therefore, that humans are wired for supernatural beliefs. Despite our immense progress in expanding our knowledge and understanding of nature, this early human tendency is still in us like the redundant appendix in our body.
This school of thought then implies that humans can hold supernatural beliefs and yet go on with their lives without serious compromise of day-to-day decision making. That is, humans compartmentalize between the need for comfort and comprehension and the need for a practical living. Indeed, a recent study published in the journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology found that in a sample of Finnish people there was no significant difference in making informed decisions in their daily lives between those who hold religious and paranormal phenomena beliefs and those who don’t. However, the same study did find that religious people and those believing in paranormal phenomena demonstrated a lower understanding of how the physical world works.
This latter finding is important, especially when we consider it in the context of current American popular attitudes toward science and evidence-based reasoning. Surveys and casual observation show that significant segments of Americans do not believe in scientific evidence and conclusions. Part of that distrust stems from fundamental religious beliefs, as the case is with the creation of the cosmos and the evolution of life. Another part is due to economic and financial motives. This is the case with respect to climate change and environmental sustainability.
Whereas one’s individual religious beliefs or superstitions may not necessarily affect the ability to make sound decisions in mundane daily situations, an organized group’s beliefs may affect the freedom to independent thought. For example, the fact that the pagan Greeks were religious and very superstitious – they never embarked on an important venture without a Delphic Oracle – did not impede them from freely engaging in natural and ethical philosophy and the arts. On the other hand, Christianity and Islam, both enjoying organizational structure and authority, set limits to how far philosophical thought and scientific inquiry could go.*
In contemporary America, religious fundamentalism and economic interests can also hinder our freedom and the resources needed to impart knowledge and pursue scientific endeavors. For example, religious conservatives in Texas and other states have tried to limit students’ knowledge of evolution theory and instead advance creationism. More distrust toward science and disregard of scientific findings can also alter the voters’ attitudes toward supporting government aid to scientific organizations, like the National Science Foundation, the National Health Institute, or the Center for Disease Control to mention a few. More importantly, widespread low esteem for scholarly and scientific engagement can demotivate young people from pursuing professional fields that require scientific training. The US already has a significant deficit in professionals needed in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields.
Returning to the original question, I think we need not overly worry about the potential effect on individuals and societies because people in this and other countries entertain beliefs in supernatural and paranormal phenomena. We all know people with strong or superficial beliefs like these. And yet, I have not noticed that they are not practical or they don’t work hard and smart or they don’t take advantage of modern knowledge and technology in their lives. Besides, many of them are not against science. They may believe in the power of crystals but they click the remote control to turn on their TV and take their meds. But I do worry about the influence of individuals and organized groups which for religious, economic, or what-have-you reasons, are aligned around beliefs and attitudes that purport to create the equivalent of a thought police, or a morality police, or a scientific research police. That can harm us all.
So, the deal is this: You get to keep your crystals and I get to keep my telescope.
*A good source on this topic is: The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. To A.D. 1450 by David C. Lindberg, 1992.
Let's Reason 