Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » science

Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief and My Response

rabbifink — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:36:43 +0000

The news outlets reported the findings of a recent article in the Science journal that showed analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Intrigued, I got my hands on the article and while I do not profess to understand the math involved, I am capable of understanding the methodology and social science that explains the findings.

I suggest reading the article to get an idea of how the conclusions of the article were reached. Here is a basic summary:

There are two basic cognitive faculties that we use to make decisions. We use our intuition and we use analysis. In general, religious beliefs are reached using intuition. Analysis is not as commonly used to reach religious belief.

The study attempted to prove that there is not merely a correlation between analytical thinking and disbelief of religion, but there is also causation. The more analytically one thinks, the less one will possess religious beliefs. The study successfully proved that there is a correlation and causation between the two.

The basic idea behind the experiments was to prime random volunteers to think analytically and measure the difference between their responses to questions about their religious beliefs and contrast those with unprimed test subjects. The results, if I can trust their math, were conclusive. There is correlation and there is causation at least in the specific examples used in the study. The religious “test” was very general and did not test specific religious beliefs. Rather it tested belief in God or Supernatural agents and the like.

And so, the religious person is met with a challenge. Is it reasonable to believe in something that correlates with lack of analytical thinking and that analytical thinking causes it to be disbelieved?

The first, more obvious response is simple. Who says that analytical thinking is better, more correct, truer, smarter, etc., than intuition? Clearly, for some things, analytical thinking is superior. But there is no rule that states that analytical thinking is always superior to intuition. Therefore, accepting the results of this study only tell us that intuition is a far better tool for religious beliefs than analysis.

This is a bit of a cop out answer. I admit. That’s because we almost always prefer analysis to intuition when we make important decisions. Also, intuition is more influenced by our subconscious and particularly, by our “religious baseline” which includes, childhood experiences and community.

I think I may have a better answer. Most people think that religion answers the unanswered questions. We call this the God of the Gaps. In ancient times, explanations were needed for a lot of things, and so religious beliefs and superstitions provided those explanations. What is fire? What is thunder? Why does it rain? Why do people get sick? What happens when you die? All these (and hundreds more) unanswered questions were answered by religion.

As questions became answered, the God of Gaps got smaller and smaller. In response, some religious people abandoned religion, others were confident in the few remaining unanswered questions, while the rest doubled down on their beliefs and proclaimed science the enemy and false.

I think, and I have no way of proving this, that most religious people over the course of history believed in the God of the Gaps.

It stands to reason that if one’s belief in God is based upon unanswered questions, increased analytical thinking will promote disbelief. After all, the belief system is built upon not understanding thinking analytically. Many of the core beliefs of religious people are actually impossible or scientifically demonstrated to be false. It follows, that reason and analysis will debunk these ideas in practice, and in the background of one consciousness through priming as the study found.

However, I do not believe in the God of the Gaps. Nor is any orthodox Jew required to believe in the God of the Gaps. Even if we could understand everything in the entire universe, God would still have a role in Judaism. God’s role is the Maker of it all. The One who put the stuff there in the first place. And the One who cares about what happens to it all.

The existence of God and God’s instructions function outside the common area of intuition and analysis. They are a separate mode of thinking. They cannot be proved nor are they intuitive. They function in a completely different way. It is beyond the scope of this post to propose what kind of thinking justifies religious belief. But I do not think that this study ask an unanswerable question, to borrow a phrase, for all religious people.

The orthodox Jew should not allow analytical thinking affect his belief in God. Our belief does not depend on unanswered questions or unexplainable phenomena. So as more questions are answered by science we should not feel threatened. Thus, the view that analytical thinking promotes disbelief in religion should come as no surprise to us, nor should it be perceived as any threat.

We have a strong tradition of asking question, challenging ideas, and thinking analytically. We should continue to embrace this tradition and not be afraid of what we might learn or discover as we are confident that we have the truth.

Link: Science Journal

The Difference Between the Authority of Science and Religion

rabbifink — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:58:53 +0000

A few weeks ago, Stanley Fish wrote a two part series in the NY Times about science, religion, belief, and evidence. Fish makes the argument that science has jumped the shark and is no different than religion at this point. His proof is from a statement made by Richard Dawkins. In my opinion, Fish is 100% wrong.

In an interview on MSNBC, Dawkins was explaining that science is not based on belief, rather it is based on facts and demonstrable evidence. To bolster his point he said:

“… in the arena of science you can invoke Professor So-and-So’s study published in 2008, you can actually cite chapter and verse.”

Fish then goes on to say that since Dawkins invokes the terminology so often used by religion – “chapter and verse”, he is in effect showing his hand and science has become faith based just like religion. In other words, citing chapter and verse in a scientific journal is an appeal to authority much the same way citing chapter and verse in the Bible is an appeal to authority. Fish argues that science is supposed to be based on evidence not an appeal to authority. Once it becomes cited by chapter and verse, it becomes faith based just like religion.

This is a common argument made by religious people. I have no idea if Stanley Fish is religious or not, but this is not a new argument. The premise of the argument is that proving something by citing a document is qualitatively the same when the document is a scientific paper and when the document is a religious text.

Fish got a million and half emails telling him he was wrong. So he doubled down and tried to explain himself in Part 2. To accomplish this, Fish engages in some sophisticated sophistry and linguistics to sat that there is no such thing as evidence in science nor is there such a thing as data. Really, we can know nothing so science is a circle of fervent believers in a self-fulfilling club. Plus, there might not be an objective truth so science and religion can both be true.

It sounds nutty because it is.

Science is different than religion. Its works can be cited as evidence while religious texts cannot. There is a very good reason for this. A scientific paper uses logic, reason, demonstrable evidence, and experimentation to make its points. Once something has been proved or accepted as a valid scientific principle it no longer needs to be “proved” each time it is invoked. It can be cited as chapter and verse for expediency and efficiency of argument. You don’t have to believe in anything to use science as evidence. However, citing chapter and verse from a religious text is completely circular. The religious text may be false, subjectively interpreted, or invented by humans. There is no authority attached to the text unless one subjectively gives the text that authority. It is exactly like citing a work of fiction as authority.

Fish is correct that there is much to learn from sacred texts even if they are works of fiction. Literary criticism is an important discipline and can teach us a lot about our world and provide great lessons for life. But they are subjective lessons and personal to each individual. They cannot be cited as objective authority. This is why citing chapter and verse to religious texts is not as convincing as citing chapter and verse in a scientific study. One is objective, the other subjective.

As a believer, I find my religious texts binding and authoritative. I can, and should cite religious texts when discussing my religious beliefs with fellow believers. But if I am arguing with a non-believer, those religious texts are not only irrelevant, they are weak when compared with science. If I want to make a point to a non-believer I need objective data. I can cite chapter and verse to a study to make an objective argument. I cannot cite chapter and verse to a religious text to make an objective argument.

It is counter-productive for believers to think their beliefs are able to be proved objectively. This only engenders a false sense of security, condescension towards non-believers or believers in other religions, and vulnerability to the difficulties presented by objective inquiry into religious beliefs. Instead, believers should emphasize that their religion is a framework for dealing with life’s challenges and its religious texts are valuable to those who believe in them. When determining whether it is reasonable to believe in an ancient text whose Authorship cannot be proved, one should take all factors into account and accept that in the end, belief in God or ancient texts will never be as compelling or convincing as a scientific study but that does not really matter.

Just because a scientist used the words “chapter and verse” in an argument does not make science a new faith based religion. Science and religion answer different questions using different methodologies. Pretending they are the same or similar in their approach to evidence is a fallacy that helps no one.

Link: NY Times Part One and Part Two

1001 Inventions Exhibit at the California Science Center

rabbifink — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:11:07 +0000

We did a family trip to the California Science Center at Exposition Park in Los Angeles yesterday. The museum is nice, albeit a bit outdated. Such is the fate of any museum that has exhibits of the latest and greatest in technology. Cell phones were a new obscure invention according to the exhibit on technology. Even better was the section describing how phone lines are not fast enough for video conferencing. Hehe.

Anyway, the highlights of the museum are the Hubble 3D IMAX movie and the temporary exhibit called 1001 Inventions. The IMAX was incredible. It told the story of the Hubble telescope and some of its most incredible discoveries. It was really powerful to see the beauty and seeming infinite scope of outer space. The 3D images of galaxies and galaxy clusters trillions of light years away is awe-inspiring. The 3D glasses, 9 story screen and excellent sound system make you feel like you are traveling through space. Simply remarkable.

1001 Inventions is an international project that demonstrates some of the technological marvels and advances contributed by the Arab world in the Middle Ages. In a time that is stereotyped as the Dark Ages in Europe, much “light” was found in Arab countries. Hundreds of ideas and inventions are part of the exhibit. It is modern and compelling and I really enjoyed it.

Socially, the exhibit attracted many Muslims and I found pleasure and inspiration exploring the exhibit side by side with devout Muslims.

Politically, I can anticipate that there are those who will object to the exhibit simply because it portrays Islam in a favorable light. It has become en vogue for social conservatives and progressives to battle over the imagery of Islam in America. Some people find it harmful that Islam be portrayed as peaceful or beneficial to society. Others bend over backwards to ignore Islamic extremism and oppression in Arab countries. I don’t think either of those approaches are wise or prudent, but that is neither here nor there.

When examining the exhibit through those lenses I think the exhibit was fair. It only spoke to technology and medicine and the scholarship within the Arab word during the Middle Ages. I think this is an message for Arabs and non-Arabs in 2012. It is important for non-Arabs because it reminds them (or informs them) that there is a rich history of wisdom and forward thinking in the Arab world. We need to be thankful for their contributions to society. It is important for Arabs because in its current iteration, it seems as thought the Arab community is mired in backwards thinking. Technology and progress are not priorities. Thinking and scholarship are not priorities either. Advances are not coming from the Arab world at the same rate as they come from Asia, Europe or America. It would be great if this exhibit inspired a return to scholarship and innovation that contributes to the good of the world community. With such a rich history, I would imagine reinvigorating efforts for progress would be natural.

The second take-away from the exhibit that I had was that it tried to show that relations between members of different religions were not always contentious. The best proof of this was the only non-Muslim or Arab with a prominent place in the exhibit. That would be the Maimonides display:

I found the description of Maimonides fair and positive. It might be a bit understated though. I think Maimonides was even more of an iconoclast than he is given credit for in the panel. A video accompanied this panel and went a bit more in depth than the panel. In general, I was very pleased that Maimonides was included in the exhibit.

I am sure that some will find nefarious intentions in his inclusions. Something along the lines of the “Muslims are stealing Maimonides” or something like that. But I think that is misguided and wrong. The text clearly says that he was a Jewish doctor. Most importantly, the text notes that he helped people of all faiths. Indeed, this is one of the legacies of Maimonides.

The exhibit is worth seeing if you are in LA or one of the other locations. If you have seen it, I am interested in your impressions of the exhibit.

Link: 1001 Inventions

Torah Archeology is Kosher?

rabbifink — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:52:47 +0000

For centuries, a segment of orthodox Judaism has shunned science. It has been viewed as heretical and anti-Torah. When confronted with seemingly irreconcilable differences between science and Torah, the orthodox Jewish view is to choose Torah. So why bother with science if it will just cause theological problems?

This groups self identifies as Charedi Judaism. Charedi comes from the word חרד which means to fear. It is supposed to mean “fear of Heaven”. I have joked that it also means “fear of science” or “fear of progress” or “fear of education”.

Ha’aretz writes that a couple weeks ago, a Torah Archeology conference took place with the approval of Charedi Rabbis. While not entirely embracing the conclusions of archeology, the conference presented a view of archeology that is entirely compatible with Charedi Judaism. The artifacts are used to illuminate the Torah and its interpreters. But never used to challenge them.

Certainly this is a fine line to tread and one that this community has been reluctant to tread for centuries. But it seems that at least a small portion of them and their leaders are prepared to embrace Torah Archeology.

This is wonderful news.

It is all part of a broader effort to [slightly] modernize the Charedi system to include improved education and prepare Charedi adults for a less insular life. The article in Haaretz quotes Rabbi Eliyahu Soloveitchick (who I do not know nor do I know his Charedi credentials) as saying that science and Torah can and should be reconciled. He even mentions the “E” Word. He says that evolution is not a problem for believers. He should tell that to the anti-evolution ideologues in America…

The money quote from Rabbi Soloveitchik:

“We’re all Haredim who are guided by the fear of heaven, but that’s not a reason to be afraid of science. The Haredi fear of science is gradually dissipating.”

It all sounds revolutionary to me and we shall see if it will catch on. I am afraid that this movement will be banned and its participants ostracized as has happened in the past.

But the truth is, that this was inevitable. Insularity and “protection” from modernity can only work so long as that insulation and protection are absolute. But once there are cracks in the wall, the floodgates are open. It is impossible, in 2011, to maintain that level of rigorous insularity. The Internet and free flow of information changed all that. It is what inspired revolution across the Middle East this past year and it is certainly what is fueling this trend toward science that is being alleged in this article about Torah archeology.

There are cracks in the walls of insularity. It is impossible to stop it. It is impossible for Charedi Jews, it is impossible for fundamentalist Muslims and Christians as well.

Christopher Hitchens has written and talked about the modernization of religion. In today’s day and age, it seems impossible to avoid. Adapt or disappear.

It seems that the Charedi world is getting ready to take that step.

Link: Ha’aretz

Go To The Ant, Sluggard, See Her Ways And Become Wise (Proverbs 6:6)

rabbifink — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:35:53 +0000

The book of Proverbs has so many great lessons for life. One very well known lesson is that we can learn from so many people, animals and things useful tools for life. The ant provides a great lesson in industriousness. An ant can lift things many times more than its body weight. Ants work hard and don’t rest.

A great message to the lazy person is to look to the ant for inspiration.

Recently, scientists have discovered something else that we can learn from ants.Ants have been recorded performing “helpful acts”. So far, only dolphins, capuchin monkeys and now ants act in this way.

In a sophisticated scenario, ants were able to learn a new skill with an unfamiliar barrier to rescue fellow ants. The ants would not rescue other types of ants or insects. You can read about the whole thing here.

This gives a whole new meaning to learning from the ant. We can also learn how important it is to save each other. How vital it is to feel such a connection that we go to great lengths to rescue one another.

Rescue is not limited to a guy stuck under a huge boulder or a drowning swimmer. Rescue means to be concerned with all parts of another’s life. In America we are taught to mind our own business. This is true to an extent, but when someone needs help or assistance or guidance we need to learn from the ant and provide it.

In U.S. law there is no duty for a bystander to help someone in need. Not criminally and not civilly (there are a few notable exceptions). The ant doesn’t believe in that. The ant goes to great lengths to help it’s trapped liege.

This issue has come up recently in the Orthodox Jewish community. If you know what I am talking about, great. If you don’t that’s fine too.

My point is, we need to learn from the ant. We cannot sit by idly when our brethren are suffering and crying for help. We are responsible to each other and have a duty to act when we see injustice and unnecessary suffering. It is time to pull back the sheet and at the cost of exposing wrong-doers, save and rescue the one’s who need us most.

V’hamayvin, yavin.

Can Criminals Change Their Ways? | Introduction to "The Thief"