Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Psychologist asks, Why are some people more religious than others?


He puts it down to genetic predisposition, need for control, and identifying with a group. From Andy Tix at Psychology Today:

Genetics, control, and groups. Like every other behavior psychologists have studied, religious behavior is influenced by an interaction between nature and nurture, in other words. Still, there’s a lot we don’t understand. One tentative answer generates five additional questions. Mystery remains and, I suspect, always will.More.

His approach, well-meaning and friendly, is just the sort of schlock that discredits psychology. The problem is, he is throwing around terms and concepts from studies that are rarely worth the space they take up on a hard drive.

Once you get past: Mother Theresa was religious and so were Torquemada and Pat Boone, you realize that Psychology Today will not offer much insight, though great artists, physicists, and philosophers might.

See also: Darwin, Marx, and Freud: Now Freud is the “triumph of pseudoscience”? History walk: Remember when we ID folk were accused of inventing all this? No? See Textbook Watch: Did ID folk invent Marx, Freud, and Darwin as the “textbook triad” of materialism?

If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?

Evolutionary conundrum: is religion a useful, useless, or harmful adaptation?

What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness

It looks like Dr. Tix, just like Jerry Coyne in his book "Faith vs Fact Why Science and Religion are Incompatible", got the terms Faith, belief and religion (religious) mixed up or used some of them interchangeably... You can't! Those terms do not represent the same things! Someone could have faith in God or gods, but may not be religious... Religion is simply organized faith... Belief can be proven right or wrong, but not so much faith... If faith in existence of God could be proven, why would one need faith and religion? Let's just use Coyne's book as an example and the origin of life... Coyne claims that God as the creator of life (OOL) is incompatible with scientific facts... So, what facts does Coyne offer instead? Abiogenesis or spontaneous emergence of life as a scientific fact? Since nobody, including Coyne, has one shred of evidence that life could have emerged by chance, what does Coyne offer as scientific fact? Obviously beliefs that he sells as facts... So, I have come across many people with faith that are not religious. Religious people without faith (few priests).... I have never, ever come across someone who wouldn't believe in something... Coyne's belief is that dumb luck created everything including life... Considering the fact that Coyne has gone on a pilgrimage to India to promote his beliefs in dumb luck, some could very well argue that he is promoting his faith in the miraculous powers of dumb luck and nature as gods.... J-Mac

Leave a Reply