A scientific defense of spiritual & religious faith | Tony Jack | TEDxCLE
Summary
TLDRThis transcript explores the relationship between science and religion, challenging the assumption that they are incompatible. It highlights how the brain operates with two distinct ways of thinking: analytical reasoning for scientific truth and empathetic reasoning for moral and social truth. The speaker argues that these modes can coexist, and religion or spirituality can enhance personal well-being and empathy. While acknowledging the limits of science, the transcript encourages openness to spiritual perspectives, emphasizing their potential to balance the mind and foster ethical behavior.
Takeaways
- 🧠 Scientists and religious beliefs may seem contradictory, but they can coexist in a nuanced way.
- 🔬 The assumption that reason alone comprehends all truths is challenged by dual-process theory, which recognizes distinct ways of thinking.
- 🤔 The brain has two types of reasoning: cold, analytical thinking and warm, empathetic thinking, and these types operate independently.
- ⚖️ Religion engages the empathetic network in the brain, promoting social, emotional, and moral insights.
- 📊 People with stronger empathy are more likely to believe in God, even though higher analytical ability may correlate with less religious belief.
- 💡 Spirituality can benefit society by encouraging empathy, social connection, and concern for others.
- 💬 Religion is shown to have positive effects on personal well-being, with believers living longer and exhibiting better emotional self-regulation.
- 📖 Scientific truth and social narrative truth are distinct, and the brain is structured to handle them separately without interference.
- 🙌 Engaging with spirituality, art, history, and literature helps balance our brain, especially in a technology-driven culture.
- 🔍 The key takeaway is that science and religion serve different purposes, and both are valid in understanding the world and ethical human behavior.
Q & A
Can a scientist be religious, and why is this question important?
-Yes, a scientist can be religious. The speaker highlights this question because it seems contradictory at first, as science is based on empirical evidence, whereas religion involves belief in the supernatural. However, the talk explores how different forms of reasoning can coexist and how spirituality can offer different insights that don't conflict with scientific reasoning.
What is dual-process theory, and how does it relate to the topic of religion and science?
-Dual-process theory explains that humans have two types of reasoning: analytic (cold, logical) and empathetic (social, emotional). These two forms of thinking are distinct and often in tension with each other. This theory is used to explain why people can hold both scientific and spiritual beliefs without contradiction—because the brain processes these types of understanding separately.
What is the Linda problem, and how does it illustrate different types of reasoning?
-The Linda problem is a famous psychology experiment where people are asked whether it is more likely that Linda is a bank teller or a bank teller active in the feminist movement. Despite the logical answer being the former (based on probability), most choose the latter based on intuition and social narratives. This demonstrates the tension between analytic (probability) and empathetic (social reasoning) thought processes.
How does the brain handle scientific and empathetic reasoning according to the speaker?
-The brain handles scientific and empathetic reasoning by keeping them largely separate, similar to how one can perceive either a duck or a rabbit in an ambiguous image, but not both at the same time. These two modes of thought oscillate in the brain, ensuring they don’t interfere with one another during decision-making.
What does the speaker mean by 'narrative truth' and 'scientific truth'?
-Narrative truth refers to the kind of understanding based on social, emotional, and moral stories, while scientific truth is based on logical and empirical evidence. The speaker argues that both truths are essential but distinct, and they should not be confused as they serve different purposes in human understanding.
Why does the speaker suggest there is no grand unified theory of human understanding?
-The speaker argues that human understanding cannot be unified under a single theory because the brain employs different reasoning processes for different types of truth. Scientific reasoning explains the material world, while empathetic reasoning helps us understand social and moral issues. These systems are separate yet essential.
What did the speaker's research reveal about the relationship between empathy and religious belief?
-The research found that higher levels of empathy are strongly correlated with stronger belief in God. People who care more about others tend to have a higher likelihood of religious belief, regardless of their analytical ability. This contradicts the view that religious belief is irrational and shows that it is linked to emotional and social reasoning.
How do religious beliefs benefit personal well-being, according to the speaker?
-Decades of research show that religious beliefs positively affect personal well-being, leading to longer lifespans, higher emotional intelligence, and better emotional self-regulation. These benefits are stronger for those with genuine faith rather than those who attend religious services only for social reasons.
How does spirituality help balance the brain, according to the speaker?
-Spirituality helps balance the brain by engaging the empathetic networks, allowing for moral and social insights. It counters the over-reliance on analytical thinking, which is dominant in modern education and society, helping people connect better with others and maintain emotional and mental well-being.
What is the speaker's final conclusion regarding the relationship between science and religion?
-The speaker concludes that science and religion are not inherently opposed because they represent different ways of understanding the world. Science helps us understand material reality, while religion and spirituality offer insights into social and moral truths. A balanced brain uses both types of reasoning without allowing one to interfere with the other.
Outlines
🤔 Can a Scientist Be Religious?
The speaker begins by questioning whether a scientist can also be religious. While some may find it contradictory, with naturalistic thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett suggesting religion contradicts reason and poses a moral danger, the speaker aims to explore a different perspective. They note how communities with higher IQs tend to have less religious belief but stress that their own research led them to rethink the value of spirituality, which they will explore through both science and philosophy.
🧠 The Battle Between Two Types of Reasoning
The speaker delves into the psychological concept of dual-process theory, which posits that humans have two competing modes of thought: analytic reasoning and empathetic reasoning. They use the example of the 'Linda problem' to illustrate how intuition and probability theory conflict. Neuroscience reveals that the brain separates these two types of thinking, suppressing one as the other becomes active, much like how a seesaw works. This division is crucial in shaping both social and scientific understanding.
🌐 The Connection Between Empathy and Spirituality
The speaker connects religion to the brain's empathetic network, explaining how spirituality moves people away from cold, analytical thinking to a more empathetic, emotional state. Religious practices like prayer activate these empathetic brain regions, which may contribute to social and moral insights. Citing philosopher Immanuel Kant, the speaker argues that some truths, like moral truths, cannot be comprehended solely through scientific reasoning but are understood through a different, more moral lens.
🔎 Science, Religion, and Social Connection
The speaker asserts that religion, particularly spirituality, fosters empathy and social connection, which are essential for both mental and physical well-being. Decades of research show that religious individuals live longer, are more emotionally intelligent, and are better at self-regulation. Even for non-religious individuals, religious imagery can improve emotional control. The speaker also suggests that religious belief is not driven by loneliness or depression but instead fosters a greater sense of connection to humanity.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Dual Process Theory
💡Analytic Thinking
💡Empathetic Thinking
💡Scientific Truth
💡Social Narrative Truth
💡Religious Belief
💡Moral Truth
💡Spirituality
💡Neuroscience
💡Kant's Philosophy
Highlights
Introduction of the question 'Can a scientist be religious?' and the perceived conflict between naturalistic worldviews and belief in God.
Mention of prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet who argue that religion contradicts scientific reason.
Scientific data suggesting that communities with higher IQ have lower church attendance, and that scientists tend to believe in God less than the general population.
The speaker's research led them to rethink the drivers of religious and spiritual faith and its value, offering a different narrative driven by science and ending in philosophy.
Introduction of dual-process theory, where psychologists discuss two different ways of thinking: intuition vs. reason, or thinking fast and thinking slow.
Example of the 'Linda Problem,' illustrating the tension between intuition and probability theory, and how reasoning leads to different answers.
The speaker's argument that there is a fight between two types of reason (analytical vs. empathetic) rather than intuition versus reason.
Neuroscience evidence showing that the brain suppresses empathetic areas when engaging in analytical thinking and vice versa.
Comparison between analytical and empathetic thinking to a seesaw — we oscillate between the two but cannot engage both simultaneously.
The importance of social and emotional reasoning for mental and physical health, and how a lack of balance between these types of thinking is associated with mental disorders.
The role of spirituality in activating the empathetic brain network and providing moral insights, while turning down the cold, analytical network.
Religion engages empathetic networks in the brain, making spirituality beneficial for emotional and social well-being.
The speaker's research shows that caring about others is a stronger predictor of belief in God than analytical thinking ability.
Contrary to some atheist claims, religious belief isn't driven by loneliness or depression but fosters empathy and concern for others, even among fundamentalists.
Conclusion that scientific and social narrative truths are distinct and complementary, with religion and spirituality offering one way to balance the brain's two modes of thinking.
Transcripts
stand on some of our major
highs I want to start by asking you a
question can a scientist be
religious what do you think on the face
of it it seems
absurd why would someone wed to an
naturalistic worldview who carefully
collects and interprets empirical
evidence believe in an invisible
Supernatural agent in the
sky it seems like belief in God
contradicts
reason and contradicts scientific
principles and there are two very vocal
groups of academics called the brights
and the new atheists who have been
arguing exactly that
recently famous scientists Like Richard
Dawkins and philosophers like Daniel
dennet argued that religion is not only
intellectually absurd but also a moral
danger some data supports the view that
belief in God contradicts
reason countries in communities with
higher IQ have lower Church attendance
and scientists tend to believe in God
much less than the general
population well this is all very well
and I'm going to come back to it but the
story I'm going to tell you is very
different it's a story that was
surprising to me my research caused me
to rethink what drives people to believe
in or to have religious and spiritual
faith it also Calla me to rethink the
value of
spirituality so what I'm going to tell
you is a story that's driven by science
which ends in
philosophy but before we get started
with that I want you to make you aware
of a basic assumption
it's an assumption that many scientists
and philosophers hold to without even
really being aware of it and it may well
be an assumption that you hold to
although there's really no reason to
believe
it that assumption is that all truths
are comprehended by one single faculty
of
Reason in
physics there used to be a lot of talk
about a grand unified
theory one force that would explain
every physical phenomena and there are
still some physicists who work on
this but many have seen how complicated
these theories are they've seen the
difficulties the failed attempts and
have given up I don't know if there's
going to be a grand unified theory in
physics but what I do know is that the
evidence is much stronger that we should
give up on the idea that human
understanding is unified since the 1970s
psychologists have talked about
different ways of thinking that tend to
compete with each
other this is called dual process Theory
and psychologists often talk about
intuition versus reason about Thinking
Fast and thinking slow here is a classic
example the Linda
problem
Linda is 31 years old sing sing Le
outspoken and very bright she majored in
philosophy as a student she was deeply
concerned with issues of discrimination
and social justice and also participated
in anti-nuclear demonstrations so let me
ask you which do you think is more
likely do you think Linda is a bank
teller or do you think Linda is a bank
teller and active in the feminist
movement if you're like the vast
majority of people
85% you'll go with the second
option however according to probability
Theory you would be
wrong feminist bank tellers are a small
subset of all bank
tellers there are far few of them than
of all bank tellers so there's really no
way it could be more probable that Linda
is a feminist bank teller than just a
bank teller now
traditionally psychology has thought of
this problem as reflecting a fight
between dumb
intuition which quickly pulls us to the
second option and true careful reason
which slowly but inexorably brings us to
the first option at least if you've
studied probability Theory however
there's other ways to look at this
problem and Steph J G the noted
evolutionary biologist and author puts
it this way I'm particularly fond of
this example because I know that the
second statement is least probable yet a
little humulus in my head continues to
jump up and down shouting at me but she
just can't be a bank teller read the
description we now know the psychologist
got it at least slightly
wrong and Gould basically got it right
Neuroscience shows us that there's a
fight between two types of Reason Not
between dumb intuition and true reason
but a a fight between two types of
reason that are aimed at different types
of Truth on the one hand there's cold
detached logical analytic reason on the
other hand there's a warmer fuzzier type
of Social and emotional reason that
leads to
Insight or to put it in another way
there's a tension between scientific
truth and social narrative truth
Neuroscience shows us that these two
types of thinking aren't just different
aren't just distinct they fight with
each other all the time even when we're
daydreaming even when we're sleeping the
brain is actually organized in such a
way to keep these two types of thinking
separate and we naturally oscillate
between them just like a
seesaw so in my lab when we gave people
scientific puzzles we saw that they
gradually ramped up activity in the cool
colored analytic brain areas but at the
same time we saw that they rapidly
suppressed activity in the warm colored
empathetic brain areas and when we gave
them social narratives again they
gradually ramped up activity but now in
the warm empathetic areas but at the
same time they immediately suppressed
activity in the cold analytic brain
areas the way the brain handles these
two types of thinking is rather like the
way the brain handles a b stable image
you can see either the duck or the
rabbit but we can't see both at the same
time and so it is with analytic and
empathetic thinking you can think
analytically you can think
empathetically but you can't think both
ways at the same
time we know that both of these networks
comprise large parts of human neocortex
in fact we found that the social
narratives area was a little bit larger
than the brain areas that we use for
some science mathematics and logic both
of them are highly evolved much larger
than in other animals even controlling
for brain
size both of them and this contradicts
the older psychological view are
involved in slow deliberate or if you
like in-depth
thinking and this is important both are
highly plastic highly modifiable meaning
both can be
educated in 1959
the chemist and novelist who was British
Charles Percy snow gave a very
influential lecture and in that lecture
he talked about how academic and
intellectual life was split into two
cultures The Sciences and the
humanities now at that time snow was
worried that in Britain in the
50s the humanities were treated as too
important well I'm an academic in the
United States of America who holds
appointments in both Humanities and
science departments and I can tell you
that's not the problem today when I talk
to the parents um of students who are
worried about which major they should
take and what the outcome may be for
them later in life um that's not the
concern they express in fact I I really
believe that we need to think seriously
about rebalancing our educational
priorities there's so much focus on stem
subjects and everyday life is so
dominated by technology that our ability
to engage in in-depth interpersonal
narratives suffers and there's data to
back this up there's been a frightening
and precipitous drop in empathy and
perspective taking in college
undergraduates over the last few
decades and that's a concern it's a
concern in part because the science is
absolutely clear about what matters most
for not only your mental but also your
physical health and that's your sense of
social connection that's more important
than most of the risk factors you would
think of as the most important like how
much you exercise how heavy you are
whether you
smoke we know that the coherence of
brain areas within that empathetic
Network are similarly very important for
mental and physical health and in fact
when these networks aren't kept separate
when the seesar is broken
that turns out to be one of the most
consistent markers of mental disorder
and it's also associated with low IQ so
how does this relate to
religion well the defining Mark of
religion of all different types is
spirituality that is moving away from
thinking about material things which
activates the cold
Network and focusing on the spiritual
and we know that prayer and and religion
Engage The empathetic Network
work in terms of what's going on in the
brain we can think of asking people to
have faith in the
Supernatural as asking them to push
aside activity to turn down activity in
that cold Network and that's important
because the way the brain is engineered
means that that frees up the empathetic
Network to allow people to gain social
emotional and moral insights
now the most famous moral philosopher to
have ever lived 300 years ago had a
similar Insight when he was talking
about his own spiritual journey he said
I had to Dy knowledge in order to make
room for
Faith now let me be clear what K meant
here he did not mean that he was willing
to contradict scientific evidence in
favor of religious Doctrine or Dogma as
some creationists do
today what he did mean was that he
recognized the limits of science he
accepted that some truths are not
justified by evidence they're justified
by something else by
morality now that may seem a little
crazy to some of you can of belief can a
truth be justified by
morality well it wasn't crazy to the
founders of this country who said we
hold these truths to be self-evident
that all men are created
equal now this is not a claim that is
justified by scientific evidence in fact
neuroscience and psychology shows us
very clearly that people are not equal
they differ in their intellectual
ability they differ in their emotional
stability they differ in how empathetic
and ethical they are this is not a
scientific truth it's a moral truth and
I think a very important moral truth as
long as we accept that this applies to
men and women science shows that
religion is really beneficial for
personal well-being Decades of research
have shown so many positive effects of
being religious people who are religious
live 7 to 10 years longer than people
who are not they have higher emotional
intelligence they're better at emotional
self-regulation and we know that this
isn't just due to church attendance
because people who attend church just
for social reasons don't show these
effects as strongly as people who
actually Express belief in God we even
know that religious IM imagery improves
emotional self-regulation in the
non-religious so there's lots of
evidence that would suggest it's a good
idea for your sake to be religious but
my work was also pushing me towards
something more than that that
spirituality is good not just for you
but for those around you for Society at
large my theory
predicts that if you have spiritual or
religious faith that will make you care
more about
others so a few years ago we set out to
try and test this and we ended up doing
nine different experiments involving
thousands of participants from all over
the world people of different religions
although largely the major monotheistic
religions and we measured not only their
belief in God or a universal Spirit but
we also measured their analytic thinking
ability and we measured how empathetic
they are how much they care about other
people and we found something just like
I showed you at the start that the
higher your analytic ability the less
you tend to believe in God but we also
found something twice as strong which is
that the more you care about other
people the more you do believe in
God so to put this a little crudely
if we
compare the dumbest and nastiest people
with the smartest and kindest in fact
the smartest and kindest believe um or
in God small effect we we also did a
number of other tests that contradict
some of the things that the new atheists
have claimed we found that religious
belief isn't driven by loneliness or
depression it isn't driven by a desire
for comfort and it doesn't drive people
to identify or sympathize less with
people very different from them in fact
we found exactly the reverse that people
who are religious identify more with all
of
humanity even the friends of more
religious people thought they were
Kinder more tolerant and better
listeners and that was an effect we
found in addition to the person
themselves expressing more concern for
others perhaps the most surprising
effect certainly surprising to me was we
found this relationship between empathy
and religion holds even for the most
dogmatic Believers that's a personality
characteristic that we found to
correlate highly with fundamentalism
within the
religious more dogmatic religious people
are actually slightly more pro-social
than less dogmatic religious people but
here's what's really curious is that the
reverse holds for those who don't
believe in God if you don't believe in
God the more dogmatic you are in your
beliefs the more your personality
resembles that of a
psychopath now this doesn't look great
for the brights and the new
atheists but I'm really not here to poke
fun at them because they raise a really
interesting and really important
intellectual Point what I've told you is
that spiritual or religious Faith asks
us to push aside scientific thinking so
does that mean that science and religion
are fundamentally oppos osed well I
think if you if you look at the
Neuroscience carefully it actually tells
you exactly the reverse the healthy
brain is constructed so we don't confuse
these two types of thinking we don't
allow them to interfere with each other
and that pushes to a philosophical
conclusion that scientific truth and
social narrative truth are fundamentally
distinct the brain is structured so that
they can and should happily live apart
okay so let's get back to the starting
question can a scientist be
religious well obviously they can be
many of the greatest and most
influential scientists throughout
history have been or are religious but
that's not really the interesting
question the interesting question is
does it make sense to believe in science
and religion and I think the ne
Neuroscience tells us that it can make
sense what the science tells us is that
our brains are remarkable but they're
not perfect they don't quite live up to
the rationalist ideal instead our brain
like every other part of our body has
limitations as a result we have two
quite different ways of understanding
the world and our neural architecture
has evolved to keep these two very
different types of understanding
distinct so they don't interfere with
each
other so what am I really trying to tell
you here am I trying to tell you that
you should be
religious
no religion and spirit spirituality a
one way to help balance your brain in a
way that corrects a troubling imbalance
in our current culture but I don't think
they're the only way becoming a student
of history of anthropology of great art
and great literature those are other
ways to correct the
balance I only suggest that you are open
to spiritual and religious thought and
what insights it can offer you the two
points I really want you to take home
from this are this first I want you to
realize there is a fundamental
difference between scientific
understanding on the one hand and
understanding what it means to be human
and in particular what it means to be an
ethical human on the other you shouldn't
confuse them realize they're distinct
they can be of course related to each
other but we need to start with the
recognition they're distinct and second
I want to suggest to you it's a good
idea to try to develop and use every
part of your
brain as can't discovered in his own
personal Journey it's a good idea to
leave a little room for the alternative
perspective to
flourish beyond that I think you should
figure out what you do and don't believe
for
yourself thank youel
[Music]
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
The Galileo Myth
Thinking Skillfully: Induction vs. Deduction, ULTIMATE tools from the Scientific Method & Philosophy
Critical Thinking #5: Necessary & Sufficient Conditions
Introduction to Behavioral Ethics | Concepts Unwrapped
Can God And Science Coexist? | Full EP 02 | Immortal India With Amish | English
I soldi fanno la felicità ? #libertàfinanziaria #soldi #finanzapersonale
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)