A scientific defense of spiritual & religious faith | Tony Jack | TEDxCLE

Summary

This 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

00:00

🤔 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.

05:01

🧠 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.

10:02

🌐 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.

15:03

🔎 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.

Keywords

💡Dual Process Theory

Dual Process Theory refers to the psychological concept that humans have two distinct systems of thinking: intuitive (fast, emotional) and analytical (slow, logical). In the script, the speaker uses this theory to explain how people alternate between intuitive, empathetic thinking and logical, scientific reasoning, highlighting the tension between different ways of understanding the world.

💡Analytic Thinking

Analytic thinking is a slow, logical process aimed at understanding the world through careful, objective analysis. In the video, the speaker contrasts analytic thinking with empathetic thinking, explaining that the brain tends to separate the two. It’s essential for scientific inquiry but can conflict with the emotional and moral insights linked to religion and spirituality.

💡Empathetic Thinking

Empathetic thinking involves understanding and responding to emotional and social situations. It contrasts with analytic thinking, and according to the script, the brain suppresses one when the other is in use. Empathetic thinking is associated with religious and spiritual experiences, as well as social narratives.

💡Scientific Truth

Scientific truth refers to knowledge derived from empirical evidence and logical reasoning. In the script, scientific truth is presented as cold, detached, and analytical, often at odds with the more emotional and subjective ‘social narrative truth.’ The speaker argues that these two types of truth must be understood separately, as they fulfill different roles in human cognition.

💡Social Narrative Truth

Social narrative truth is understanding derived from emotions, social experiences, and moral values rather than empirical evidence. The script emphasizes that social truths, such as the belief in equality, are not scientifically provable but are morally significant. This type of truth is often linked to religion and spirituality.

💡Religious Belief

Religious belief involves faith in a higher power or spiritual truth that often goes beyond empirical evidence. In the script, religious belief is associated with empathetic thinking and moral insight, contrasting with the cold logic of scientific thought. The speaker suggests that both scientists and non-scientists can hold religious beliefs without it conflicting with scientific reasoning.

💡Moral Truth

Moral truth is the understanding of what is ethically right or wrong, often grounded in personal or cultural values rather than scientific evidence. In the video, the speaker refers to moral truths like equality, which are self-evident to many but not scientifically justified. The speaker uses this to show that not all truth comes from science, some truths are rooted in morality.

💡Spirituality

Spirituality is the belief in or practice of engaging with a higher or deeper moral and emotional understanding beyond the material world. In the script, spirituality is shown to activate empathetic brain networks and is linked to both personal well-being and social morality, as well as religious faith.

💡Neuroscience

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system, particularly the brain. In the video, the speaker discusses how neuroscience has revealed that different brain networks are responsible for analytic and empathetic thinking, and how these networks operate separately but can be balanced through practices like religion, spirituality, or engagement with the arts.

💡Kant's Philosophy

Immanuel Kant's philosophy, particularly his idea that ‘I had to deny knowledge to make room for faith,’ is cited in the script. This reflects Kant's belief that not all truths are based on empirical evidence. The speaker uses Kant's philosophy to argue that scientific reasoning has its limits and that faith or moral belief can coexist with scientific understanding.

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]