SCIENCE: Death Anxiety Likely Cause of Belief in Intelligent Design

[Skwim]

"Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.

The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.

The study was lead by UBC Psychology Assistant Professor Jessica Tracy and and UBC psychology PhD student Jason Martens. It was published in the March 30 issue of the open access journal PLoS ONE.

"Our results suggest that when confronted with existential concerns, people respond by searching for a sense of meaning and purpose in life," Tracy said. "For many, it appears that evolutionary theory doesn't offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions."
source and more

​

Considering the common motivation behind religious faith, it certainly makes sense to me.

.

 

[Axe Elf]

Considering the common motivation behind religious faith, it certainly makes sense to me.

Yeah, I probably would have drawn that conclusion even without the corroborating study.

 

[Quintessence]

Doesn't make sense to me. Mythic/religious narratives that are inspired by the sciences provide very compelling answers to existential questions. I follow such narratives myself. The problem is that most folks in Western cultures have been trained to view science and religion as separate/conflicting spheres. The notion of finding religious meaning in the sciences (or viewing the sciences as an outgrowth of the religious impetus) is completely foreign.

FYI, PLoS One has a somewhat questionable reputation in academia. Not necessarily for the right reasons, but it is what it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Considering the common motivation behind religious faith, it certainly makes sense to me.
.

Ditto.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.

The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.

The study was lead by UBC Psychology Assistant Professor Jessica Tracy and and UBC psychology PhD student Jason Martens. It was published in the March 30 issue of the open access journal PLoS ONE.

"Our results suggest that when confronted with existential concerns, people respond by searching for a sense of meaning and purpose in life," Tracy said. "For many, it appears that evolutionary theory doesn't offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions."
source and more

​

Considering the common motivation behind religious faith, it certainly makes sense to me.

.

Perhaps that explains the false claim we here so often from theists on the order of "evolution is your god" or "science is your god". Death is still frightening. But those that accept reality realize that wishful thinking will not change the facts. A god is simply not needed and the existing ones are usually quite immoral. It is better to have a lack of belief than to worship an immoral god.

 

[Axe Elf]

It is better to have a lack of belief than to worship an immoral god.

If your sense of morality doesn't reflect God's values, then the immoral one might not be God.

 

[Mindmaster]

"Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.​

.

Sounds like rubbish to me in only that in my belief system you can know of evolution and still think there is a design. I find it silly that these two concepts must be opposed. Ol' Death begins haunting you the minute you're born, so why is it troubling? Your card was punched nearly the moment you drew your first breath.

As far as death anxiety I think it has less to do with people fearing death, and more that they will not be there for someone in their lives or get something done. Highly religious people typically have huge sense of responsibility and it probably bothers them more than some silly debate on evolution.

 

[Kenny]

"Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.

The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.

The study was lead by UBC Psychology Assistant Professor Jessica Tracy and and UBC psychology PhD student Jason Martens. It was published in the March 30 issue of the open access journal PLoS ONE.

"Our results suggest that when confronted with existential concerns, people respond by searching for a sense of meaning and purpose in life," Tracy said. "For many, it appears that evolutionary theory doesn't offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions."
source and more

​

Considering the common motivation behind religious faith, it certainly makes sense to me.

.

Michael Behe does make sense, now that you mention it! IMV, not lo much about doubting evolution as it is in ID because reason says if there are natural laws, "there must be a law giver" (Rabbi Hirsch)

Death does have a tendency to make one wonder if there is something after.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Michael Behe does make sense, now that you mention it! IMV, not lo much about doubting evolution as it is in ID because reason says if there are natural laws, "there must be a law giver" (Rabbi Hirsch)

Natural laws are not legislative laws. Just because one requires a law giver does not mean the other does. You might as well claim that waving a hand requires an intelligence, so ocean waves also require an intelligence.

 

[Kenny]

Natural laws are not legislative laws. Just because one requires a law giver does not mean the other does. You might as well claim that waving a hand requires an intelligence, so ocean waves also require an intelligence.

Hmmm.... I can't say I agree with you. Don't you think that the oceans waves are a necessity?

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-there-were-no-longer-any-ocean-tides

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Hmmm.... I can't say I agree with you.

Can Congress get together and change the laws of gravity? If not, they are different things.

 

[David T]

"Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.

The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.

The study was lead by UBC Psychology Assistant Professor Jessica Tracy and and UBC psychology PhD student Jason Martens. It was published in the March 30 issue of the open access journal PLoS ONE.

"Our results suggest that when confronted with existential concerns, people respond by searching for a sense of meaning and purpose in life," Tracy said. "For many, it appears that evolutionary theory doesn't offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions."
source and more

​

Considering the common motivation behind religious faith, it certainly makes sense to me.

.

Dissociation from Reality is the problem. We can see in the early 20th century the dissociation from reality, dominates science in the nature faker controversy. Here is a story about a naturalist who is a priest of all things, completely flamed by the "science" of the day. He only Said what Jane Goodall said starting in the 1960's and science itself has come to realize is factual Is "modern" science any better?hardly Dawkins is proof he exists. Is religion any better? hardly Behe exists. They deserve each other.. whatever "they" or those idiots are, they ain't me.
William J. Long


Long as depicted by The Bookman in 1907
William Joseph Long (North Attleboro, Mass., 3 April 1867[1] – 1952) was an Americanwriter, naturalist and minister. He lived and worked in Stamford, Connecticut as a minister of the First Congregationalist Church.

As a naturalist, he would leave Stamford every March, often with his son, Brian, and two daughters, Lois and Cesca, to travel to "the wilderness" of Maine. There they would stay until the first snows of October, although sometimes he would stay all winter. In the 1920s, he began spending his summers in Nova Scotia, claiming "the wilderness is getting too crowded".

He wrote of these wilderness experiences in the books Ways of Wood Folk, Wilderness Ways, Wood-folk Comedies, Northern Trails, Wood Folk at School, and many others. His earlier books were illustrated by Charles Copeland; two later ones were illustrated by Charles Livingston Bull. Long believed that the best way to experience the wild was to plant yourself and sit for hours on end to let the wild "come to you; and they will!"




ControversyEdit
Because of the increased public interest in the natural world as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, Rev. Long's books were finding a large audience and even being issued in schools under the title of The Wood Folk Series. However, his findings and observations clashed with the prevailing scientific wisdom of animal behavior, which believed animals behaved purely on instinct, and could not learn from experience: a bird builds a nest purely by instinct and is not taught the skills required. Rev. Long provided many examples, supposedly from his experience, to cast doubt on that prevailing wisdom, suggesting that in fact animals did learn, and each could become individuals within their species. Some of the more famous observations were that kingfishers would catch fish in a river and then drop them into small pools so their offspring could practice catching the same fish but in an easier environment. He also chronicled a woodcock that made a "splint" for its broken leg. He also wrote of foxes that rode on the backs of sheep to escape hunters and porcupines curling into balls and rolling down hills.

All this led to a belief that Rev. Long (and others) were anthropomorphizing animal behavior, blurring the lines between the animal world and humans.

 

[Kenny]

Can Congress get together and change the laws of gravity? If not, they are different things.

I think we are talking apples and oranges here.

edited:

If there are laws on the books, it is because there was a law giver (Congress)

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your sense of morality doesn't reflect God's values, then the immoral one might not be God.

That could be, but since my morals are more consistent it, at least than the those of the God of the Bible, then it is much more likely that that man made being is the immoral one.

Tell me how do you tell whether your version of God is moral or not?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You can believe in theistic evolution. I'm not sure why this is so ignored. It's not some either or thing.

 

[Rival]

Yoh can believe in theistic evolution. I'm not sure why this is so ignored. It's not some either or thing.

Because it doesn't fit the aggressive New Atheist agenda that religious people are idiots and delusional.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Michael Behe does make sense, now that you mention it! IMV, not lo much about doubting evolution as it is in ID because reason says if there are natural laws, "there must be a law giver" (Rabbi Hirsch)

Death does have a tendency to make one wonder if there is something after.

How so? Do you realize that his claims of irreducible complexity have been refuted? So what does he left after that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it doesn't fit the aggressive New Atheist agenda that religious people are idiots and delusional.

I hope you are kidding here. I know that you probably are, sometimes I have made similar statements without a smiley and was taken seriously when I should not have been.

 

[Rival]

I hope you are kidding here. I know that you probably are, sometimes I have made similar statements without a smiley and was taken seriously when I should not have been.

I'm completely serious. The New Atheist movement actively encourages people to call religious people names, to mock them and make fun of them. Dawkins, one of its four horsemen, wanted atheists to be called 'brights' in opposition to religious people, who the movement perceives as dumb, sheeplike and delusional at worst. There are many videos of him saying such things. They mostly rely on the narrative that all religion is bad, should be wiped out and that materialism is the only acceptable view. You only have to read some posts on here where religious people are routinely described as living in a fantasy land, believing in fairy tales, being intellectually inferior, the list goes on. These are mostly slurs used against religious people by New Atheists who perpetuate that religion is evil.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think we are talking apples and oranges here.

Precisely. This is why natural laws don't require a law giver.