When I saw this thread the other day when it was on New Threads sidebar, I went to the Tracey et al. paper and marked it because I didn't have time to read it.
Who here has read the paper? I believe it is important to read and understand a study before trying to discuss it.
The authors conducted 5 different studies, some of which are only vaguely related to the others. The methodologies (and therefore the results) of the studies rest on a variety of assumptions, several of which are simply unstated. Some of the results are inconsistent with results of the other studies.
I am unsure that the sample of undergraduate psychology students used in Study 1, for example--in which 45% identified themselves as some sort of Christian, and 81% identified themselves with either some particular religion or as “spiritual”--is representative of psychology students or the general population in the US or Canada (from which all the participants came). For reasons not explained, the sample used in Study 1 was 72% women, who tend to be and identify as more religious, and tend to score higher on “religiosity” scales. The sample of psychology students used in Study 4 was 77% women. The participants recruited for Study 3 by an online survey research company were 55% women, whereas the sample of undergraduate students recruited for Study 2 (apparently from any major) were 40% women. Noteworthy is the fact that the participants of Study 2, with the higher percentage of males, “followed the same procedure as in Study 1, except that they did not complete the measure of intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity,” but yielded results that were different than the results of Study 1. But other than this comparison, the results of Study 2 do not allow one to reject the null hypothesis that imagining one's own death has no effect on a person's liking of Behe's description of Intelligent Design theory or dislike of Dawkins' description of Darwin's theory.
Somehow the focus of these studies seem to me rather petty and contentious. The authors did not bother to investigate one finding that at least one study indicated: wait 2 whole minutes, perhaps even provide the participant with something neutral to read for 2 minutes, between asking the person to imagine his/her own death and asking about his/her like or dislike of Intelligent Design theory and Darwin's theory. The “effect” that is the subject matter of these studies, where imagining one's death produces a liking or disliking of these theories, seems to have evaporated during this 2-minute interval.
The authors do not say what “religiosity” measurement was performed, only that participants “rated their religiosity on a 10-point scale ranging from 1 ('not at all') to 10 ('extremely'), [and] completed a measure of intrinsic (Cronbach's α = .72) and extrinsic (Cronbach's α = .79) religiosity.” “Religiosity” is certainly not a self-defining term. The 10-point
Centrality of Religiosity Scale asks these questions:
01: How often do you think about religious issues?
02: To what extent do you believe that God or something divine exists?
03: How often do you take part in religious services?
04: How often do you pray?
05: How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine intervenes in your life?
06: How interested are you in learning more about religious topics?
07: To what extend do you believe in an afterlife—e.g. immortality of the soul, resurrection of the dead or reincarnation?
08: How important is to take part in religious services?
09: How important is personal prayer for you?
10: How often do you experience situations in which you have the feeling that God or something divine wants to communicate or to reveal something to you?
There are different ways to score frequency and degree in the answers to these question.
The
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religion Scale requires subjects to either agree or disagree with these statements:
1. I enjoy reading about my religion.
2. I go to church because it helps me to make friends.
3. It doesn't much matter what I believe so long as I am good.
4. It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer.
5. I have often had a strong sense of God's presence.
6. I pray mainly to gain relief and protection.
7. I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs.
8. What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow.
9. Prayer is for peace and happiness.
10. Although I am religious, I don't let it affect my daily life.
11. I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends.
12. My whole approach to life is based on my religion.
13. I go to church mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there.
14. Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life.
Exactly how these statements measure a person's “intrinsic” vs. “extrinsic” religious affinities is beyond my understanding. To my mind, item #10 states a contradiction.
In any case, psychology studies are notorious for having results that cannot be replicated. One can only wonder if that might be the case with the results of these studies.
Sir Roger Penrose is one of the finest physical minds of all time, developing (and getting awarded for) the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, along with Stephen Hawking whom I will just assume you've heard of. Stuart Hameroff is professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Psychology and director for the Center for Consciousness Studies, both until 1999, and professor Emeritus for Anesthesiology and Psychology since 2003.
