SCIENCE: Death Anxiety Likely Cause of Belief in Intelligent Design

[lewisnotmiller]

"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.

.

I'm somewhat skeptical, actually.
Thing is, belief in evolution is extremely unlikely to be informed by 'death anxiety'.
It certainly makes sense to me that some people may reject it for that reason, though.

So when comparing the two samples, there is almost by definition a skew in terms of results. All it's really telling me is that a subset of people believing in an afterlife do so because of a fear of death. It's much like a subset of people might believe in God due to Pascal's Wager. What that tells me about the entire set of people with beliefs in the afterlife, or how I should react to this information is quite different.

So yeah...I guess I'm actually not really skeptical about it, more unsure on the utility of it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Meh. New Atheists. Phht.

Anti-theists are a subset of atheists. I don't like appropriation.
(not blaming you for that, just frustrated at 're-branding' of atheism into some sort of philosophy beyond atheism).

Oooh...and 'Brights' is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, luckily for me I was thinking of Theism, which does cover all Deities connected to Intelligent design, but the link led me on to others where the two Assistant Professors in (guiding?) the research were very involved with researching 'religiosity' with 'thanataphobia'. It did look as if they had floated their research upon previous papers and researches.

I can see that this does exclude Deism because most Deists don't expect any special treatment above any other creatures.

ID is pretty much a Christian disease so I assumed Christian, but it is interesting to see that they went beyond that.

 

[Sunstone]

New Atheism, however, posits the idea that all religion is evil, unnecessary and makes apparently no distinction

Are you sure about that? Or are you conflating the views of New Atheist Dawkins with New Atheist Harris, etc.?

 

[Rival]

Are you sure about that? Or are you conflating the views of New Atheist Dawkins with New Atheist Harris, etc.?

It has just tended to be my experience with self professed NAs online.

 

[stvdv]

"people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory."​

.

I read that for 2000 years the Church used scare tactic [hell, sin] and bait tactic [front row in paradise]. You got extra points if you converted people to the flock [by inducing fear while evangelizing the rest of the world using hell and sin]. So this whole "fear" is not only in the Christians, but the whole world got infected. Kind of subconscious Black Magic spell is my feeling, what they put on everyone [Not that I blame the Christians, also just victims, not conscious]

These 2: God + reject evolution were essential to secure a place in heaven and avoid place in hell.

32% are Christians. The biggest group in the world [brainwashed fear group make it double]
So for me it seems not so much fear associated with, but more fear brainwashed and melted together with reject evolution + God

Death is natural. If nobody ever scared the hell into you, you would never be scared. I have been always intrigued by death not scared. Maybe little bit too curious to experience death.

 

[stvdv]

"people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory."​

.

For me believe in God + Evolution - Fear of Death work perfectly together

I believe in Einstein: E=m.c.c
I believe in evolution + small bang + big bang
I believe not in perpetual motion
So as long as I can't explain the energy needed for the perpetual big bangs
I believe in God, But can't proof it [and am senang with that]

And since very young age I have been intrigued by death
Too intrigued sometimes trying out going there

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

LOL... That is why natural laws MUST have a law giver.

Think about what it means to be a "law giver". I would say the following are pretty true of something given such a title:

• The law giver is in an official position which is recognized for its authority to dispense laws
• The law giver is intent on the laws being followed, and so announces himself (or his authoritative position) and the laws themselves
• The law giver sees to it that there is a system in place so that if the laws' requirements are not met then there are consequences

Now, all of the above could easily apply to God, provided He exists in the first place. He certainly would be in a position of power/authority. He supposedly announced Himself thousands of years ago. And He supposedly meters out punishment for those who do not abide by His laws.

But the fact is that we are talking about NATURAL LAWS, and those seem to be handled quite differently than REVEALED LAWS. For an example of what I am talking about:

• God sets forth the commandments, which may or may not be followed - the choice is up to the individual, who has "free will" to follow or not follow the laws/rules, and these are laws for which the "law giver" doles out punishment to those who do not abide.
• God also supposedly sets forth the natural laws of the universe, but these are markedly different from the previous laws, in that no one is given the choice to disobey. For example, you cannot simply choose to ignore gravity's imposition on you. Also, there is NO PUNISHMENT associated with any trespass you may try and make against the "law" of gravity.

This raises an interesting question, actually - does God take credit for what we call the physical "laws" of the universe? Taking gravity as an obvious example - does it state anywhere in The Bible that God created a law that forces matter to relate to other matter by way of mutual attraction? Not even necessarily using those words - but is gravity itself, or anything of any likeness to gravity mentioned ANYWHERE in The Bible? Just seems odd for a "law giver" to lay down laws that He doesn't relate to the people who are going to be abiding by those "laws". The same applies to a whole range of things we might consider "natural laws" to which the universe (and everything in it) is bound.

So couldn't it be that these laws exist without God necessarily having crafted them? He doesn't appear to feel we need to have any knowledge of them, or at least doesn't think they are noteworthy when looking at The Bible as the definitive source of His laws and guidance.

But then, isn't this the same state we have within our human judicial systems? We have laws that were certainly set forth by humans themselves - like tax laws - but then we have "laws" that no one has any choice but to HAVE TO adhere to - like the makeup of a person's DNA which determines height, color of skin or fingerprints. The police/judges/attorneys can also rely on things like "time" and "light" (for eye-witness visuals) without having to have put those things in place themselves. So you have laws that are revealed, and then you have laws that are taken for granted - that don't need to have been created by the "law giver"... laws that it would be silly for the "law giver" to take credit for.

The ultimate point being that, obviously "revealed laws" required a "law giver", for adherence is not automatic, and you have to lay out the rules if you mean to punish anyone who doesn't obey. But "natural laws" are NOTHING LIKE revealed laws. They don't even need revealed. They simply are, and you have no choice but to adhere. So saying something as presumptuous as "for laws to exist, there has to have been a law giver" doesn't make any sense at all given the context of what you are trying to apply it to.

 

[DanishCrow]

Checks out. The whole dispensationalist movement reeks of fear of the reaper to me.

If anyone is interested, progressive christian blogger Fred Clark has a rip roaringly funny criticism of the infamous Left Behind series that mentions how a lot of the rapture ready types can't deal with the thought of dying - it can be found here: Left Behind Index (the whole thing)

"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.
source and more

(...)
​

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

.

 

[stvdv]

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

For about 2000 year Church used scare tactic to have world domination. Rejecting evolution + accepting God were essential ingredients to make this work. Never they will give this up freely I believe. Rather twist science a bit [accept theistic evolution might cost 50% of the voters, safer to ignore this] to extend their power and world domination for a few more years. Maybe too simplistic, but sometimes things are very simple. Anyway fooling the world won't take too many more years I think, with internet for already 20years. Probably they already figured out another plot (Big Brother watching you, to control us or something similar)

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

LOL... That is why natural laws MUST have a law giver.

Why must they?

 

[Kenny]

Think about what it means to be a "law giver". I would say the following are pretty true of something given such a title:

• The law giver is in an official position which is recognized for its authority to dispense laws
• The law giver is intent on the laws being followed, and so announces himself (or his authoritative position) and the laws themselves
• The law giver sees to it that there is a system in place so that if the laws' requirements are not met then there are consequences

Now, all of the above could easily apply to God, provided He exists in the first place. He certainly would be in a position of power/authority. He supposedly announced Himself thousands of years ago. And He supposedly meters out punishment for those who do not abide by His laws.

But the fact is that we are talking about NATURAL LAWS, and those seem to be handled quite differently than REVEALED LAWS. For an example of what I am talking about:

• God sets forth the commandments, which may or may not be followed - the choice is up to the individual, who has "free will" to follow or not follow the laws/rules, and these are laws for which the "law giver" doles out punishment to those who do not abide.
• God also supposedly sets forth the natural laws of the universe, but these are markedly different from the previous laws, in that no one is given the choice to disobey. For example, you cannot simply choose to ignore gravity's imposition on you. Also, there is NO PUNISHMENT associated with any trespass you may try and make against the "law" of gravity.

This raises an interesting question, actually - does God take credit for what we call the physical "laws" of the universe? Taking gravity as an obvious example - does it state anywhere in The Bible that God created a law that forces matter to relate to other matter by way of mutual attraction? Not even necessarily using those words - but is gravity itself, or anything of any likeness to gravity mentioned ANYWHERE in The Bible? Just seems odd for a "law giver" to lay down laws that He doesn't relate to the people who are going to be abiding by those "laws". The same applies to a whole range of things we might consider "natural laws" to which the universe (and everything in it) is bound.

So couldn't it be that these laws exist without God necessarily having crafted them? He doesn't appear to feel we need to have any knowledge of them, or at least doesn't think they are noteworthy when looking at The Bible as the definitive source of His laws and guidance.

But then, isn't this the same state we have within our human judicial systems? We have laws that were certainly set forth by humans themselves - like tax laws - but then we have "laws" that no one has any choice but to HAVE TO adhere to - like the makeup of a person's DNA which determines height, color of skin or fingerprints. The police/judges/attorneys can also rely on things like "time" and "light" (for eye-witness visuals) without having to have put those things in place themselves. So you have laws that are revealed, and then you have laws that are taken for granted - that don't need to have been created by the "law giver"... laws that it would be silly for the "law giver" to take credit for.

The ultimate point being that, obviously "revealed laws" required a "law giver", for adherence is not automatic, and you have to lay out the rules if you mean to punish anyone who doesn't obey. But "natural laws" are NOTHING LIKE revealed laws. They don't even need revealed. They simply are, and you have no choice but to adhere. So saying something as presumptuous as "for laws to exist, there has to have been a law giver" doesn't make any sense at all given the context of what you are trying to apply it to.

Actually, you have great points although I disagree with some deductions.

Yes... there are many laws. There are moral laws (for which God has a position and changes them according to circumstance as can a law giver). There are natural laws (for which I hold to the position that it is still God who produced them and can suspend them). And others.

In as much as the Bible is about man's history and future and not a compendium of all laws and science, to which He said that it is man's blessing to discover them, it does not mean that there aren't some references. It isn't a biology book but it does have some biological references. It isn't a physics book but it does contain references to physics:

One such example is Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

"The Greek verb for "consist" (sunistano) means to cohere, preserve, or hold together. Extra-biblical Greek use of this word pictures a vessel holding water within itself. The word is used in Colossians in the perfect tense, which describes a present continuing state arising from past action. This perfect tense also implies permanence of the act of holding the universe together. One mechanism used is obviously gravity, established by the Creator and still maintained without flaw today. (Donald DeYoung PhD)

 

[Kenny]

Why must they?

Because someone had to create things in order. If not, there would be utter chaos.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Because someone had to create things in order. If not, there would be utter chaos.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For about 2000 year Church used scare tactic to have world domination. Rejecting evolution + accepting God were essential ingredients to make this work. Never they will give this up freely I believe. Rather twist science a bit [accept theistic evolution might cost 50% of the voters, safer to ignore this] to extend their power and world domination for a few more years. Maybe too simplistic, but sometimes things are very simple. Anyway fooling the world won't take too many more years I think, with internet for already 20years. Probably they already figured out another plot (Big Brother watching you, to control us or something similar)

Um, what?

 

[Rival]

Um, what?

 

[Kenny]

Based on what evidence?

Actually, a correct answer would be the interpretation of what we see as we both see the same picture.

One may look at a Picasso and say "I wouldn't spend a dime on that" whilst another would say "it's a masterpiece".

I look at the Universe and I say "A masterpiece by a Creator"... you could look at it and say "It's just a random puzzle that just somehow is working and no one was involved".

I am at peace that you could have a different viewpoint.

Of course, mine is correct Just asl @metis

 

[atanu]

"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.

.

I think I can see a connection why a dis-belief that an ineffable realm supports our sensual egoic realm can lead to a spurious correlation, reported in this 2011 work.

Death is loss of ego self. This happens daily in deep sleep but we are naturally fearful of the permanent loss of the ego self and also the bodily pain etc.. True, this anxiety impels us to seek the truth of ourselves. And many truthful folks teach that actually we are unborn and that it is only the ever-changing ego that comes and goes.

OTOH, if Dawkins et al say that they are not anxious about the loss of ego self and bodily pains, it is either that they are bluffing or that such people have transcended the ego.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Actually, a correct answer would be the interpretation of what we see as we both see the same picture.

One may look at a Picasso and say "I wouldn't spend a dime on that" whilst another would say "it's a masterpiece".

I look at the Universe and I say "A masterpiece by a Creator"... you could look at it and say "It's just a random puzzle that just somehow is working and no one was involved".

I am at peace that you could have a different viewpoint.

Of course, mine is correct Just asl @metis

So all you have is a bare assertion based on personal opinion? No evidence?

 

[sealchan]

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.

Well, if you accept that God created evolution then you are left with a more remote sense of God being interested in your particular fate. Understanding evolution forces you to recognize a long ago (and sadly perhaps) demoted mythic truth that life feeds on death in order to perpetuate itself. Death, death, death is not what the death fearing want to hear.

However, the same people miss the obvious in their own sacred literature. God very much is the God of death and appreciating the magnitude of death is the gateway to understanding God. The fear of death is precisely what religion should be providing a deep, psychological relief from and so this study indicates the state of decay of religion itself.