Abstract
Our experiment seeks to understand the impacts of promoting analytical processing on religion belief and science. The following hypothesis directed the experiment: Developing analytical processing would decrease (uncritical) belief in science; promoting analytical processing would decrease belief in God. We administered online questionnaires, lasting 15 minutes, to 118 participants who were above 18 years each. Pearson correlation analysis and regression analysis were carried out between the dependent variables in order to determine whether they measured different aspects of behavior. Our experiment was a successful attempt in characterizing analytical processing differences in science and religion.
Introduction
The need to explain various issues within our environment is something that is common in most of us. It is necessary to define whether people perceive science through religion or science. The significant difference is that science presents a system that can be used to generate and evaluate specific evidences to support or refute a given argument. Science requires analytical knowledge that needs some learning process in order to master it, something that may not be necessary when it comes to religion. According to Howitt and Cramer (2014), religion has been in existence throughout our history and has remained common in all social settings because of its uncomplicated concepts that rely on familiar events. In order to test validity of the difference, it may be necessary to conduct an investigation on analytical processing skills of individuals in science and in religion.
Impacts of Analytical Processing on Religion Belief and Science
Farias et al. (2013) suggest that religion is naturally analytical processing while science is unnaturally analytical processing. In this context, the term natural is used to refer to something obvious or familiar which does not need critical reflection. According to these scholars, inasmuch as cultural institutions may be considered important to both religion and science, they have a critical role when it comes to generating of scientific concepts. Unlike religion, science only thrives in a literate culture. Scientific analytical processing must be learnt in a formal context because it is not a knowledge that comes naturally. On the other hand, religious analytical processing does not heavily depend on specific cultural inputs as compared to scientific analytical processing. Scientific processes heavily rely on scientific materials, while religion may not need a specialized skill or knowledge so as to comprehend it.
According to Howitt and Cramer (2014), it is a fact that both science and religion heavily relies on explanatory theories. However, religion is based on theories that require basic reasoning. One of the most important religious concepts is the capacity to define agents, their actions, and the outcome of such actions in our world. On the other hand, science moves closer to methodologies as a way of understanding nature other than relying on agents and their actions. Both science and religion have formal distinctions used in different contexts. In this context, the term formal refers to knowledge processing that needs some form of teaching because it does not come naturally. Processes such as testing of hypotheses, studying control factors, analysis of results, conducting an evaluation and drawing of results are formal skills that may require some form of learning in order to be precise.
Howitt and Cramer (2014) say that Intuitive analytical skills are heavily reliant on human tendencies as a direct effort to understand our physical world. It is a fact that from a very tender age, everyone develops some ideas about the functionality of the world on issues such as what various objects move, what they are made of, and the interactions between people and objects in our physical environment. According to Farias et al. (2013), the ideas are often referred to as psychological intuition. This experiment seeks to investigate the effect of encouraging analytical processing as a way of promoting knowledge in religion and science. The hypothesis below directed our experiment: Development of analytical processing decreases beliefs in science; promotion of analytical processing decreases belief in religion.
Methods
Design
The researcher used attitude assessment in order to classify individuals, so as to facilitate making of predictions. Individuals who are high on intrinsic beliefs may display traits of analytical processing quite often than individuals who have high extrinsic orientation when it comes to religion. High extrinsic orientation people may display traits of neutrality by exhibiting mixed responses across contexts. People who are high on positive attitudes towards science can show analytical processing traits quite often than those who have a high negative attitude when it comes to scientific concepts. Individuals who have high negativity towards science may display traits of neutrality by exhibiting mixed responses in various contexts.
Participants
The participants (N = 118; 27 male, 91 female; age M = 34) the survey was completed by using a link to the website of the university. All the respondents were students taking psychology classes taken from various seminar groups.
Material
We directed the participants to the university’s website. We then directed them to a specific page on the web during a seminar class.
Procedure
We administered online questionnaires, each lasting 15 minutes, to 118 participants who were above 18 years. The research consisted of a series of structured questions which were related to specific beliefs and subjective perception of effects. Incidences of discomfort and confidentiality issues could have impaired participants’ rate of response and sincerity when filling the questionnaires. The researcher developed several steps that were to be followed by the participants to enhance privacy of the respondents in this study. First, the researcher sought for informed consent designed to make sure that the participants were protected (Dancey & Reidy, 2014; Howitt & Cramer, 2014.). Secondly, the researcher ensured that respondents in the study were adequately informed of goals and objectives of this study (Howitt & Cramer, 2014). They were also informed of the data collection process and storage methods that enhanced confidentiality in this study (see Appendix A).
Results
We borrowed Farias’s et al. (2013) instrument for scale development. According to the instrument, we did the rating as (1 for strongly disagree, to 6 for strongly agree) measured outcome by a sample of 118 participants. Howitt and Cramer (2014) advise that low internal consistency can erode the confidence of the test results. We examined the internal consistency of the instrument to ensure that it did not undermine the statistical outcome of the test analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to measure internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha supported the internal consistent of Farias’s et al. (2013) instrument with a coefficient of.899(n=10). Since the internal consistency exceeded the pre-designated cut-off (.500), the instrument supported the aspects of the hypothesis. The entire reliability coefficients are listed below.
Pearson correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted between dependent variables so as to establish whether or not they measured various aspects of human behavior. The results obtained revealed that observed images were insignificantly correlated with the reliable variables, with expectation of one variable being related with the coding characters in scientific context (where p=.193*). Given that one correlation was established to be significant, it appears that the dependent variables must have measured different facets of behavior. The outcomes of Pearson correlation are presented in the table below:
Discussion
The aim of our experiment was to illustrate the relation between analytical processing with religious belief and science belief. Our experiment consistent is with Farias’s et al. (2013) belief in science. The Cronbach’s alpha for the ten items was.899 for all the participants (n=118), which exceeded the.50 criterion greatly. It suggested that the internal consistency reliability of the instruments indicated in classification were reliable in characterizing the orientation of the individuals. Majority of the respondents (65 out of 118) agree with the scientific context that “Science tells us everything there is to know about what realism covers.” These observers assumed what the study was about and had attained different education levels (2- post-graduate, 16 undergraduate and 43 A levels). The confounding of context with analytical processing is consistent with hypothesis of Gervais and Norenzayan (2002) which argues that promotion of analytical processing decreases beliefs in God.
However, the justification shows that respondents may rely on analytical processing, thus influencing effects of contexts given that the background of religion and science do not have a similar analytical presentation. Most of the items in our study incorporated science context, thus relying rather on analytical processing than on the religious meaning. One way of correcting the problem may be to select the same respondents to participate in the scientific and religious scaled instruments. The alterations may help in making conclusions in both contexts since it will be the same participants making the conclusions.
Our experiment was a successful attempt in characterizing analytical processing differences in science and religion. The proof of processing differences that exists between religion and science was shown to support Farias’s et al. (2013); and Gervais and Norenzayan’s (2002) explanations of the distinction between religion and science. It is evident from the analysis that Farias’s et al. (2013) distinction was factual and is worth further research. This leads to the possibility of investigating context differences in analytical processing tasks. Our experiment is highly promising and offers direction to future academic works in this field.
References
Dancey, P. C., & Reidy, G. J. (2014). Statistics without maths for psychology (6th ed.). London: Prentice.
Farias, M., Newheiser, A.-K., Kahane, G., & Toledo, Z. D. (2013). Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, (49), 1210-1213.
Gervais, W., M, & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Supplementary materials for analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science, 336-493. Web.
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2014). Introduction to research methods in psychology (4th ed.). London: Pearson.