I recently read (most of) the last edition of Michael Shermer’s Book “Why People Believe Weird Things”, which has an appendix titled “Why Smart People Believe Weird Things” (emphasis mine). I skipped over most of the section on pseudohistory/holocaust denial because I didn’t find that topic to be of interest to me, though it does appear to be comprehensive. Since I’ve read quite a bit of literature on skepticism/agnosticism/science v. religion/etc., there’s a lot of this book that I could skip over. However, there is still a considerable amount of information that was new to me, was insightful, and thought-provoking. I enjoyed his appendix on smart people the most.
I had some thoughts regarding some of this section that have affected some of my own thoughs in the “quest for truth” as it were, but before I talk about it I have to give some context. So first, a few choice quotes from the book:
Shermer has a nice tag line summary of his theory on how/why smart people can go wrong:
“Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.”
- pg.283
He goes on to explain more things regarding several studies/surveys that deal with our idea of what makes a smart person smart (various measures), problems with relating demographic factors to various forms/types of weird belief, and then restates this thesis with a few more explicit factors of how everyone can go wrong:
“There is a wealth of scientific evidence in support of this thesis, but none more so than two extremely powerful cognitive biases that make it difficult for any of us to objectively evaluate a claim. These biases, in fact, are especially well manipulated by smart people: the Intellectual Attribution Bias and the Confirmation Bias.”
pg. 297
Intellectual Attribution Bias: “…we consider our own actions as being rationally motived, whereas we see those of others as more emotionally driven. Our commitment to a belief is attributed to a rational decision and intellectual choice (“I’m against gun control because statistics show that crime decreases when gun ownership increases”); whereas the other person’s belief is attributed to need and emotion (“He’s for gun control because he’s a bleeding-heart-liberal who needs to identify with the victim”).”
pg. 298
Confirmation Bias: “…the tendency to seek or interpret evidence favorable to already existing beliefs, and to ignore or reinterpret evidence unfavorable to already existing beliefs.”
pg. 299
I also liked this paragraph:
“Smart people, because they are more intelligent and better educated, are better able to give intellectual reasons justifying their beliefs that they arrived at for nonintellectual reasons. Yet smart people, like everyone else, recognize that emotional needs and being raised to believe something are how most of us most of the time come to our beliefs. The intellectual attribution bias then kicks in, especially in smart people, to justify those beliefs, no matter how weird they may be.”
pg. ??? – I returned the book to the library before I noted the page here… probably somewhere near 300 though.
I think this quote is especially poignant – smart people realize that most people decide/pursue belief of something because of emotional motivations, and not by a process of rational thought that is free of any biased default position. Somehow, though, they forget this when considering their own beliefs (intellectual attribution bias). It prompted me to think about my approach to one of the big questions: does a god exist, and if god exists, what is god’s character?
This prompted me to ask myself “What is my motivation for questioning the existence of god?”, or more specifically, “Do I question god’s existence in order to justify an emotional dislike for how the god paradigm works?”. During my teenage years I have come to realize there are many more ways of viewing the world than the judeo-christian framework put before me. This led to a deep-seated feeling of dissatisfaction with how the christian paradigm answers some of the big questions – why humans are here, what it is to have a meaningful life, what morality is. Ultimately, it comes down to this *feeling* that those answers are really overly simple, and such simplicity without explanatory power or elegance is not appealing to me. Science / rationalism may also be comparatively simple at times, but provides that explanatory elegance that I appreciate. However, feelings are… well, generally not a “good” way of guiding a quest for knowledge/truth.
When it comes down to admitting the feelings at the bottom of this endless thought process in my head, it makes me feel a bit weak at the knees. Why isn’t the christian story satisfying for me? While it does seem a bit too simplistic to be a satisfying explanation of what is probably reality (the Bible does read like a fariy tale at times), there is that nagging question: What if the answer really is that simple?
Is that so illogical? Improbable? There’s really nothing wrong with the answer of theism itself. Though it creates problems of how to shape theories of genesis (creation of the universe and mankind) in a scientific framework, there isn’t anything that is inherently wrong with the storyline itself. Even if we are to accept theism is the answer though, ultimately we are left with other nagging questions of why god did things the way he did that can significantly alter our perception of god’s character. There are plenty of questions out there that I think can shape a theoretical god’s character in very specific ways, and I consider these investigations generally more interesting than christian theology by itself.
