Supernatural Belief in ‘Scientific’ Worldviews?
Investigating Science-oriented Finns’ Explanations for Origins, Death and Suffering
In: Journal of Cognition and CultureSearch for other papers by Roosa Haimila in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Hanne Metsähinen in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Mark Sevalnev in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
A ‘scientific worldview’ is commonly seen as contradictory to belief in supernatural forces, and there is little research on the supernatural beliefs of individuals who identify with science. In this article, we investigate the supernatural explanations of science-oriented individuals in domains of fundamental concern (suffering, death, and origins), and how supernatural causality is reconciled with belief in science. The open-ended responses of 387 Finns were analysed. The results show that science-oriented Finns endorsed both religion-related and more secular supernatural beliefs (such as belief in evolution as a purposeful process). Following the coexistence model, science-oriented Finns applied synthetic and target-dependent reasoning. In addition, many who invoked supernatural explanations integrated supernatural causality with science. Two forms of integrated reasoning were found: 1) supernatural agency as the ultimate cause and scientific theory as the proximate cause, and 2) a similarity-based heuristic, as seen in afterlife beliefs appealing to the law of conservation of energy.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Anderson, J. E., Kay, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2010). In Search of the Silver Lining: The Justice Motive Fosters Perceptions of Benefits in the Later Lives of Tragedy Victims. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1599–1604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610386620.
-
Astuti, R., & Harris, P. (2008). Understanding Mortality and the Life of the Ancestors in Rural Madagascar. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32(4), 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066907.
-
Atkinson, A. R. (2020). HIDD’n HADD in Intelligent Design. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 20(3–4), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340086.
-
Banerjee, K., & Bloom, P. (2014). Why did this happen to me? Religious believers’ and non-believers’ teleological reasoning about life events. Cognition, 133(1), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.017.
-
Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2015). Psychological perspectives on religion and religiosity. Routledge.
-
Bering, J. (2011). The belief instinct: The psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life (1st American ed). W.W. Norton.
-
Bering, J. M. (2006). The folk psychology of souls. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(5), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X06009101.
-
Blancke, S., De Smedt, J., De Cruz, H., Boudry, M., & Braeckman, J. (2012). The Implications of the Cognitive Sciences for the Relation Between Religion and Science Education: The Case of Evolutionary Theory. Science & Education, 21(8), 1167–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9402-z.
-
Bouvet, R., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2015). Non-Reflective Thinkers Are Predisposed to Attribute Supernatural Causation to Uncanny Experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(7), 955–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215585728.
-
Boyer, P. (1996). What Makes Anthropomorphism Natural: Intuitive Ontology and Cultural Representations. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034634.
-
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. Basic Books.
-
Brent, S. B., Speece, M. W., Lin, C., Dong, Q., & Yang, C. (1996). The Development of the Concept of Death among Chinese and U.S. Children 3–17 Years of Age: From Binary to “Fuzzy” Concepts? OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 33(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.2190/27L7-G7Q1-DY5Q-J9F3.
-
Bullivant, S., Farias, M., Lanman, J., & Lee, L. (2019, May 29). Atheists and agnostics around the world. Interim findings from 2019 research in Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Cultures of Unbelief: Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network Conference, Rome, Italy. https://research.stmarys.ac.uk/3169/.
-
Busch, J. T. A., Watson-Jones, R. E., & Legare, C. H. (2017). The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations within and across domains and development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12164.
-
Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Wilson, A. L., LoTempio, E., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2011). Exploring the atheist personality: Well-being, awe, and magical thinking in atheists, Buddhists, and Christians. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(7), 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2010.509847.
-
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding In-depth Semistructured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475.
-
Crease, R. P. (2019). The bizarre logic of the many-worlds theory. Nature, 573(7772), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02602-8.
-
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Houghton Mifflin Co.
-
Drinkwater, K., Dagnall, N., & Denovan, A. (2020). Measuring Belief in the Paranormal: Where are we and where do we go from here? Unpublished. http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.14973.31206.
-
Ecklund, E. H., Johnson, D. R., Scheitle, C. P., Matthews, K. R. W., & Lewis, S. W. (2016). Religion among Scientists in International Context: A New Study of Scientists in Eight Regions. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116664353.
-
Einstein, A., & Rosenkranz, Z. (2013). Albert Einstein, the human side: Glimpses from his archives (H. Dukas & B. Hoffmann, Eds.; E-book). Princeton University Press.
-
Elsdon-Baker, F., Leicht, C., Mason-Wilkes, W., Preece, E., & Piggott, L. (2017). Summary report of preliminary findings for a survey of public perspectives on Evolution and the relationship between Evolutionary Science and Religion (p. 34). https://sciencereligionspectrum.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SRESYouGov-survey-preliminary-findings-5.9.17.pdf.
-
Evans, E. M., Spiegel, A. N., Gram, W., Frazier, B. N., Tare, M., Thompson, S., & Diamond, J. (2009). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 326–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20337.
-
Farias, M. (2013). The Psychology of Atheism. In S. Bullivant & M. Ruse (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (p. 17). Oxford University Press.
-
Farias, M., Newheiser, A.-K., Kahane, G., & de Toledo, Z. (2013). Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.008.
-
Flanagan, O. (2008). Varieties of Naturalism. In P. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science (2nd edition, p. 431–452). Oxford University Press.
-
Gelman, S., & Raman, L. (2004). A Cross-Cultural Developmental Analysis of Children’s and Adults’ Understanding of Illness in South Asia (India) and the United States. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568537041725088.
-
Goulding, B. W., & Friedman, O. (2021). A Similarity Heuristic in Children’s Possibility Judgments. Child Development, 92(2), 662–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13534.
-
Gutiérrez, I. T., Menendez, D., Jiang, M. J., Hernandez, I. G., Miller, P., & Rosengren, K. S. (2020). Embracing Death: Mexican Parent and Child Perspectives on Death. Child Development, 91(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13263.
-
Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., & Puranen, B. (2021). World Values Survey Time-Series (1981–2020) Cross-National Data-Set (2.0) [dataset]. World Values Survey Association. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.15.
-
Haimila, R. (2016). Yliluonnollisen tarkoituksen ja naturalistisen selityksen rinnakkaiselo. Luonnonkatastrofin selitykset suomalaisessa internetkeskustelussa [The coexistence of supernatural purpose and naturalistic explanation. Making sense of natural disaster in Finnish internet discussion]. Uskonnontutkija, 5(2), 1–30.
-
Haimila, R. (2020). Does a science-oriented worldview entail unbelief? Meaning, morality, and continuity from scientific research in self-reports of Finnish unbelievers and believers. Secular Studies, 2(2), 83–116. https://doi.org/10.1163/25892525-bja10006.
-
Haimila, R. (2023). Beyond scientific worldviews: Belief in science and ‘supernatural’ explanations in science-oriented individuals [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Helsinki.
-
Haimila, R., & Muraja, E. (2023). A sense of continuity in mortality? Exploring science-oriented Finns’ views on afterdeath. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 88(1), 38–65.
-
Hammer, O., & Lewis, J. R. (2010). Introduction. In Handbook of Religion and the Authority of Science (pp. 1–20). Brill. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10633302.
-
Harris, P., & Giménez, M. (2005). Children’s Acceptance of Conflicting Testimony: The Case of Death. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5(1–2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568537054068606.
-
Harris, P. L. (2009). Piaget on causality: The Whig interpretation of cognitive development. British Journal of Psychology, 100(S1), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X414222.
-
Hartman, R. O., Dieckmann, N. F., Sprenger, A. M., Stastny, B. J., & DeMarree, K. G. (2017). Modeling Attitudes Toward Science: Development and Validation of the Credibility of Science Scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1372284.
-
Hefner, P. (1997). The Science–Religion Relation: Controversy, Convergence, and Search for Meaning. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7(3), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0703_1.
-
Herbert, D., & Bullock, J. (2020). Reaching for a new sense of connection: Soft atheism and ‘patch and make do’ spirituality amongst nonreligious European millennials. Culture and Religion, 21(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610.2020.1862887.
-
Heywood, B. T., & Bering, J. M. (2014). “Meant to be”: How religious beliefs and cultural religiosity affect the implicit bias to think teleologically. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 4(3), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2013.782888.
-
Hossenfelder, S. (2022, July 11). Can particles really be in two places at the same time? New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2328087-can-particles-really-be-in-two-places-at-the-same-time/.
-
Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St. John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X04266540.
-
Järnefelt, E. (2013). Created by Some Being: Theoretical and Empirical Exploration of Adults’ Automatic and Reflective Beliefs about the Origin of Natural Phenomena [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Helsinki.
-
Järnefelt, E., Canfield, C. F., & Kelemen, D. (2015). The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults. Cognition, 140, 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.005.
-
Järnefelt, E., Zhu, L., Canfield, C. F., Chen, M., & Kelemen, D. (2018). Reasoning about nature’s agency and design in the cultural context of China. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 9(2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2018.1449137.
-
Jerotijević, D. (2015). The Coexistence of Different Explanatory Models of Misfortune: A Case from Serbia. Human Affairs, 25(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2015-0022.
-
Kelemen, D. (2003). British and American children’s preferences for teleo-functional explanations of the natural world. Cognition, 88(2), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00024-00026.
-
Koski, K. (2016). Discussing the Supernatural in Contemporary Finland: Discourses, Genres, and Forums. Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, 65, 11–36. https://doi.org/10.7592/FEJF2016.65.koski.
-
Legare, C., & Gelman, S. (2008). Bewitchment, Biology, or Both: The Co-Existence of Natural and Supernatural Explanatory Frameworks Across Development. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32(4), 607–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066766.
-
Legare, C. H., Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S., & Harris, P. L. (2012). The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations Across Cultures and Development. Child Development, 83(3), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x.
-
Legare, C. H., & Shtulman, A. (2018). Explanatory Pluralism Across Cultures and Development. In M. Fortier & J. Proust (Eds.), Metacognitive Diversity: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 415–432). Oxford University Press.
-
Legare, C. H., & Visala, A. (2011). Between Religion and Science: Integrating Psychological and Philosophical Accounts of Explanatory Coexistence. Human Development, 54(3), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1159/000329135.
-
Lewis, J. R. (2007). Science and the New Age. In Handbook of New Age (Issue v. 1, pp. 207–230). Brill; eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xww&AN=308187&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
-
Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2007). Superstitious, magical, and paranormal beliefs: An integrative model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.009.
-
Lindeman, M., Riekki, T., & Svedholm-Häkkinen, A. M. (2015). Individual Differences in Conceptions of Soul, Mind, and Brain. Journal of Individual Differences, 36(3), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000167.
-
Lindeman, M., & Svedholm, A. M. (2012). What’s in a term? Paranormal, superstitious, magical and supernatural beliefs by any other name would mean the same. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027158.
-
Lindeman, M., van Elk, M., Lipsanen, J., Marin, P., & Schjødt, U. (2019). Religious Unbelief in Three Western European Countries: Identifying and Characterizing Unbeliever Types Using Latent Class Analysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 29(3), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2019.1591140.
-
Maes, J. (1998). Immanent Justice and Ultimate Justice. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World (pp. 9–40). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-6415_2.
-
Mansour, N. (2011). Science teachers’ views of science and religion vs. the Islamic perspective: Conflicting or compatible?: Science and Religion vs. the Islamic Perspective. Science Education, 95(2), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20418.
-
Martyn, H., Barrett, A., & Nicholson, H. D. (2014). A belief in the soul may contribute to the stress experienced in the dissecting room. Journal of Anatomy, 224(3), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12122.
-
McCauley, R. N. (2011). Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not. Oxford University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10500981.
-
Morren, M., & Paas, L. J. (2020). Short and Long Instructional Manipulation Checks: What Do They Measure? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(4), 790–800. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz046.
-
Nordin, A., & Bjälkebring, P. (2021). The Counterintuitiveness of Supernatural Dreams and Religiosity. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 21(3–4), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340114.
-
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009.
-
Orenstein, A. (2002). Religion and Paranormal Belief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00118.
-
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003.
-
Pew Research Center. (2012). “Nones” on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation (p. 80). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2012/10/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf.
-
Pew Research Center. (2015, January 22). Religion and Science. Highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/10/22/science-and-religion/.
-
Pnevmatikos, D., & Georgiadou, T. (2019). The explanatory coexistence of scientific and supernatural explanations: A meta-analysis. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 24(1), 177–205.
-
Poling, D., & Evans, E. M. (2004). Religious Belief, Scientific Expertise, and Folk Ecology. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3–4), 485–524. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568537042484931.
-
Preston, J. L., Ritter, R. S., & Hepler, J. (2013). Neuroscience and the soul: Competing explanations for the human experience. Cognition, 127(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.003.
-
Purzycki, B. G. (2013). Toward a Cognitive Ecology of Religious Concepts: Evidence from the Tyva Republic. Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion, 1(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1558/jcsr.v1i1.99.
-
Purzycki, B. G., & Willard, A. K. (2016). MCI theory: A critical discussion. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 6(3), 207–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2015.1024915.
-
Pyysiäinen, I. (2002). Religion and the Counter-Intuitive. In I. Pyysiäinen & V. Anttonen (Eds.), Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion (pp. 110–132). Continuum.
-
Pyysiäinen, I., Lindeman, M., & Honkela, T. (2003). Counterintuitiveness as the hallmark of religiosity. Religion, 33(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.religion.2003.09.001.
-
Raman, L., & Winer, G. A. (2004). Evidence of more immanent justice responding in adults than children: A challenge to traditional developmental theories. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151004323044609.
-
Randall, T. M., & Desrosiers, M. (1980). Measurement of Supernatural Belief: Sex Differences and Locus of Control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44(5), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4405_9.
-
Schofield, M. B., Baker, I. S., Staples, P., & Sheffield, D. (2018). Creation and Validation of the Belief in the Supernatural Scale. Journal of Parapsychology, 82(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2018.01.04.
-
Science Barometer. (2019). Tiedebarometri 2019. Tutkimus suomalaisten suhtautumisesta tieteeseen ja tieteellis-tekniseen kehitykseen [The Finnish Science Barometer 2019. A Study on Finnish Attitudes Towards Science and Technological Progress] (p. 125). Tieteen tiedotusry. http://www.tieteentiedotus.fi/files/Tiedebarometri_2019.pdf.
-
Shtulman, A. (2015). How Lay Cognition Constrains Scientific Cognition: Scientific Cognition. Philosophy Compass, 10(11), 785–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12260.
-
Shtulman, A., & Lombrozo, T. (2016). Bundles of contradiction. A coexistence view of conceptual change. In D. Barner & A. S. Baron (Eds.), Core knowledge and conceptual change (pp. 53–72). Oxford University Press.
-
Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x.
-
Stone, A., McDermott, M. R., Abdi, A., Cornwell, B., Matyas, Z., Reed, R., & Watt, R. (2018). Development and validation of the multi-dimensional questionnaire of scientifically unsubstantiated beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 128, 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.024.
-
Svedholm, A. M., Lindeman, M., & Lipsanen, J. (2010). Believing in the purpose of events-why does it occur, and is it supernatural? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1560.
-
Syed, M., & Nelson, S. C. (2015). Guidelines for Establishing Reliability When Coding Narrative Data. Emerging Adulthood, 3(6), 375–387. https://doiorg/10.1177/2167696815587648.
-
Tiaynen-Qadir, T., Qadir, A., Vuolanto, P., & Hansen, P. (2021). Negotiations of Science and Religion in Nordic Institutions: An Ethnographic Approach. Religions, 12(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12010045.
-
van Mulukom, V., Turpin, H., Haimila, R., Purzycki, B. G., Bendixen, T., Kundtová Klocová, E., Řezníček, D., Coleman, T. J., Sevinç, K., Maraldi, E., Schjoedt, U., Rutjens, B. T., & Farias, M. (2023). What do nonreligious nonbelievers believe in? Secular worldviews around the world. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 15(1), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000480.
-
Visuri, I., Rimondini, A., & Gruneau Brulin, J. (2022). Supernatural post-mortem beliefs among the Some and the None: Rethinking the “secular” pupil in Swedish religion education.
-
Walker, G. C. (2000). Secular Eschatology: Beliefs about Afterlife. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 41(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2190/Q21C-5VED-GYW6-W091.
-
Watson-Jones, R. E., Busch, J. T. A., & Legare, C. H. (2015). Interdisciplinary and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Explanatory Coexistence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(4), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12162.
-
Watts, J., Passmore, S., Jackson, J. C., Rzymski, C., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2020). Text analysis shows conceptual overlap as well as domain-specific differences in Christian and secular worldviews. Cognition, 201, 104290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104290.
-
Williams, R. N., Taylor, C. B., & Hintze, W. J. (1989). The Influence of Religious Orientation on Belief in Science, Religion, and the Paranormal. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 17(4), 352–359.
-
Wilson, J. A. (2018). Reducing Pseudoscientific and Paranormal Beliefs in University Students Through a Course in Science and Critical Thinking. Science & Education, 27(1–2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9956-0.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 313 | 313 | 19 |
| Full Text Views | 10 | 10 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 39 | 39 | 6 |
Supernatural Belief in ‘Scientific’ Worldviews?
Investigating Science-oriented Finns’ Explanations for Origins, Death and Suffering
In: Journal of Cognition and CultureSearch for other papers by Roosa Haimila in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hanne Metsähinen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mark Sevalnev in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
A ‘scientific worldview’ is commonly seen as contradictory to belief in supernatural forces, and there is little research on the supernatural beliefs of individuals who identify with science. In this article, we investigate the supernatural explanations of science-oriented individuals in domains of fundamental concern (suffering, death, and origins), and how supernatural causality is reconciled with belief in science. The open-ended responses of 387 Finns were analysed. The results show that science-oriented Finns endorsed both religion-related and more secular supernatural beliefs (such as belief in evolution as a purposeful process). Following the coexistence model, science-oriented Finns applied synthetic and target-dependent reasoning. In addition, many who invoked supernatural explanations integrated supernatural causality with science. Two forms of integrated reasoning were found: 1) supernatural agency as the ultimate cause and scientific theory as the proximate cause, and 2) a similarity-based heuristic, as seen in afterlife beliefs appealing to the law of conservation of energy.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 313 | 313 | 19 |
| Full Text Views | 10 | 10 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 39 | 39 | 6 |