Basis for Belief 1

Running Head: BASIS FOR BELIEF

The Psychological Basis for Belief in God

Elizabeth A. Rooney

Glen Allen High School

 Basis for Belief 2

Abstract

This paper provides the various psychological dimensions for the reasoning in human belief in

God. First, the belief in a god is defined as complex, addressing the notion that this belief is

constant throughout all religions and the theological implications are not being analyzed. The

second part discusses the evolutionary perspective and how belief could be advantageous for

humans, but also distinguishes that recent research provides an alternate viewpoint that belief is a

byproduct of mechanisms. The bulk of the research evaluates the cognitive styles that many

believers have, such as reflective vs. intuitive. Also, the attribution theory is cited as one of the

prominent psychological bases through which people base their belief and others belief.

Motivation through basic desires also gives an element of the behavioral lens in which people

need to satisfy these desires, such as the need to belong, through belief in God. The conclusion

discusses the importance and relevance of the behavioral and cognitive perspectives to belief as

well as suggestions for future study.

The Psychological Basis for Belief in God

Introduction

Before psychological reasons can be explained, the definition of belief in God is

necessary to elaborate. As defined by Williams (1992), "belief in God is always at least belief

that God is a good thing" (p. 406). Belief cannot simply be the notion that one believes in the

existence of God, but rather that God is good, along with the knowledge that he exists. For

example, one could believe that both the Devil and God exist, but one could not believe in

both (p. 405). Faith is something quite similar to belief in that not only is God in existence, but

all that God does matches with the values of a persons belief system. Belief in God allows for
 Basis for Belief 3

complex behaviors and thought processes, thus it gives reasoning for its various psychological

bases. Belief in God is also a vital element of major religions across the world such as in

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. By gaining an understanding of this belief through

psychological reasons, it allows for an in depth analysis of human nature as a whole. The root of

human belief in God is grounded in a more reflective style of thinking, attribution of personal

and others beliefs, and motivational innate desires.

From the Cognitive Lens

The cognition of the human brain gives insight to the reasons for the belief in

God, especially with how this belief can be changed over time. Based on evolutionary

advantages, researchers have found that humans have been predisposed to believe in God. There

is an advantage in belief, enabling humans to counteract risky situations, of which could result in

death. The idea of supernatural observation may rid of dangerous risk miscalculations,

persuading the person to refrain from social deviance and to preserve genetic fitness (Bering,

2006, p. 146). Survival has been a key goal of human existence, thus allowing for belief to be a

key determinant. This goal creates an emphasis that there are certain types of cognitive

experiences that aid in the survival of humans. Research has discussed that certain types of

thinkers and biases allows for belief to be a significant factor in evolutionary survival of humans.

Compared to reflective thinkers, those are who more intuitive have far stronger beliefs in

God. Intuitive judgments mean judgments made with little effort based on automatic processes

while reflective judgments mean judgments in which the judge pauses to critically examine the

dictates of their intuition. Additionally, intuitive thinking is described as reflexive, heuristic,

associative, holistic, and experiential in nature. In contrast, reflective thinking can be described

as controlled, systematic, analytic, rule-based, or rational (Shenhav, Rand, & Green, 2012, p.
 Basis for Belief 4

424). In their first study, Shenhav, Rand, and Greene (2012) discovered that participants who

gave more intuitive CRT [Cognitive Reflection Test] responses reported a more confident belief

in God on [their] continuous atheist-believer scale, displaying the greater chance of belief in

God with intuitiveness. In their third study, they tested for a causal relationship between

cognitive style and belief in God by experimentally inducing mindsets favoring intuition over

reflection and vice versa. Their results were that participants who wrote about an experience that

vindicated intuition, reported a stronger belief in God, compared with those that wrote about

experiences that related to reflection (p. 427). This entire study of cognitive style came to the

conclusion that correlation between intuitive thinking and belief in God is not simply a

reflection of a cultural pattern, but rather these data suggest that cognitive style predicts how

ones religious beliefs change over time, independent of ones childhood influences or lack

thereof (p. 425). Therefore, the study suggests that there is a predisposition for human belief as

well as belief correlating with styles of thinking.

Based in biology, Bering (2006) held a similar conclusion that belief is innate because

children of different ages have shown that belief in the afterlife and God is not entirely cultural.

It was found that the younger the child, the greater their metaphysical beliefs, or believing in the

afterlife, showing that the mind is predisposed to believe in a higher power. This predisposition

of belief is due to the notion that if children exhibit signs of the traits of intuitiveness before

receiving cultural indoctrination, then it is reasonable to suggest that humans are naturally

inclined to belief in God and the afterlife (p. 144). The cultural aspect of belief is based on the

religious values, fundamental thoughts, and practices that each individual religion involves. This

research contradicts the notion that belief in God is rooted in the religious stories, ideals, and

practices. Through another research study, the results held that intuition predicts belief, even
 Basis for Belief 5

while cognitive ability and personality were controlled. This conclusion suggests that no matter

the education level of ones parents or ones character traits, belief can prevail regardless. The

same study also suggested that cognitive style is a predictor of evolution of beliefs over time,

meaning that the intensity of belief does not hold constant throughout ones lifetime (Shenhav,

Rand, & Greene, 2012, p. 427). Due to the fluctuation of intuitiveness of a person, the intensity

of belief can fluctuate as well. It is necessary to conclude that types of thinking reflect

individuals ingrained belief in God. Cognition has shown to be a predictor of belief and its

evolution over time. Cognitive style and the evolution thereof reasons to the notion that humans

are biologically predisposed to believe based on signs of intuition at a young age.

Furthermore, attribution bias is a vital instrument in explaining supernatural belief. The

way in which people perceive self and others beliefs can be determined through the attribution

theory. It is natural for humans to seek attribution of belief in others and ourselves because as

pattern seekers, we find the apparent good design of the universe and the perceived action of a

higher intelligence in our daily living to be powerful intellectual justification for belief

(Shermer, 2000, p. 20). There are also neural underpinnings that reason for adaptive belief

through attribution. This tendency of attribution is spread throughout the brain, and it is

probable that attributional occurrences arise from neural circuits developed for other uses (Azar,

2010). Therefore, the human brain is primed to believe and contain attribution biases in order to

aid in belief.

Through recent attributional process research, self-belief is correlated with rationality,

while others belief is related to emotionality. This type of research examines the tendencies for

people to explain social behavior by making inferences or internal states that go with outward

behavior. It also examines conditions under which people exhibit the bias of assuming that some
 Basis for Belief 6

relatively stable disposition, attitude, or belief of an individual caused their behavior

(Kenworthy, 2003, p. 137). Based on the findings of Kenworthys attribution process research,

the position of another person believing in God is perceived as one characterized by a relatively

high degree of emotionality and a relatively low degree of rationality. In addition, believers

reported arriving at their own belief position because of a rational thought process (p. 143).

Non-believers and believers of God tend to associate their own beliefs based on rational terms,

but others beliefs on emotional terms. Even though this study does not delve into the origins for

belief in God, it does grapple at peoples explanations for such origins. Through the

understanding that our own beliefs are considered rational by ourselves, but not to others, gives

implications that attribution bias is a natural phenomenon with belief.

More specifically, attributions of belief can be drawn from organization of random

events. Kay, Moscovitch, & Laurin (2010) performed a study that observed participants primed

with certain types of words to arouse them. Randomness is presumed to be highly aversive and

people will go to great lengths to reaffirm order in the face of evidence of the contrary. They

tested whether direct manipulations designed to prime thoughts of randomness caused increased

beliefs in supernatural sources of control and whether this affect is due to arousal generated by

thoughts of randomness. The participants primed with randomness-related words exhibited

greater heightened beliefs in spiritual control compared with participants primed with negatively

valenced control words. But, this effect disappeared when participants were given the

opportunity to attribute the cause of any arousal to a pill ingested earlier in the session. The

study concluded that belief in supernatural sources of control, such as God or karma, may

function, in part, to defend against distress associated with randomness, even when the

perception of randomness is not related to traumatic events (p. 217). The distress or
 Basis for Belief 7

randomness that is dealt with by humans can be anything that is unexpected, allowing attribution

of the event to a higher power. Attributions of personal beliefs can be drawn from events such as

sudden death in the family or even winning a championship. By having this belief in God, the

arousal will decrease far more significantly than those who do not have belief. Attributing

randomness to God gives a sense of calmness to a person that the event is a natural part of life as

a part of Gods plan.

Motivation and Basic Desires

Motivation based on certain values and basic desires pushes humans to believe. Much

evolutionary based research indicates that humans are predisposed to believe in order to satisfy

needs. According to a biological research study on belief, religious conviction buffers against

anxiety by providing meaning systems that specify standards of behavior, thus allowing for

belief to help reduce distress in times of emergency (Inzlicht et al., 2009, p. 390). While belief

helps in dangerous situations proving to be evolutionarily significant, recent studies have shown

that the previous research that belief is an adaptation in itself is not entirely plausible.

New studies indicate that religious beliefs are essentially byproducts of evolutionary

mechanisms that were fit for adaptations. Adaptations, in this case, are defined as features or

traits designed by natural selection for a particular adaptive function. Kirkpatrick (1999)

introduces the Contemporary Evolutionary Perspective which notes that evolution produces

byproducts based on the adaptations. One piece of evidence for this theory is that many

contemporary religious phenomena, such as complex religious belief systems and

denominational institutions are clearly modern inventions--and homo sapiens have had little

genetic evolution in the last 50,000 years (p. 926). Therefore, it can be explained that religious

ideas are byproducts of other cognitive and motivational systems used for other adaptations.
 Basis for Belief 8

Additionally, this theory does not postulate the existence of any kind of religious instinct or

psychological mechanism evolved for the function of producing religious thought or behavior (p.

922). Instead, it suggests that because of religiosity and belief, a greater chance of survival can

occur due to belief being a byproduct of regular adaptations.

More specifically, this theory suggests that functions or adaptations create Functions or

byproducts. For example, functions in the brain, such as simple and mechanical organization of

patterns, turn into Functions such as reading. This can be compared to religious belief in that

functions of adapting to the environment can create the Function of survival, as well as functions

of adaptations allowing for the creation of Functions of belief in a higher power (p. 940). Also,

Kirkpatrick suggests that psychological mechanisms are sexually differentiated to the extent that

the adaptive problems they are designed to solve differ for males and females; particularly true in

mating and reproduction (p. 946). Belief as a byproduct, not an adaptation in itself, creates

basic desires that motivate humans to appease these desires through belief in God.

Furthermore, empirical studies have shown support for a multitude of human basic

desires that can be satisfied through belief in God. The most accepted attempt to describe belief

based on desires is the Theory of Basic Motivation which incorporates the Sensitivity Theory

where sixteen basic desiresmotivateour behavior, including religious behavior (Reiss,

2004, p. 305). According to Reiss, religious experiences are well suited to help us regulate

[our] joys and express associated core values (p. 313). These core values are expressed in the

Reiss Desire Profile where each of the sixteen basic desires motivate everyone, but to a different

extent. More specifically, the rank of the sixteen desires for significance in each individual

displays that individuals sensitivities (p. 310-311). Because each persons intensity of belief and

relationship with God is varied, the sensitivities reflect this variation.

 Basis for Belief 9

Moreover, a sample of the desires taken from the Reiss Desire Profile are tranquility,

compound motives, vengeance, status, power, order, independence, honor, family, and

acceptance. All of these basic desires play some factor in the religious belief in God. For

example, humans desire tranquility in that they want personal safety and through faith we have

the potential to overcome fear and anxiety (p. 317). Results from the Reiss study indicated that

religious people place below-average value on independence or self-reliance, which makes

objective sense because if one has belief in God, they have a dependable relationship with Him.

Also, religious folk displayed an above-average motivation in raising a family and avoiding

conflict which is consistent with Christian teachings on the importance of family and the concept

of turning the other cheek (p. 318). Belief in God is a central aspect of Christian teachings,

therefore through these teachings along with belief, these basic human desires can be met. Due

to the notion that humans emotions, mentality, and spirituality are quite complex, the variety of

desires within humans provides reasonable evidence for why belief in God exists.

More specifically, the need to belong is valued as a crucial aspect of human nature,

especially within the reasons for belief in God. From four studies on the need to belong in

relation to belief, Gebauer and Maio (2012) predicted and found that the belief in God can be

motivated by the desire to satisfy the need to belong via affiliation with God. In the third study

of the collection, it was found that the need to belong increases religious intensity, meaning that

as the need gains presence within a person, so does the intensity of belief (p. 491). These studies

document that the idea or image of an accepting and loving God is not sufficient to elicit belief

in God: the existence of God must also be perceived as plausible (p. 492). This concept

correlates with the previous definition of belief requiring the knowledge of Gods existence and

that God is naturally good (Williams, 1992, p. 406). Innate human desires are significant
 Basis for Belief 10

motivators for our beliefs especially those that delve into faith. The current evidence indicates

that it is not sufficient to assume that the belief in God is simply innate or merely functions as a

defense mechanism, but rather a variety of behavioral, cognitive, biological, and evolutionary

factors are at work in explaining this complex, enduring, and prevalent belief.

Conclusions and Future Study

With most research delving into the cognitive perspective, the style and attribution of

belief reveal to be significant bases for religious belief. Through our basic needs, motivations,

attributions, and thinking styles, humans are able to psychologically analyze belief in God

through an objective lens. While adaptations and byproduct mechanisms of the evolutionary

perspective provide vast amounts of data and conclusions, the cognitive and behavioral

perspectives have greater relevance towards the religious community today who are questioning

the psychological basis for belief in God. Religious belief is a phenomenon that can be

scripturally and subjectively reasoned, but attributing beliefs to behavioral and cognitive reasons

give a more adaptive view of the beliefs that many humans hold. Belief in a supernatural or God

has existed for a long time and it is time for researchers and psychologists to analyze why

humans have these religious aspirations and beliefs.

In future research with belief, the emphasis needs to be placed on gathering data on the

psychoanalytical lens in order to gain knowledge about subconscious desires for belief.

Cronbach (1922) suggests that psychoanalysis may be able to detect the unconscious foundations

of a given doctrine, ritual, or phrase, or group of these things a sentiment of class pride,

exclusiveness, and arrogance or unwillingness to face realities of life. Some of the guesses for

belief based on the psychoanalytical lens is that believers have an unwillingness to "take

chances," a domineering instinct, and reluctance to be troubled with doubts and questionings (p.
 Basis for Belief 11

595). Even though this research in may be difficult to obtain in near perfect objectivity, it would

be quite insightful into the spirit of God dimension of belief. Moreover, there is a need to

research more about the biological areas of the brain that correlate with belief. At the present

time, there are studies that assume a region is associated with adaptations and byproducts of

these adaptations with belief, but these studies to not understand the full depth of the

evolutionary basis for this brain region. A neuroscientist at Laurentian University stimulated

"micro-seizures" in the temporal lobes of the brain which in turn produced a number of what can

be described as spiritual or supernatural experiences--sense of presence in the room, out of body

experience, and even religious feelings (Shermer, 2000, p. 18). If future research can dive deeper

into this specific brain area as it relates to belief, the biology of belief in God can be uncovered.

Finally, for future endeavors in the psychological basis of belief, the social psychology field

needs more in depth analysis. While the behavioral field was covered with attributions to others

and self-perspective of belief, the cultural and social influences need to be uncovered in order to

add depth to the psychology behind belief in God.

With many believers questioning their own faith, others faith, and religiosity as a whole,

it is necessary to delve into the roots of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other various religions

that include belief in a God. According to Apczynski (1992), it is crucial to search for the answer

behind belief because dwelling in intellectual traditions allows us to discern natural (as opposed

to magical) causation in events or the hand of God (as opposed to social conditions or

chance) guiding our lives (p. 306). Through continued research based on historical

implications as well as psychological bases, belief can be more objectively justified. The

understanding of belief in God to many has not been held to a rational basis. With future

investment in the psychological trends of believers, belief in God along with religions as a whole
 Basis for Belief 12

may be accepted far greater than it is in modern day. Belief is the root of most religions,

therefore it is essential that acceptance of this belief be extended to a greater proportion of the

world. With the recognition of the basis for belief, the worlds hate and cruelty of religions may

falter. A world with coexistence and open-mindedness may be the end result of a growing

knowledge of this ever enduring belief in an almighty God.

 Basis for Belief 13

References

Apczynski, J. (1992). Belief in God, Proper Basicality, and Rationality. Journal of the American

Academy of Religion, 60(2), 301-312.

Azar, B. (2010). A reason to believe. Monitor on Psychology, 41(11), 52.

Bering, J. (2006). The Cognitive Psychology of Belief in the Supernatural Belief in a deity or an

afterlife could be an evolutionarily advantageous by-product of people's ability to reason

about the minds of others. American Scientist, 94(2), 142-149.

Cronbach, A. (1922). Psychoanalysis and Religion. The Journal of Religion, 2(6), 588-599.

Gebauer, J. E., & Maio, G. R. (2012). The need to belong can motivate belief in God. Journal of

personality, 80(2), 465-501.

Inzlicht, M., McGregor, I., Hirsh, J., & Nash, K. (2009). Neural Markers of Religious

Conviction. Psychological Science, 20(3), 385-392.

Kay, A., Moscovitch, D., & Laurin, K. (2010). Randomness, Attributions of Arousal, and Belief

in God. Psychological Science, 21(2), 216-218.

Kenworthy, J. (2003). Explaining the Belief in God for Self, In-Group, and Out-Group Targets.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 137-146.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1999). Toward an evolutionary psychology of religion and personality.

Journal of personality, 67(6), 921-952.

Reiss, S. (2004). The sixteen strivings for God. Zygon, 39, 303-320.

Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: cognitive style influences

belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 423.

Shermer, M. (2000). Why People Believe in God. Public Perspective, 18-20.

Williams, J. (1992). Belief-in and Belief in God. Religious Studies, 28(3), 401-406.