Another day, another study. This time, researchers in Finland say they've noticed that people who believe in God have a worse understanding of the physical world than those who don't.
The (very small) sample of 258 people were asked if they believe that "there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God". They were then asked to complete mechanical and physical tasks. Apparently, the theists were more likely to agree with nonsense statements such as "flowers are able to think" and "stones feel the cold". In addition, belief in the supernatural meant, "low systemising, poor intuitive physics skills, poor mechanical ability, poor mental rotation, low school grades in mathematics and physics, poor common knowledge about physical and biological phenomena, intuitive and analytical thinking styles, and in particular, with assigning mentality to non-mental phenomena".
The researchers go on to say that a lack of understanding about the universe results in "belief in demons, gods, and other supernatural phenomena".
In other words, religious people aren't very bright, and that explains their belief in God.
The Finnish researchers are no doubt good people, not intent on being offensive, but they've managed to achieve it. Let's have a look at some of the areas they've gone wrong.
First, there seems to be an odd presumption (and maybe it's just in the reporting rather than the research) that spatial and mechanical tests are a guide to intelligence. They aren't. They're a good guide to a certain kind of skill set – scientific, mechanical and physical knowledge. If you put a series of mechanical tests in front of me, I would flunk them. I can't do a Rubik's cube. I'm useless in those teambuilding games where you have to build a skyscraper out of matchsticks and competitive spirit. In fact, I considered it a major achievement when I changed a couple of light bulbs in the bathroom last weekend.
Does this mean I'm less knowledgeable than someone who'd do better on all these things? Well, on one level, yes – of course it does. My friends who are engineers and scientists and mechanics are obviously better at this stuff.
Yet on another level, this says nothing about my general intelligence level. We're all different and have different skills. Ask me about obscure indie music, arcane cricket statistics or a whole host of other things and I'm on home turf. This doesn't mean I have a good understanding of the world either – it just shows that people have skills, experience and aptitude in different areas.
Second, there is a moment where the social scientists who carried out this research lapsed into philosophers. Lack of ability in their tests, they claim, results in "belief in demons, gods, and other supernatural phenomena".This is the old mistake that correlation equals causation. They imply that because people are less aware of how the physical world works, then they're more likely to believe in God. Their data doesn't actually show this. They need to be careful of over-interpreting their research – there could be all sorts of (legitimate and illegitimate) reasons for belief in the supernatural.
Third, there is the very obvious and oft-repeated point that many of the leading scientists in history have been theists. The likes of Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton are often mentioned. What's less well-known is how many current leading scientists are believers. Francis Collins, who leads the human genome project, mathematician John Lennox, who has written widely in this area, and the likes of David Wilkinson and Alister McGrath whose work spans the worlds of science and theology.
Ruth Bancewicz, a leading author on Christian faith and science, says: "Most people assign value to objects, animals, people and experiences for reasons that have nothing to do with science." In other words, science alone isn't enough to give meaning to the universe – or even to explain the beauty of a sunset. So, while we need science and mechanics to understand the world, it isn't the only method by which we do it.
Finally, while obviously as Christians we reject statements like, "flowers are able to think" and "stones feel the cold", that doesn't mean that there isn't something behind these claims. If the universe was created by God – as Christians claim – then thinking of the world as active in some sense is not absurd. While stones may not have feeling, the vivid imagery Jesus paints of them in Luke 19 as "crying out" offers us a guide here. Things don't have feelings or emotions in the way people do – but creation declares the glory of God.
We needn't be overly defensive about this. Many of us who are believers will have excellent reasons to back up and ground our faith. We know this – and it's frustrating when others presume we don't. We need to raise the level of debate and engage with the serious questions that thrown up by the interaction between science and faith. It would enrich our public life and the experience both atheists and theists have of the world.
