Psychology of Belief Part 8: Need for Closure

Have you ever wondered why people are so prone to "God of the Gaps" thinking?

Here's how it works:

Religious belief is highly correlated with need for cognitive closure. Need for closure is then highly correlated with a propensity for primacy. This means whenever a question comes up that begs for an answer, the natural tendency for such people is to latch on to whatever answer comes along first to fill in the ambiguity. Since "God did it" is such a classic answer to so many deep questions about the universe itself, many people cannot help but use this answer to fill in their questions.

So what's the solution?

Unless you are an expert in whatever cosmic issue is being questioned, learn to feel happy with telling people "I don't know, and neither do you." Even this response can fill the need for closure, but now we're at least being honest. We also leave ourselves much more open to learning the real answer when it is finally presented with honest, academic discipline.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• psychology of belief
• need for closure
• social
• psychology
• religion

[un2mensch]

2:05 - AntiCitizenX, dammit, we've been through this. It's turtles all the way down!

[AntiCitizenX]

@un2mensch

:)

[simcult]

Hey I'd really like to see a video on so called 'Miracles'. The sad thing is that believers use this as a way to 'explain' the unexplainable - like Noah's ark, water into wine, walking on water, etc

[AntiCitizenX]

@simcult

See part 6 on hallucinations.  Also see part 4 on the misinformation effect. There's your miracles.

[AdamKili]

THANKS for pointing out that nobody knows can become just as much of a belief as God did it. Maybe this says something about agnostics?

I love your videos! I recently left the Mormon church. Are there any books that tell more about this subject? I haven't found any that tie it in to religion like you do (maybe you should write one!), but I've found one called "The Social Animal" by Elliot Aronson. Are there any books you recommend? Or should I just buy an old Social Psychology 101 textbook? LOL

[AntiCitizenX]

@AdamKili

I just picked up a discount Social Psych 101 text.  It was then pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together. It has been suggested by others that I write a book on this stuff someday as well. Maybe in a few more years we'll see. ;)

[philopolymath]

Same EXCELLENT insight into psychopathy...

But SAME ERROR to link MAN's INDIVIDUAL psycopathy to the existence of ANY fact of nature.

whether it be God or HIggs Boson.

A weak and consistent flaw and BIASED presentation

[Azz151515]

Can we flip the dialogue around to display the persuasiveness of this bias?

Dawkins: "I'm not positive that the big bang is responsible for the universe. But I'm throwing in with the BBT rather than with you christians because you guys don't know HOW god made everything!

O'Reilly: "Apologists are working on it...."

Dawkins: "Well, when you get it then maybe I'll listen..."

Of course once the veracity of evidence is introduced it changes things, initially though our primacy seems "compelling".

[JoFreddieFSM]

@JoFreddieFSM Conventional religion is stuck in 5. Pastafarianism accepts religion as clearly made up shit, so Our Lord noodle invites you to make up new shit and add it to the Holy Text, with the proviso that it is funny shit and does not advocate stuff like stoning those that don't like your shit, killing the first born or taking all the virgins as slaves.

[JoFreddieFSM]

1. Shit happens - We don't know why shit happens.

2. Human nature does not like not knowing why shit happens.

3. Humans invent shit to explain why shit happens.

4. Over time Humans work out new shit as to why some shit happens, this shit at times shows that the shit made up in 3. is wrong.

5. The people that believe the shit in 3. can get very upset by the shit in 4.

6. From time to time shit thought to be from 4. will be found to actually be from 3.

[lazyperfectionist1]

How can someone be both cool and awkward?

Is "faultfinding" necessarily negative?

[Silentsam7532]

@nichtmuttersprachler I like that.

[nichtmuttersprachler]

@Silentsam7532 If people are insistent on using the words "creation" and "creator," it's important to emphasize that a "creator" can be a "what," not necessarily a "who." For example, it could be said that the "creator" of life on Earth was principles of chemistry and of evolution by natural selection. Then again, it's just a lot clearer to ask "What is the cause of this?" to avoid miscommunications and implications of using words like "creation" and "creator."

[10sodot]

well done ,keep it up :)