Location
Northwestern College, Rowenhorst Student Center
Abstract
Believers in relational deities conceptualize god(s) as agents with mental states. The ability to imagine other minds may be one of the cognitive foundations of religious belief. Research on this relationship is mixed, however. This study tests this relationship across experiences of supernatural good and evil rather than abstract beliefs.
Previous research has demonstrated that mentalizing significantly predicted prayer type (Edman et al., 2015; 2017). However, a multi-site replication study failed to replicate the initial results, indicating that perhaps mode of prayer is more complexly related to mentalizing than initially hypothesized. Edman (2015; 2018) extended this research by including measures of belief in agentic evil and absorption. This research supported the relationship of mentalizing with supernatural experiences, but a curious result emerged: mentalizing desires (i.e., empathy) were positively related to experiences with supernatural agents, but mentalizing abilities (i.e., scores on the Mind in the Eyes test) were negatively related. Also, experiences with agentic evil were more highly related to mentalizing scores (both positive and negative) than were experiences with a good god.
The current study, therefore, attempts to parse out some of the differences between beliefs in agentic supernatural evil versus agentic supernatural good. Using several measures of mentalizing, analytic thinking, and experience with supernatural agents, we examined the ways in which mentalizing and intuitive thinking impact reported experiences with god and satan, with supernatural good and evil.
The results of the current study shed light on the controversy surrounding the relationship of mentalizing with religious belief and behavior. Mentalizing is related to experiences of supernatural agents, but is much less related to religious engagement and religious practice. The results support the notion that experiences with supernatural evil are more driven by intuition than are experiences of supernatural good. Thus, research that attempts to find relationships among mentalizing and simply generic religious beliefs and participation may fail to find such a relationship. The role mentalizing plays in religiosity is more nuanced and complex, and is most likely focused on the ways in which people experience supernatural agents, especially evil ones.
The strong relationship of mentalizing with experiences of supernatural evil may reflect the culturally acceptable and even common nature of experiences with positive supernatural agents, and less commonly accepted experiences with supernatural evil. Experiences of the devil are less culturally acceptable and common than experiences of a positive god, and thus more related to intuitive beliefs and tendency to become absorbed in imagination.
Included in
Intuitions about God and Satan: The relationship of mentalizing and imagination with the experience of supernatural good and evil
Northwestern College, Rowenhorst Student Center
Believers in relational deities conceptualize god(s) as agents with mental states. The ability to imagine other minds may be one of the cognitive foundations of religious belief. Research on this relationship is mixed, however. This study tests this relationship across experiences of supernatural good and evil rather than abstract beliefs.
Previous research has demonstrated that mentalizing significantly predicted prayer type (Edman et al., 2015; 2017). However, a multi-site replication study failed to replicate the initial results, indicating that perhaps mode of prayer is more complexly related to mentalizing than initially hypothesized. Edman (2015; 2018) extended this research by including measures of belief in agentic evil and absorption. This research supported the relationship of mentalizing with supernatural experiences, but a curious result emerged: mentalizing desires (i.e., empathy) were positively related to experiences with supernatural agents, but mentalizing abilities (i.e., scores on the Mind in the Eyes test) were negatively related. Also, experiences with agentic evil were more highly related to mentalizing scores (both positive and negative) than were experiences with a good god.
The current study, therefore, attempts to parse out some of the differences between beliefs in agentic supernatural evil versus agentic supernatural good. Using several measures of mentalizing, analytic thinking, and experience with supernatural agents, we examined the ways in which mentalizing and intuitive thinking impact reported experiences with god and satan, with supernatural good and evil.
The results of the current study shed light on the controversy surrounding the relationship of mentalizing with religious belief and behavior. Mentalizing is related to experiences of supernatural agents, but is much less related to religious engagement and religious practice. The results support the notion that experiences with supernatural evil are more driven by intuition than are experiences of supernatural good. Thus, research that attempts to find relationships among mentalizing and simply generic religious beliefs and participation may fail to find such a relationship. The role mentalizing plays in religiosity is more nuanced and complex, and is most likely focused on the ways in which people experience supernatural agents, especially evil ones.
The strong relationship of mentalizing with experiences of supernatural evil may reflect the culturally acceptable and even common nature of experiences with positive supernatural agents, and less commonly accepted experiences with supernatural evil. Experiences of the devil are less culturally acceptable and common than experiences of a positive god, and thus more related to intuitive beliefs and tendency to become absorbed in imagination.