Here we go again. Intuitive, meaning of course “stupid” in this context, people are more likely to believe in God than analytical, meaning “smart” people. Right. The article is helpfully titled “To Keep the Faith, Don’t Get Analytical”, in case we missed the point.
In fairness, the study itself seems a little more more circumspect than that – but not much.
(Took me a minute to overcome my intuitive error and see the correct answer in the example given in the article. Guess I’m a gullible rube – big surprise, there.)
So, the question becomes: does the study prove what the article says it proves? Does the study even prove what the study claims to prove? Let’s dig in a little:
“Recently there’s been an emerging consensus among [researchers] … that a lot of religious beliefs are grounded in intuitive processes,”
Warning klaxons should sound whenever alleged scientists use the word “consensus”. What we’re looking for is “evidence” or “experimental results”, not “consensus” . I believe you could easily get a consensus among scientists that “my field of study should be better funded” or “hot members of the targeted gender should find scientists more attractive” or maybe “huge, throbbing foreheads should be the key marking of sexual desirability.” Whatever. But nothing in a consensus indicates anything about that consensus being backed by science – only backed by *scientists*, a subtle but critical distinction.