Belief systems and cognitive styles

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, I would imagine that a lot of people have already noticed, this, however, has anybody noticed that certain belief systems tend to correlate with certain other beliefs, regardless of the irrelevancy of one belief system to the other?

For instance, conservative Christians tend to also be originalist or textualist on legal issues. Many atheists are left-wing. The list surely goes on and on.

The issue is what we should think of these tendencies? Why does this happen? Are there patterns in these relationships, or is this all just culturally generated? The list goes on and on. What are your thoughts though?

Awesomelyglorious wrote (in part): Ok, I would imagine that a lot of people have already noticed, this, however, has anybody noticed that certain belief systems tend to correlate with certain other beliefs, regardless of the irrelevancy of one belief system to the other?

---

Belief systems and cognitive styles certainly are linked together and they cover almost everything. One only has to take a look at movie directors like Norman Jewison (Fiddler on the Roof), Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings), Guillermo del Toro, and Luis Bunuel to see how they are related. Some movie directors tell uplifting stories, others are in the middle, and still others take another approach. Their beliefs and cognitive styles come out in their movies.

Belief systems coordinate with other belief systems, which may on the surface seem to be totally unrelated. This is the mind's attempt to minimize cognitive dissonance. They may be "seemingly unrelated" however they tend to be consistent with one another.

Christian Conservative tends to hold onto tradition above innovation. Thus they hold onto the bible more than science, and they hold onto the old ways more than the new ways, they believe that if it was, then it is. It's a case of applying similar overall principles to all aspects of life and society. With Christians, it's about structuring, and nothing is more useful in structuring than a text to dictate what to do. Taking law by statue over precedent for example prevents the allowance of change, which is consistent with the rest of the belief system.

Atheist and left wing. This is an interesting one, and a part of it is reactionism.... Religious zealots are right wing nuts, so we should be left wing pinko's... That's a small part though.
The part that IS consistent is more in keeping with libertarianism. The left tends socially to be about morality being internally created, not externally. Without the belief in an absolute god, there is no source, other than social agreement, to externally create and enforce morality. The Social Left is consistent with atheism, even if the religious who have convinced themselves that they are incapable of morality by themselves, are unable to see this.

IMO the main difference between Atheism and Theism is the cognitive priority put upon "tradition" vs "innovation" Any other set of belief systems that can be viewed the same way are most likely to be found correlated with a theism/atheism belief.

Instead of "tradition" let's label it properly and call it unfounded authority. "Innovation" may be indicated as founded authority.
And by "founded" I mean as the result of observed experience and testing.

OK, so conservative Christians tend to have a very absolutist, black and white view of the world. Their worldview allows no room for nuance, because they seek the security and comfort of absolute right and wrong, good and evil, etc. The connection between conservative Christianity and stances such as originalism is the rigidity and inflexibility of thought, and the unwillingness to revise and adapt old ideas to new situations as circumstances require.

Now, where stances correlated with conservative Christianity make no freaking sense: hawkishness on foreign policy and opposition to gun control. I suppose you could try to explain hawkishness on the basis of following some authority figure, but it ends up being a pretty stretched connection I think. I see no particular reason why there should be any connection between religion and someone's stance on guns.

Atheists will perhaps more likely be liberal because without any prior commitment to a particular ideology, they are more willing to go against the status quo and reject conventional ideas such as one-man-one-woman marriage and other elements of the social conservative agenda. Basically, atheists lack the cultural foundation that leads conservatives to their stances. Since they have already rejected their religious heritage (in the West at least, atheists are people who rejected their Christian background) they are much more likely to reject their cultural background as well. With no ties to tradition, they can advocate liberal or radical policies.

Where it doesn't make sense: support for welfare programs. I don't see any particular reason why an atheist would feel a moral obligation to help the poor.

Liberal Christians (notably the mainline Protestants in America) have long emphasized the social justice message in the Gospels, leading them to promote social welfare programs and similar proposals. Based on their belief that Christ advocated equality and urged compassion for the poor, they wish to use all available tools, including the state if necessary, to help those less fortunate.

Where it doesn't make sense: support for gun control legislation is an official stance in my denomination (PCUSA) and as with conservative Christians, I don't see where they're getting the idea.

Hmm... do people think that educational background has correlations? For instance, mathematicians vs scientists vs philosophers vs economists vs sociologists vs musicians vs english professors? Do these follow from the toolset? What about the trend-buckers? What drives them?

Exclavius: I see your point.

As for myself, I would consider myself a "conservative" Christian, but I think "conservatism" vs. "liberalism" is more cultural/political than religious if we're talking about the US.

If you base being a Christian more on "sola scriptura" kinds of doctrine, you get a kind of religion that transcends culture and politics. The Bible is not going to waver from culture to culture, from generation to generation. Rather, the attitudes follow the times, and the illusion of Christians being conservative and atheists being liberal have to do more with the influence of the political machine rather than the realities of religion as opposed to non- or anti-religion.

We know from the Bible, for instance, that the early church did not place any value on personal property--the Christian community consisted of like-minded individuals who supported each other based upon their unique abilities, much like the ideal socialist state. Capitalist greed seems contradictory to Jesus' teachings, so you really have to wonder how it is one can align himself with conservative capitalists and still claim to be following Christ's teachings. The core values of the US Constitution are the freedom to build our own government according to the best interest of the public. And because that kind of system favors hard work over equal distribution of wealth, many Christians see socialist policies as impinging on those freedoms, potentially encroaching on the freedom to believe and freedom to express those beliefs. What the Republicans have basically succeeded in doing is marrying capitalist goals with Christian traditional values.

Ever since the Reagan era, conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats have become intensely polarized, and the situation seems to be steadily getting worse. The problem as I see it is that both sides have become highly reactionary to each others' aims such that they rarely seem to agree on very many things. Our nation was founded on principles of disagreement and compromise, and in the past this has led to a lot of progress. The difference now, though, is both sides have demonized the other to the point no progress can be made until ONE side has a clear majority in Congress.

So while I've already mentioned what the Republican party has become, it has made the Democrats into a pro-socialist, pro-abortion, pro-minority, anti-Christian group. In many ways, what the Democrats have tried to do in the last several decades has certainly been worthy, noble causes, and as an artist who rejects the idea that traditionalist trends be adhered to and maintained, I'd probably be more willing to align with the so-called left wing than the right given their openness to supporting living musicians and composers. But their voting record on issues such as abortion, moral issues, and fair representation of all religions except Christianity is appalling to me. While I do respect the rights of others to equal representation under the law, it should not come at the expense of any voting groups nor the will of the people. I'd be much more willing to align myself with liberal causes than conservative ones if voting Democrat didn't mean supporting certain issues that I find highly offensive.

It doesn't matter which way you turn, there are hypocrites on both sides. It comes down to what you find to be the lesser of two evils. It just so happens that the Republican party favors evangelical Christianity, while the Democratic party appears to represent anything but.

Now, speaking as an artist, I don't see how being Christian is anti-innovation necessarily. I think an innovative Christian artist faces some unique challenges since Christian evangelicals appear to be conditioned to think strictly within traditionalist terms. I don't think that Christianity is necessarily encumbered by tradition for the sake of tradition, but many Christians have allowed themselves to become shackled to tradition. What I find myself doing as a musician is walking a fine line in creating and performing in such a way that my music is at once respectful of the Gospel message, is appropriate within the context it is presented, and still maintains artistic integrity. What's ironic to me about Christian music is the most innovative artists are products of some of the more vocal evangelical circles, churches such as Hillsong, Gateway, and Lakeview (just to name a few). This really hasn't affected more "academic" art forms yet, but give it time! The kinds of people that attend those kinds of churches tend to be more open to the experience, though I wouldn't dare label them as "liberal." Honestly, I think such groups really defy labeling, yet for the most part they maintain the essence of Christianity--the need for atonement, faith in Christ for salvation, meeting the needs of the congregation and their communities, and so on.

So I think saying that Christians are anti-innovation is unjustified since there are innovators working within churches, growing WITH the culture if not conforming to it. I think more of what you see as being anti-progressive is the tendency of politicians to attract whatever constituency they can to retain power, including making their respective parties more attractive to targeted groups, like evangelicals vs. ecumenicals, capitalists vs. socialists, traditional families vs. alternative lifestyles, and so on. I think a bigger picture might show that religion is not quite as actively involved in the power-play as we'd be led to believe, but rather religion is more like a pawn in the cultural/political game than a key player.

Last edited by AngelRho on 05 Aug 2010, 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lawyers will tend to be conservative: the profession is based on understanding precedent and tradition, with explanations of what is rather than what could be. They take a pragmatic stance and try to avoid rocking the boat too much, so they would not advocate much change from the status quo.

Economists will also often take pragmatic approaches, which lends to their relatively conservative leanings (compared to other academics). However, since they are pragmatic rather than ideological, they are less likely to oppose a role from government than other conservatively-minded people.

Musicians are a mixed bag. Their career isn't really relevant to anything intellectually, so politically they are whatever they are.

Philosophers, mathematicians, and other academics are disconnected from the "real world" in that they explore the world of ideas without much regard to practical application. This may lead them to support radical ideas from either end of the spectrum.

Scientists work constantly to improve various aspects of our lives. They would likely support progressive causes because of their belief in advancing society.

More educated people will tend to be less conservative because a proper education will leave you better informed about the world we live in, and reality has a well-known liberal bias.

The concept that atheists lack compassionate motivation does not jibe at all with my experience, whatever logic may be involved. Compassion arises from many sources and religion is not a necessary component.

Last edited by Sand on 05 Aug 2010, 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Scientists and certain other intellectuals also believe that our problems can be solved or ameliorated, which tends to make them less adherent to Old Ways of doing things or Old Ways of thinking.

ruveyn

As others have said, the same cognitive style that takes a black-and-white approach to the Bible does so with the Constitution too; in either case, they are applying an interpretation that reinforces a traditional, conservative version of U.S. culture that keeps things the way they remember growing up. In many cases, social conservatives find the world too chaotic and confusing already, and they use established traditions and conventions to derive a sense of predictability and comfort. Social changes throw this balance off, and this upsets their equilibrium, resulting in tantrums like the Tea Party.

Atheists have already bucked the predominant religions of their culture, so first of all, they won't choose a politics that'll try to encroach upon their freedom from religion. They may value autonomy and freethinking in general, so political ideologies that tend to reinforce these ideas will be appealing. If they have felt persecuted for holding an unpopular opinion, they may come to sympathize with the underdog in general. They may be more willing willing to take on sacred cows from all sides.

For professions, academics and other professions that require creativity and in-depth analysis are going to have significantly more cognitive complexity than is needed for some menial assembly-line job. Different professions also have different attachments to social classes/factions, and this will tend to play out in political views:

Art: more liberal
Sociology: more liberal
Literary criticism: more liberal
Anthropology: more liberal
Philosophy: mostly more liberal but generally more open to radical ideas
Physical sciences: fairly liberal
Theology: more conservative
Economics: depends on school of economics
Engineering: mostly more conservative
Lawyers (criminal defense): more liberal
Lawyers (prosecutors): more conservative
Police: more conservative
Military: more conservative
Priests and pastors: religiously somewhat conservative but exact stance depends on religion
Unionized working-class jobs: traditionally more liberal; socially usually fairly conservative

Professions that criticize or deconstruct the status quo tend to be more liberal; professions that buttress the status quo tend to be more conservative.

Not necessarily. A lot of engineers have the attitude that things need to be fixed, and this could extend to supporting progressive political causes. I would see them as similar to scientists in this respect.

More importantly engineers tend to think that things can be fixed. So they are likely to be proactive and optimistic. Engineers are can-do folk.

ruveyn

Note the "mostly". Engineers often tend to enter the field for financial reasons, the field itself doesn't tend towards opening one's mind, and as we both already know, the engineering mindset tends to strangely support ideas like intelligent design.

Generally speaking, any vocational field will lead to people becoming more conservative.

Do you have proper poll data showing that engineers tend to be conservative? I know engineers are more cognizant of the constraints of nature than are software types. That is because engineers bend metal and software types write code so they are much less constrained by natural factors.

As to the latter, on what basis to you claim that a vocational field will lead to conservatism. All vocational fields? Some vocational fields? And where is the data backing up your claim?

ruveyn