Summary: New research from Arizona State University finds that certain ways of engaging with science—especially experiences that inspire awe—can increase belief in a non-personal, abstract concept of God, while a stronger commitment to logical, analytical thinking is associated with lower belief in a personal deity.
Source: Arizona State University
Overview: Although many Americans view science and religion as incompatible, a recent psychological study suggests that scientific engagement can both reduce and promote belief in God, depending on whether that engagement emphasizes logic or evokes awe.
Researchers in the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University examined how different types of scientific experience influence religious belief. Their findings, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, indicate two divergent pathways: analytical, logic-driven engagement tends to undermine belief in a personal God, whereas awe-inspiring encounters with science can encourage belief in an abstract, mystical conception of the divine.
“People conceive of God in very different ways,” said Kathryn Johnson, an associate research professor at ASU and the study’s lead author. “Some imagine God at work in DNA or the laws of nature, others picture God as the universe itself, and many hold more traditional, personified ideas. We wanted to know whether scientific engagement changes people’s beliefs about the existence or nature of God.”
“We wanted to know if scientific engagement influenced beliefs about the existence or nature of God.”
To explore these questions the research team considered two main modes of scientific engagement: analytical, logical thinking and the emotional, transcendent experience of awe. Jordan Moon, a graduate student at ASU and co-author on the paper, noted that while science is often framed in purely rational terms, many people respond to scientific ideas with strong emotions.
In an initial survey, participants reported their interest in science, their tendency toward logical, analytical thinking, and how frequently they experienced feelings of awe. The researchers found that a pronounced commitment to logic was associated with unbelief or skepticism about a personal God. Yet, participants who combined logical interest with a predisposition to experience awe were more likely to endorse belief in a non-personal, abstract God—descriptions that emphasized mystery, limitlessness, or a cosmic force rather than the personal God typically found in many religious traditions.
“When people are struck by the complexity of life or the immensity of the cosmos, they often shift toward more spiritual or abstract ways of thinking,” Johnson explained. “Awe appears to open people to alternative conceptualizations of God.”
In controlled experiments, participants were exposed to different types of science-related media. A traditional, lecture-style presentation on quantum physics tended to produce responses aligned with disbelief or agnosticism. In contrast, a creative music video illustrating how atoms can behave as both particles and waves elicited feelings of awe in many viewers. Those who experienced that awe were more likely to describe God in abstract, mystical terms.
“People often assume that science inevitably conflicts with religion,” said Adam Cohen, professor of psychology and a senior author on the paper. “But that view oversimplifies both domains. Scientific content can be conveyed in ways that prompt analytical skepticism or, alternatively, provoke awe and a sense of transcendence. Science is broad enough to coexist with a range of religious and spiritual perspectives.”
The authors argue that understanding these dual pathways—eroding belief through logic and promoting abstract spirituality through awe—can enrich conversations about the relationship between science and religion. By recognizing that scientific engagement can have complex, even opposite effects on belief, educators and communicators can better appreciate how presentation and emotional context shape public attitudes.
Funding: This research was funded by the John Templeton Foundation.
Additional contributors to the project included Morris Okun, Matthew Scott, and Holly O’Rourke from Arizona State University, and Joshua Hook from the University of North Texas.
Source: Arizona State University
Media Contact:
Robert Ewing – Arizona State University
Original Research: “Science, God, and the cosmos: Science both erodes (via logic) and promotes (via awe) belief in God” — Kathryn A. Johnson, Jordan W. Moon, Morris A. Okun, Matthew J. Scott, Holly P. O’Rourke, Joshua N. Hook, Adam B. Cohen. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103826
Abstract (summary): Prior work links analytical thinking with atheism. This study proposes two pathways by which engagement with science can have opposite effects on belief: analytical, logical aspects of science tend to diminish belief in a personal God, while awe-inspiring scientific content promotes feelings of self-transcendence and endorsement of a mystical, abstract God. Across multiple studies, interest in science correlated with abstract conceptions of God via a predisposition to experience awe, and experimental exposure to awe-inducing scientific material increased endorsement of abstract God representations. These findings suggest scientific engagement does not uniformly erode religious belief; when it inspires awe, science can enhance spiritual or mystical conceptions.