Rationality, Curiosity, Intelligence & Transcendental Beliefs

Posted by Simon Raggett on 10 November 2008 | 3 Comments

Tags: Spirituality

Scientific literature tends to belittle or ridicule transcendental beliefs as evidence of ignorance or delusion. However, a recent paper published in the peer reviewed Journal of Consciousness Studies calls this assumption in question.

The paper comprises a study that relates (1.) the degree to which people are rational in their approach to the world, (2.) the degree to which they are curious and (3.) their scores on conventional measures of intelligence, to three main categories of belief system, being (1.) conventional organised religions, (2.) materialism and (3.) transcendental concepts involving mystical experience, altered states of consciousness and belief in such things as ESP and reincarnation.

The study suggests that those with transcendental beliefs are the most rational, the most curious and open to new ideas, and also the most intelligent of the three groups. This of course contradicts the normal view of the scientific community that only the unintelligent and deluded are associated with these ideas. It is further suggested that many in the scientific community are closet transcendentalists, who disguise these beliefs because of the potential for damage to their careers. The study suggests that the followers of conventional religions are the least rational, curious or intelligent, with the materialists in the middle position.

Examples of common transcendental experiences or beliefs encountered by the author of the study included mystical and out of body experiences, belief that the physical was an extension of the mental and that consciousness was the ultimate reality, belief in ESP and reincarnation, belief in forms of understanding superior to rational thought, and an emphasis on the inner experiential world, altered states of consciousness and self-transformation. Perhaps not surprisingly, when the transcendental group were asked about their religious affiliations, they tended to classify these as ‘own beliefs’. The importance of consciousness increased across the groups from materialists up to transcendentalists. Materialists tended to regard consciousness as a by-product of brain processes, for religious believers it was important, and for transcendentalists it may be viewed as the ultimate reality.

In tests designed to indicate a person’s interest in rationally understanding the world, there was a correlation between higher scores and transcendental beliefs. The transcendentalist scored 50% above those with conventional religious beliefs and one eighth above the materialists. In tests designed to indicate appreciation of sensory impressions and general openness to experience, the transcendentalists scored about 10% above religious believers and about 20% above materialists. Other tests suggested that the transcendental group had a less ‘up tight’ approach to life being less worried about social recognition, risk avoidance or being well organised. Separate studies of IQ suggested a lower IQ amongst conventional believers, a middling IQ amongst materialists and higher IQs amongst the transcendental group.

The authors remark on the cognitive deficits hypothesis, widespread in the scientific community, that those with transcendental beliefs are irrational or just stupid. This belief was claimed to be supported by a 1983 study, but this seems to have referred more to what might be termed superstition, such as thinking that 13 is unlucky, rather than properly transcendental ideas.

Finally a survey of participants in the 1996 Tuscon II ‘Towards a science of consciousness’ conference showed a high score for transcendent beliefs. The author remarks on how little this was reflected in the related published literature. He reminds us that it can be difficult to pursue academic programmes, obtain tenured positions, receive funding, publish in mainstream journals or supervise graduate students without subscribing to the materialist agenda. The discrepancy between the 1996 study and the published literature is taken to suggest that there are a good number of closet transcendentalists in the scientific community.

Simon Raggett