of science to be angry and

When logic and rationality are taken to the extreme, even those who rely on objective evidence can form moral ideologies, sorting others’ beliefs among virtues and vices.

And, this phenomenon is what gives rise to the ‘angry atheist,’ according to a new study.

Psychologists found that people high in ‘moralized rationality’ have a tendency to react with strong emotions and intolerance when confronted with beliefs that center on less rational processes, as they perceive these as immoral.

Scroll down for video

While earlier studies have focused on those who argue against scientific consensus, the researchers instead examined the psychology of the people who defend it. Moralized rationality, they say, may explain why atheists are sometimes ‘strident, angry, and intolerant'

HOW BELIEF IN GOD AFFECTS THE WAY YOU THINK A recent study from the University of Helsinki has suggested that religious people are more likely to have a poor understanding of the world. It claims that those with a belief in God are more likely to think that inanimate objects, such as metal and oil can think and feel. Researchers say that the findings suggest people's lack of understanding about the physical world means they apply their own rules, 'resulting in belief in demons, gods, and other supernatural phenomena'. Participants were asked how much they agreed with the statement 'there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God' and if they believed in paranormal phenomena such as ghosts and psychic visions. They were also tested on a range of other topics, including intuitive physics skills and understanding of basic biology. The results showed that religious people tend to base their actions on instinct, rather than analytical thinking. Advertisement

While earlier studies have focused on those who argue against scientific consensus, the researchers instead examined the psychology of the people who defend it.

The team from the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Exeter in the UK conducted eight experiments to test moralized rationality (MR), a variable in the perception of how beliefs are formed and evaluated.

‘We suggest that people can come to view it as a moral virtue to form and evaluate attitudes and beliefs based on logical reasoning and evidence, and to view it as a vice to rely on less rational processes,’ the authors explain in the paper, published to the journal PLOS One.

Moralized rationality, they say, may explain why atheists and advocates of science are sometimes ‘strident, angry, and intolerant’ when debating some topics.

Across three different domains – astrology, alternative medicine, and creationism – people with higher MR scores were found to view irrational acts as less moral and more blameworthy.

In one part of the study, 262 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk were presented with a short scenario describing an interaction between doctor (Richard) and patient (Mary).

As Mary is a devout Christian, the doctor advises her to pray to God for better health.

But, the researchers varied his reasoning for doing this.

For the rational scenario, Richard advised Mary to pray because he believes this would function as a placebo.

In the irrational scenario, he does so because he ‘believed God answers the prayers of the faithful.’

When logic and rationality are taken to the extreme, even those who rely on objective evidence can form moral ideologies, sorting others’ beliefs among virtues and vices. And, this phenomenon is what gives rise to the ‘angry atheist,’ according to a new study

Respondents with higher MR scores were not only angrier about the irrational reasoning, but they also had a stronger desire for Richard to be punished as a result.

The researchers also found that these inclinations can cause people to volunteer for and donate money to charities that work ‘to prevent the spread of irrational beliefs.’

‘The present results suggest that it is not only defenders of traditional beliefs that are spurred on by their moral conviction, but that the motives fueling advocates of science may be moral in nature as well,’ the authors wrote.

‘More specifically, these results suggest that they may be motivated by their conviction that it is morally wrong to rely on beliefs that are not backed up by logic and evidence.