Religious people's minds are dominated by emotion and not analytical thinking which makes them cling to their views - even when evidence proves them wrong - a study claims.

Such 'Emotional resonance' can make individuals hold on to their faith.

Meanwhile, militant atheists are completely negative about religion because they have analytical brains, according to researchers.

The study warned that untempered empathy can be dangerous.

It can result in terrorists who believe they are being highly moral and some Trump supporters who emotionally support him without taking into account the facts, researchers claimed.

Scroll down for video

The study found individuals hold on to their faith because they have 'emotional resonance' while militant atheists are negative about religion because they have analytical brains (stock)

BRAIN NETWORKS Researchers say the study supports earlier work which shows people have two brain networks - one for empathy and one for analytic thinking. These two networks are in tension with each other. In healthy people their thought process switches between the two - choosing to use the appropriate network depending on the issues they are considering. In someone who is militantly religious, the empathetic network dominates while in the nonreligious dogmatist's mind the analytical network rules. Although the study looks at the difference between the worldview of people who are religious and non-religious dogmatists, it could apply to any strongly held core beliefs. These could be eating habits - whether to be vegan, vegetarian or omnivore - or to political opinions and beliefs about climate change. Advertisement

'Emotional resonance helps religious people to feel more certain - the more moral correctness they see in something, the more it affirms their thinking,' said Anthony Jack, associate professor of philosophy and co-author of the research.

'In contrast, moral concerns make nonreligious people feel less certain.'

Researchers say people have two brain networks - one for empathy and one for analytic thinking.

These two networks are in tension with each other.

In healthy people their thought process switches between the two - choosing to use the appropriate network depending on the issues they are considering.

In someone who is militantly religious, the empathetic network dominates while in the nonreligious dogmatist's mind the analytical network rules.

Appealing to a militant religious person's sense of moral concern and an anti-religious person's unemotional logic may increase the chance of them listening to your message.

Although the study looks at the difference between the worldview of people who are religious and non-religious dogmatists, it could apply to any strongly held core beliefs.

These could be eating habits - whether to be vegan, vegetarian or omnivore - or to political opinions and beliefs about climate change.

'Terrorists, within their bubble, believe it's a highly moral thing they're doing. They believe they are righting wrongs and protecting something sacred', Dr Jack said.

'With all this talk about fake news, the Trump administration, by emotionally resonating with people, appeals to members of its base while ignoring facts', he said.

Trump's base includes a large percentage of self-declared religious men and women, researchers noted.

Militant atheists cannot see positives in religion because they only see that it contradicts their scientific, analytic approach to life, the study found (stock image)

WHAT DID THEY DO? 209 participants identified as Christian, 153 as nonreligious, nine Jewish, five Buddhist, four Hindu, one Muslim and 24 another religion. Each completed tests assessing dogmatism, empathetic concern and aspects of analytical reasoning. The results showed religious participants as a whole had a higher level of dogmatism, empathetic concern and pro-social intentions, while the nonreligious performed better on the measure of analytic reasoning. Decreasing empathy among the nonreligious corresponded to increasing dogmatism. Advertisement

On the other hand, militant atheists cannot see positives in religion because they only see that it contradicts their scientific, analytic approach to life.

The study might explain why extreme perspectives on religion, politics and more are becoming more prevalent in society.

'It suggests that religious individuals may cling to certain beliefs, especially those which seem at odds with analytic reasoning, because those beliefs resonate with their moral sentiments,' said Jared Friedman, a PhD student at Case Western Reserve University.

The studies, based on more than 900 people, found some similarities between strongly religious and non-religious people.

In both groups the most dogmatic are less adept at analytical thinking, and also less likely to look at issues from other's perspectives.

209 participants identified as Christian, 153 as nonreligious, nine Jewish, five Buddhist, four Hindu, one Muslim and 24 another religion.

Each completed tests assessing dogmatism, empathetic concern and aspects of analytical reasoning.

The results showed religious participants as a whole had a higher level of dogmatism, empathetic concern and pro-social intentions, while the nonreligious performed better on the measure of analytic reasoning.

Decreasing empathy among the nonreligious corresponded to increasing dogmatism.