Bruce Hood revises his opinion

This year’s BA Festival of Science in Norwich generated much controversy because of the inclusion of a symposium on supernatural research.

The symposium, Beyond the Brain: Making Science Personal, supposedly addressed the question of whether the mind could literally exist beyond the brain. However, it was sponsored by an organization dedicated to supporting the supernatural, and all the speakers apart from a discussant were proponents of life after death experience, telepathy and mind control.
 
Initial opposition

I think all such work is premised on the dualism of mind and brain, asserting that the mind is not tethered to the brain under normal physical laws but free to roam across space and time. This is something that most scientists reject outright. Looking at the line-up, I was convinced that there would not be a balanced argument and the conclusion would be biased. I even wrote to the Festival organisers beforehand, threatening to withdraw in protest.

To be honest, I was concerned that the symposium would overshadow my presentation the day before on the origins of magical belief in adults. It would directly contradict my conclusions by arguing that the supernatural was a real phenomenon and not a delusion. I was also annoyed that the symposium would draw the most press attention and portray supernatural research as a legitimate scientific pursuit.

As it turned out, I was wrong on both points. To my surprise, my theory on the origins of magical belief generated considerable media attention and subsequent controversy. It transpired that, unexpectedly, I had managed to upset both sides of the current science versus religion debate.

Rational and magical explanations

My theory takes the middle position between the fundamental religions on one side and the ultra-atheist position on the other, represented most conspicuously by Richard Dawkins.

I have the utmost respect for Richard Dawkins, as The Selfish Gene inspired me to become a behavioural scientist. However, I think that the world does not neatly divide into supernaturalists and atheists. Rather, I think that most individuals entertain a mixture of beliefs that may be held implicitly. So I think there is good reason to question the charge that religions are solely responsible for propagating supernatural beliefs. Rather, they simply capitalise on natural intuitions that there are unseen forces at work in the world.

I maintained that the mechanisms for understanding the world operate as early as we can measure them, and lead to both rational and magical models of explanation. Somehow this was translated into the simplistic sound bite that humans are hard-wired for superstition and religion.

My evidence was called into question. Can we prove a disposition to believe in magic? No. But we can prove that infants are generating models of the physical, biological and psychological world around them by making inferences that involve positing unseen mechanisms. This process of intuitive reasoning leads to misconceptions that ultimately underpin adult magical beliefs.

Evidence and belief

So should the BA have included either my lecture or the supernatural symposium? I was wrong to assume that the press would be uncritical of supernaturalism. They did focus on the supernatural symposium, but most of the science journalists questioned the wisdom of allowing such a platform at a science festival. However, as Rupert Sheldrake, the main proponent of disembodied mind research pointed out to me, he had evidence, whereas my theory was based on logic and evaluation of existing findings. How ironic that I would end up being the one accused of non-scientific activity by many critics.

The BA meetings have a history of showcasing radical theories. The difference between my theory and the supernatural lobby is that science has already investigated, considered and made pronouncement of the scientific credibility of supernaturalism, and the verdict is a resounding ‘No!’. That is why scientists were upset by the inclusion of this symposium.

Supernaturalism will not just lie down and die, and I think my theory explains why. Personally, I am glad that the paranormal symposium was included in the Festival, as it directly bore out my contention that even educated, intelligent people believe in supernaturalism. It also dramatically highlighted the power of belief in deciding which evidence to pay attention to. You cannot prove that the supernatural does not exist. You have to make a decision based on the balance of evidence, and that decision is motivated by belief. I propose that intuitive processes are critical to belief, but it remains to be seen whether my ideas will suffer the same fate as supernaturalism.

For the moment at least, science has still to make its mind up about me.

Bruce Hood is Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Bristol