Recent research from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) shows that people’s beliefs in both science and religion are mostly shaped by what others tell them, rather than by their own experiences. This finding could help improve public understanding of how people form beliefs on important scientific issues like climate change and vaccination.
Normally, people are thought to be more confident in scientific phenomena like oxygen than in religious phenomena like God, because they can experience oxygen directly. The HKUST team challenges this view. They argue that both scientific and religious beliefs are mainly formed through information we get from others, such as experts or our community, rather than through personal experience.
Forming our beliefs
The study highlights the key role of testimony in forming our beliefs and understanding of the world, challenging the idea that direct experience is the main driver of scientific belief.
“Even when it seems like we’re experiencing something directly, our understanding is often heavily influenced by what we’ve been told by experts or our community,” the researchers explain. For example, a child who sees a relative get sick is unlikely to figure out that viruses cause illness on their own; instead, they learn this from their parents or other trusted sources.
Recognizing this can help find the best ways to communicate scientific information to the public. By stressing the credibility and consensus of scientific evidence, it is possible to promote greater acceptance and trust in scientific facts, especially on new topics like climate change.
Shaping our views
The researchers reviewed empirical evidence from the past few decades and proposed a model explaining how people come to believe in invisible entities, such as germs in science or God in religion. They find that people believe in germs because doctors and scientists say they exist, even though we can’t see them with our own eyes. Likewise, we learn that germs cause illness from others, not by discovering this connection ourselves.
The model also shows that the more credible the source of information and the more people who agree with it, the more likely people are to believe it. People’s confidence in these phenomena comes not from seeing them directly but from trusting the sources that tell them about them.
Unlike previous models that suggested different pathways for belief formation in science and religion, this model provides a unified explanation. It argues that others’ testimony, rather than direct experience, predominantly shapes beliefs in both areas.
