The studies involved a stories about Chris, a 46-year-old who had suffered a heart attack. In the stories, Chris either took up a healthy lifestyle (exercise, healthy foods, plenty of sleep) or turned to religious behaviours (attending church, worshipping God, prayer). Then Chris either died, or visited the doctor and got the all clear.Vad grafen visar är alltså att icke-religiösa sällan ger vare sig ära eller skuld åt Gud (duh) medan religiösa människor ger äran åt Gud om patienter överlever när de bett om tillfrisknande, men inte ger skulden åt Gud om patienter dör när de bett om tillfrisknande.
What they found was that their subjects preferred different explanations for Chris’ fate depending on whether or not they were religious.
Religious individuals, as you might expect, were more likely to say God caused Chris’s outcomes – either living or dying. But they were much more likely to say that God was the cause of Chris living if he used religious behaviours. If Chris used religious behaviours and died, that was nothing to do with God!
Med en sådan konfirmerings-bias blir förstås religiös tro på mirakel oåtkomlig för empirisk prövning. Så praktiskt.