In a recent study conducted by Stephen Fleming et al (1), and funded by the Wellcome Trust (which was the only non-government sponsor of the Human Genome Project), it seems that development of a crucial aspect of advanced thinking in individuals – known as metacognition – is primarily the result of:
- Cultural environment, and, if that is conducive,
- Intention.
(See Part 1 HERE)
What makes this interesting for us in learning why we believe what we believe, is that the ability to reshape and even redefine our beliefs based on rational thought – rather than emotional response to outside stimuli or volitional reasons – is largely dependent on whether we have a developed metacognitive ability or not, and that in turn is shaped by our cultural environment.
So what is “metacognition” then?
And how do you know whether you have this ability or not?
As it relates to our focus here, metacognition is simply the ability to appreciate the potential extent of what you DON’T know. This can relate to a specific topic or idea, or it can be extended to include things in general.
- There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
- There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know.
- But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don’t know that we don’t know.
In other words, we can rephrase our question above as:
How good is your awareness of the EXTENT of what you don’t know, or may not know?
Because awareness that you may not know the truth about a matter brings about humility, encourages you to question what you believe, to respect more what others believe, and drives a desire to find out what you don’t know.
It also requires significant inner strength and maturity.
So what does this have to do with culture?
And with the question of whether your beliefs are rational or volitional?
Firstly, it was found that culture can either kill metacognitive development or stimulate it.
Specifically, a culture that encourages discourse and disagreement is good for it, and a culture that does not tolerate disagreement and thinking differently kills it.
As an atheist I was proud of the intellectual honesty that I perceived to be the embedded in the culture of atheism.
However, it seems that as atheism as a worldview has become more mainstream, the culture of this New Atheism has increasingly fallen into the Confirmation Bias trap of treating its basic assumptions as dogma.
As this trend has progressed, so it has also become intolerant of competing worldviews and ideas, and therefore become a poor environment for committed seekers of Truth.
Today, very few self-professed atheists question their dogma, or even recognise it as such. Personally, I put the blame for this squarely at the feet of the culture of the New Atheism movement, which has killed metacognitive thinking amongst its members, and has for decades attracted members who have no real interest in discovering actual Truth, but who just want to enjoy what their new religion has to offer.
This is a great pity, because as an atheist I enjoyed the intellectual journey out of Catholic darkness into the light of free thinking, and the joy of intellectual freedom was very real. I was able to look at the inadequacy of the modern church and laugh at it as I systematically cut the shackles of control over my mind and ventured forth in search of the Truth.
However, ten years later I recognised that I had made little progress in that search when it comes to the REAL questions, although I knew a lot more about a lot. In fact, I realised that I had simply become trapped in another closed circuit of thinking, surrounded by an echo chamber of people who simply repeated the same ideas over and over without any interest in exploring the infinite vastness of what we don’t know.
I further realised that almost no one is interested any longer in finding the truth – just selling their opinions and beliefs as the truth.
And these opinions and beliefs are almost exclusively based on simple expediency – a consequence of volition rather than rational exploration. When it comes to the big questions, this is nicely illustrated by the sustained belief by most atheists today that there is a conflict between Science and God! Most modern atheists honestly still believe that this is true, when this belief has been recognised as intellectual dishonesty for decades – even by atheists (albeit thinking ones) – and in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Many of the most accomplished scientists of our present time believe in God, including Nobel Prize winners!
In any case, back to the question: how do you know whether you have metacognitive ability or not?
To get the answer, you can once again ask yourself this question: how often do you seek out information that may challenge your beliefs – rather than support it – and then examine it with a truly independent mind, with a view to questioning your existing beliefs?
In other words, do you like exploring what you don’t know?
At least when it comes to the Big Questions.
If this is not something that you do very often, you have your answer:
Whether you like it or not, metacognition is not your thing, and as a result your beliefs are probably based on your volitional desires, and you probably have no real interest in the Truth unless it serves your pre-existing beliefs and desires.
If you’re not happy with your answer, look at your environment: does it encourage free discourse and disagreement or does it stifle it?
You have the power to change your cultural influence, and to set your intention.
Remember, history teaches us that we probably don’t know the thing that we most need to know!
To be continued ...
[1] Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Knowing Ourselves Together: The Cultural Origins of Metacognition. Cecilia Heyes, Dan Bang, Nicholas Shea, Christopher D. Frith, Stephen M. Fleming. Published: March 24, 2020.