I don't understand the purpose or significance of the three different endings of the stories and how the varied endings ultimately support the author's hypothesis? I feel like the explanation in the article missed a step because the dots just aren't connecting for me at all.
I believe the explanation is in the 3rd-to-last paragraph:
> In healthy volunteers and right- but not left-onset patients, religious belief-scores significantly increased following the aesthetic prime consisting of the ocean view (a wonderful reward) but not the death prime. (The religious ritual prime increased religious belief only inconsistently, with little impact compared with that of the ocean view.) The results directly refuted the anxiety theory of religion while supporting the notion that religiosity was spurred by the quest for unexpected reward.
He's using a concept called "priming" to study the impact that different thoughts have on his subjects receptivity to religious sentiment. If Freud's theory is correct (religion being driven mainly by our fear of death) then we would expect the people who heard the ending about witnessing someone's death to express more religious sentiment, afterwards, because the story "primed" (reminded them of) human mortality.
But that's not what he observed... Subjects who heard the death ending were not more likely to express religious sentiment.
The religious ritual ending also didn't significantly increase religion sentiment. Only the ocean view ending, with it's imagery of breathtaking natural beauty, actually achieved an increase in religious sentiment.
[+] [-] elliekelly|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SkittyDog|3 years ago|reply
> In healthy volunteers and right- but not left-onset patients, religious belief-scores significantly increased following the aesthetic prime consisting of the ocean view (a wonderful reward) but not the death prime. (The religious ritual prime increased religious belief only inconsistently, with little impact compared with that of the ocean view.) The results directly refuted the anxiety theory of religion while supporting the notion that religiosity was spurred by the quest for unexpected reward.
He's using a concept called "priming" to study the impact that different thoughts have on his subjects receptivity to religious sentiment. If Freud's theory is correct (religion being driven mainly by our fear of death) then we would expect the people who heard the ending about witnessing someone's death to express more religious sentiment, afterwards, because the story "primed" (reminded them of) human mortality.
But that's not what he observed... Subjects who heard the death ending were not more likely to express religious sentiment.
The religious ritual ending also didn't significantly increase religion sentiment. Only the ocean view ending, with it's imagery of breathtaking natural beauty, actually achieved an increase in religious sentiment.
So it suggests that Freud's theory is incorrect.