atheists are psychologically healthier than agnostics

[Zoness]

Dare I go on the rant for the fact that atheism v. agnosticism is a totally misrepresented spectrum that conflates level of belief with level of knowledge?

No? Since nobody else is running with it I will not even go down that path lol.

But frankly:

I don't know. I would say my beliefs are valid for me but I could never say I'm certain they were factually correct and I'm OK mentally.

Then again, I believe in multiple deities, I'm a furry, and I stare at birds through binoculars for fun, so there you go.

This is more or less where I am. Some days I feel like this bird-loving witch is my carbon copy but effectively I can't speak for anyone other than myself. Trust me, it isn't all it is cracked up to be.

I miss being in a fixed community with a lot of political and social power like the evangelicalism of my teen years. The one thing it for sure offers? My own path and my own conclusions. Right or wrong, I am going to end up where I do through my own actions and I will own them. It's a downright terrifying amount of freedom that turned me towards existential nihilism but in the vein of Nietzsche, Sarte and Camus I'm wrestling with my place in the universe to create my own meaning. Sometimes this means being in a religion of one and that can be a lonely place and bring on its own psychological tedium because I have a very small, divided community.

I can see the appeal in broad, absolute, universal declarations about life and the universe.

 

[dzheremi]

Being arrogantly closed-minded, I don't think is psychologically healthy long term, and certain isn't the apex of positive human development, just because it may be temporarily pleasant. It's really just another defense mechanism.

I agree. I was just saying that you don't really need to run some experiment to show that people feel better when they're sure they're right about something (whether or not they actually are).

I don't see why both can't be considered unhealthy for basically the same reason, since the outlook is very similar/the same -- all they often do is switch sides on this particular question without changing the underlying mindset, as is pointed out in post #18.

 

[cloudyday2]

Dare I go on the rant for the fact that atheism v. agnosticism is a totally misrepresented spectrum that conflates level of belief with level of knowledge?

Good point. I suspect that an agnostic who is certain that there can be no certainty would enjoy the same psychological benefits as a theist who is certain or an atheist who is certain.

That is assuming that certainty begets psychological health of course. It might be that psychological health begets certainty. When I worked as a software engineer it was extremely stressful for me, because I could never decide on a design. Every design had positives and negatives and risks. Sometimes I worried about a design that would seem "obvious" to a sensible software engineer, and I was always painfully aware that my brain didn't work in "obvious" ways. ... That weakness or character trait probably explains why I can never decide anything about religion. It is always round and round in circles and lots of stress.

So I suspect that certain mental characteristics lead to psychological health, self confidence, certainty on religion, etc. rather than the opposite. But who knows.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Apparently strongly atheistic people are as psychologically healthy as strongly religious people; it is the uncertain people like me who are not as psychologically healthy.

Of course as far as I know this is only a correlation. A person cannot simply wish to be certain so that he/she can enjoy better psychological health (although certain studies and practices might help). Also it is possible that psychological unhealthiness is the cause of the religious uncertainty and mental dithering rather than the other way around. And of course people who experience difficulties in life that can cause psychological problems may find more cause to doubt the comfortable verities.

Here is the quote and link:

The Mental Health of Atheists and the 'Nones'

Yeah, depends what they mean by "strongly" atheist. I consider myself a weak atheist as far as not claiming to know there is no God, just that I lack the sufficient evidence to believe in one.

Still depending no how one uses the term strongly atheist I might consider myself one. My mind is at peace with my lack of a belief, and I do not really see myself ever changing.

Most of the atheists that post on CF have defined atheism as being what you are saying about yourself. So I found the idea that atheists have a 'certainty of belief' that god does not exist seems to be incorrect as far as those atheists are concerned. They do not believe that a god does not exist they simply don't see evidence to believe that one does. They do not have to prove that their belief is correct as they do not hold a belief on the subject only a lack of belief.

 

[MehGuy]

Most of the atheists that post on CF have defined atheism as being what you are saying about yourself. So I found the idea that atheists have a 'certainty of belief' that god does not exist seems to be incorrect as far as those atheists are concerned. They do not believe that a god does not exist they simply don't see evidence to believe that one does. They do not have to prove that their belief is correct as they do not hold a belief on the subject only a lack of belief.

I chalk it up to poor writing.

It's a psychology today article, one shouldn't expect much from them.. lol.

 

[MehGuy]

Let's put it this way, the world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we likely can imagine. It's very limiting to close ones mind to that and just decide to circumscribe ones narrative of the world based on a limited scientific understanding.

It is certainly fun to think about. I myself have some bizarre ponderings about the universe, but that's what they are just ponderings. I see no reason to build a serious narrative around them.

I'm all for creative thinking, but they should be esteemed within reason.

That's one reason in a thread discussing transgenderism, I take issue with some atheists who seem to suggest that biology = identity. There's far too many unquestioned metaphysical assumptions buried in there, there's not enough healthy agnosticism.

Like that one thread.. lol.

What is the alternative? If gender identity does not have biological roots isn't the whole idea of gender meaningless? Seems like most people who harbor negative sentiments about evolutionary psychology but want to defend trans identity often resort to the shallow idea that people should use others preferred pronouns because it's "respectful" while offering no other real reason.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, we almost had a thread without postmodern gender guerrilla language in it.

Good job, almost.

And I am the only one who finds sitting around contemplating the universe super boring and lazy? I suppose there are Christians out there who believe because "everything had to come from somewhere", but I'm more of a "where is everything going?" sort of person, because there is a tiny fraction of a chance that each one of us could actually have an impact on that, as minuscule as it may be.

I've seen this a lot with atheists I know. They hate religion with a passion and think I'm an idiot for believing in God and having a religion (though they're usually pretty nice about it, cos they're my friends and relatives), but then they talk about Carl Sagan's Cosmos with a downright religious tone: "it changed my life", "it's the most amazing thing I've ever seen", "I used part of it as the basis for the eulogy at my dad's funeral" (no, I'm not exaggerating; a friend's boyfriend did that), etc. They practically cry at the 'beauty of the universe' or whatever.

So religion is stupid but sitting around having intellectual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] over space dirt is amazing and everyone should do it, and if you don't agree or try it out you're obviously a caveman stuck worshiping a Bronze Age myth that science will replace any day now. (I suppose after they're done 'knowing' the universe a few thousand more times.)

Okay then.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, we almost had a thread without postmodern gender guerrilla language in it.

Good job, almost.

And I am the only one who finds sitting around contemplating the universe super boring and lazy? I suppose there are Christians out there who believe because "everything had to come from somewhere", but I'm more of a "where is everything going?" sort of person, because there is a tiny fraction of a chance that each one of us could actually have an impact on that, as minuscule as it may be.

I've seen this a lot with atheists I know. They hate religion with a passion and think I'm an idiot for believing in God and having a religion (though they're usually pretty nice about it, cos they're my friends and relatives), but then they talk about Carl Sagan's Cosmos with a downright religious tone: "it changed my life", "it's the most amazing thing I've ever seen", "I used part of it as the basis for the eulogy at my dad's funeral" (no, I'm not exaggerating; a friend's boyfriend did that), etc. They practically cry at the 'beauty of the universe' or whatever.

So religion is stupid but sitting around having intellectual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] over space dirt is amazing and everyone should do it, and if you don't agree or try it out you're obviously a caveman stuck worshiping a Bronze Age myth that science will replace any day now. (I suppose after they're done 'knowing' the universe a few thousand more times.)

Okay then.

While I won't be one who puts Carl Sagan on a religious pedestal, I can honestly say that when I was a young kid he did help to put me on a path that kind of had me looking for Jesus. In an odd kind of way, then, he did "help me" find Jesus. This sounds strange, I know, but in my case, it's true! We might say Sagan gave me a case of Existential Reflux. Ew!

 

[eleos1954]

Apparently strongly atheistic people are as psychologically healthy as strongly religious people; it is the uncertain people like me who are not as psychologically healthy.

Of course as far as I know this is only a correlation. A person cannot simply wish to be certain so that he/she can enjoy better psychological health (although certain studies and practices might help). Also it is possible that psychological unhealthiness is the cause of the religious uncertainty and mental dithering rather than the other way around. And of course people who experience difficulties in life that can cause psychological problems may find more cause to doubt the comfortable verities.

Here is the quote and link:

The Mental Health of Atheists and the 'Nones'

I think we all have our ups and downs and given when and where in the world a survey might be taken ... would have different outcomes. Don't think overall it can be adequately assessed.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is certainly fun to think about. I myself have some bizarre ponderings about the universe, but that's what they are just ponderings. I see no reason to build a serious narrative around them.

I'm all for creative thinking, but they should be esteemed within reason.



Like that one thread.. lol.

What is the alternative? If gender identity does not have biological roots isn't the whole idea of gender meaningless? Seems like most people who harbor negative sentiments about evolutionary psychology but want to defend trans identity often resort to the shallow idea that people should use others preferred pronouns because it's "respectful" while offering no other real reason.

It's down to cultural conditioning. Gender is constructed intersubjectively. That means science isn't the last word on gender anymore than science is the last word on art.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, we almost had a thread without postmodern gender guerrilla language in it.

Good job, almost.

And I am the only one who finds sitting around contemplating the universe super boring and lazy? I suppose there are Christians out there who believe because "everything had to come from somewhere", but I'm more of a "where is everything going?" sort of person, because there is a tiny fraction of a chance that each one of us could actually have an impact on that, as minuscule as it may be.

I've seen this a lot with atheists I know. They hate religion with a passion and think I'm an idiot for believing in God and having a religion (though they're usually pretty nice about it, cos they're my friends and relatives), but then they talk about Carl Sagan's Cosmos with a downright religious tone: "it changed my life", "it's the most amazing thing I've ever seen", "I used part of it as the basis for the eulogy at my dad's funeral" (no, I'm not exaggerating; a friend's boyfriend did that), etc. They practically cry at the 'beauty of the universe' or whatever.

So religion is stupid but sitting around having intellectual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] over space dirt is amazing and everyone should do it, and if you don't agree or try it out you're obviously a caveman stuck worshiping a Bronze Age myth that science will replace any day now. (I suppose after they're done 'knowing' the universe a few thousand more times.)

Okay then.

You need to read more Martin Heidegger, then maybe you'ld understand where they are coming from. Not everybody finds the Judeo-Christian-Islamic narrative all that compelling, not because they are lazy or dumb, but because it isn't that great of a story in the first place.

While I won't be one who puts Carl Sagan on a religious pedestal, I can honestly say that when I was a young kid he did help to put me on a path that kind of had me looking for Jesus. In an odd kind of way, then, he did "help me" find Jesus. This sounds strange, I know, but in my case, it's true! We might say Sagan gave me a case of Existential Reflux. Ew!

Then I would suggest you weren't hearing Sagan very well.

 

[MehGuy]

It's down to cultural conditioning. Gender is constructed intersubjectively. That means science isn't the last word on gender anymore than science is the last word on art.

Women being more neotenous than men on average and the consequences resulting from that isn't a result of cultural conditioning.

Not to mention the enormous similarities between social conservatives and liberal feminists. Two camps I've sadly been pressured to conform to gender roles in.

 

[MehGuy]

Well, we almost had a thread without postmodern gender guerrilla language in it.

Sorry, I'm a little surprised about that too.. lol.

And I am the only one who finds sitting around contemplating the universe super boring and lazy? I suppose there are Christians out there who believe because "everything had to come from somewhere", but I'm more of a "where is everything going?" sort of person, because there is a tiny fraction of a chance that each one of us could actually have an impact on that, as minuscule as it may be.

I've seen this a lot with atheists I know. They hate religion with a passion and think I'm an idiot for believing in God and having a religion (though they're usually pretty nice about it, cos they're my friends and relatives), but then they talk about Carl Sagan's Cosmos with a downright religious tone: "it changed my life", "it's the most amazing thing I've ever seen", "I used part of it as the basis for the eulogy at my dad's funeral" (no, I'm not exaggerating; a friend's boyfriend did that), etc. They practically cry at the 'beauty of the universe' or whatever.

So religion is stupid but sitting around having intellectual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] over space dirt is amazing and everyone should do it, and if you don't agree or try it out you're obviously a caveman stuck worshiping a Bronze Age myth that science will replace any day now. (I suppose after they're done 'knowing' the universe a few thousand more times.)

Okay then.

No need to get so defensive. I don't hate religion with a passion, and I don't view you as less for being a theist. Relax man.

I somewhat agree with your sentiments. Atheists who try to be "spiritual". Might be nice, but most of it is hollow. As far as Carl Sagan I think he just wanted to get people more interested in science and environmentalism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then I would suggest you weren't hearing Sagan very well.

I think you've misunderstood me.

 

[cloudyday2]

And I am the only one who finds sitting around contemplating the universe super boring and lazy?

That never excited me either, but there sure are a lot of lay people who are inspired by the stars. Maybe many people are inspired by large numbers?

I guess we owe the stars a lot though. Imagine if the Earth's atmosphere hid the stars. Astrology was pretty important in human culture for calendars and math and so on. I suppose humans would have learned those things some other way.

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe I can become psychologically healthy if I change my CF religion label to atheist?

 

[MehGuy]

Maybe I can become psychologically healthy if I change my CF religion label to atheist?

How long have you been this way?

 

[cloudyday2]

How long have you been this way?

I've been psychologically unhealthy all my life if that is what you are asking.
I've been in-between Christianity and atheism for about 8 years if that is what you are asking.

 

[MehGuy]

I've been psychologically unhealthy all my life if that is what you are asking.
I've been in-between Christianity and atheism for about 8 years if that is what you are asking.

That must be tough. I can relate to having poor psychological health. I might be content with my atheism but I'm still scared from my past theistic life and a whole host of other problems.

 

[dzheremi]

You need to read more Martin Heidegger,

No.

then maybe you'ld understand where they are coming from. Not everybody finds the Judeo-Christian-Islamic narrative all that compelling, not because they are lazy or dumb, but because it isn't that great of a story in the first place.

(1) Islam has nothing to do with anything, and is garbage.
(2) I don't recall writing anything about making or caring to make Christianity "narratively compelling" or whatever, so in that strict sense I don't care what anyone thinks about it.
(3) You may tip your own hand with that last clause, but following (2), I could not care less whether or not someone thinks that the Christian religion makes for "all that great of a story". If you want to read great stories, read Homer, Aesop, Chaucer, Shakespeare, etc.