Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[quatona]

Which is begging the question by assuming that there is as much support for God as imaginary creatures nobody takes seriously.

We are patiently waiting for the support.

 

[quatona]

Thanks to everyone for their replies

Is there any sort of "path" that you have seen that will always lead someone to atheism? If it is the Truth™ and theism is a lie/delusion/falsity/social relic, then there should be some sort way that anyone and everyone could reach the same verifiable and objective conclusion, right? Just like any other verifiable and objective truth, like the speed of light or the value of Newton's gravitational constant.

The reason why I am not a believer is not because I think atheism is the Truth™, but because I am not seeing any evidence for there being a God.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is begging the question by assuming that there is as much support for God as imaginary creatures nobody takes seriously.

If you spread flour on the floor, will you see God's footsteps?

If you spray paint in the air, will God become visible?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Indoctrination is a powerful effect. And things like astrology and religion offer easy 'answers' to thorny questions. Astrology is utter bunk, but it's still around after thousands of years. Self-deception is unfortunately a very powerful skill, and one that human beings are quite good at, especially if it provides psychological benefits.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

Nothing in particular. They're people. If anything, they are perhaps not critical enough of their own beliefs. Some people feel Jesus in their heart; other people feel Vishnu in their spleen (or whatever). I think they're both mistaken. They think each other is mistaken.

One would think that if one was right, and their chosen god is real, there would be some sort of evidence they could point to to differentiate the real from the unreal gods. But they don't. More importantly, very few people actually attempt anything of the sort, trying to separate the real from the unreal. They're happy with their beliefs, and try not to think about alternatives. We can see that effect on the forums. Alternative ideas are kept in certain areas, and many members of the site stay away from those areas like the plague.

 

[variant]

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

It is simple, religion is meant to be appealing.

Theists want to believe (or are afraid not to believe) for emotional, psychological and cultural reasons, and thus are generally incapable of looking at what religion is objectively.

Confirmation bias at it's strongest.

 

[Paradoxum]

Is that a decent synopsis?

First, I'd like to point out that I wasn't one of those 'children-only' Christians. I was a committed follower, who had 'religious experiences', and thought reason could back up belief.

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

Well, it could be different for different people, but I'll give an opinion off the top of my head:

The difference could come from differing concerns about 'truth' (or curiosity), and how socially free you are.


1) I cared about things like science, theology and apologetics in my teen years because I was curious... I wanted to understand what reality was like. I also talked to non-believers, which forces you to think about issues.

There are obviously people who care less for this understanding, so such people will be less inclined to think deeply and oftenly about the nature of God (and related issues).

Of course most people will claim they care about the truth, but they don't think, talk, or read up on it much.


2) If there is social pressure on you to believe X, then there is a disincentive to doubting what your group thinks you should believe. Less social pressure, or a personality that cares less about that pressure, can give more freedom of thought.

So I think those probably explains why alot of people believe. But it's likely there are people who search for the truth, and aren't strongly socially pressured to stay believing. Some of those people could still be in early stages of searching, so might still become atheist. This wont account for everyone, but I don't want to make this post too long with more speculation.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is simple, religion is meant to be appealing.

Theists want to believe (or are afraid not to believe) for emotional, psychological and cultural reasons, and thus are generally incapable of looking at what religion is objectively.

Confirmation bias at it's strongest.

I do think that confirmation bias is starting to crack. As Gene2memE so elequently put it:

"Finally, the doctrinal reforms of the Abrahamistic faiths over the last 200-300 years have shifted the mainstream god concept so far into an abstraction that it is essentially unfalsifiable. Anything other than a nebulous, non-interventionist deity would lend itself to the sort of testing that would shortly render it dis-proven. "

That old-timers religion is disappearing. It is being replaced by new agey, hippy, feel good social religions. It ticks off the old-timers, but I think it is a very necessary and natural change for modern religions in the western world. The Monotheistic God of Wrath and Brimfire just isn't going to survive the expansion of freedoms and equality that are currently sweeping the western world. It is even affecting the muslim world. The Arab Spring was primarily driven by young people who saw the freedom and equality enjoyed by western democracies as supplied by the internet and new media outlets.

At this point, I don't think you can put the toothpaste back in the bottle.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

In my honest opinion, they bought into the lie. While your synopsis is appropriate for my experience... i think it's important to add that this wasn't something jammed into my head on a weekly basis. It's generally a steady indoctrination that's the difference here.

As for experiences of god, I've never heard of one I could take seriously. They sound like imaginative flights of fancy or flat out everyday occurrences. They don't sound at all like a god interacting with a human. I know that's flat out dismissing many people's experiences... but that's the honest truth in how I see it. It's even more evidenced when I speak to a christian and ask them about their experience with god and they're so reluctant to share it...almost as if they know deep down it isn't true or it will sound silly.

 

[madaz]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

That thread was essentially over anyway, but thanks for the sentiment.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

I think that is a reasonable synopsis.

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

I think its a legacy left over from numerous centuries of trying to make sense of the world around us.

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

I dont think theists did anything wrong per se, I just think we as human's have an innerant desire to prefer comforting lies over uncomfortable truths.

If someone really desire's something to be true, they will deny evidence to the contrary.

 

[madaz]

double post

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Theres an interesting book called "The God Instinct" where the author (Jesse Bering) an atheist, argues that religion is a natural ofshoot of our pattern recognition devices, and the "theory of mind" faculty which allows us to see other people as people, rather than just lumps of matter. He says atheism may be true, but that will not pursuade people to give faiths up, becuase the religion/God instinct is so strong.

I think that some psychologists consider religosity of some sort to be a default state, and atheism to be the psychological outsider. So, if you want to change the world, maybe dont focus on getting people to abandon faith, which may be a cruel psychological amputation symbolically speaking, but rather slip in some arguments in favour of science or free conscience (or whatever) instead.

 

[variant]

Which is begging the question by assuming that there is as much support for God as imaginary creatures nobody takes seriously.

The difference is the nature of the proposed creature (God is meant to sound plausible) not a difference in objective evidence for the creatures.

 

[variant]

I think that some psychologists consider religosity of some sort to be a default state, and atheism to be the psychological outsider. So, if you want to change the world, maybe dont focus on getting people to abandon faith, which may be a cruel psychological amputation symbolically speaking, but rather slip in some arguments in favour of science or free conscience (or whatever) instead.

The advice here is that if you want people to be atheists, don't approach them with the truth, coddle them.

Luckily I don't really care that people are or are not atheists (when they aren't actively pushing religion on me), nor do I have any motivation to coddle peoples natural instincts in factual matters.

 

[variant]

That old-timers religion is disappearing. It is being replaced by new agey, hippy, feel good social religions. It ticks off the old-timers, but I think it is a very necessary and natural change for modern religions in the western world. The Monotheistic God of Wrath and Brimfire just isn't going to survive the expansion of freedoms and equality that are currently sweeping the western world. It is even affecting the muslim world. The Arab Spring was primarily driven by young people who saw the freedom and equality enjoyed by western democracies as supplied by the internet and new media outlets.

At this point, I don't think you can put the toothpaste back in the bottle.

That's some natural optimism there.

The Arab spring also brought you militant groups out of the woodwork willing to kill people to show their religion is correct.

Western freedoms are a luxury that many poor nations simply can't supply or enforce.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The advice here is that if you want people to be atheists, don't approach them with the truth, coddle them.

Is that the same way you would speak of someone with say, autism? Lets not insist they see other agents as real, but lets "coddle" them instead.

The general implication seems to be that some form of cruelty to theists is if not preferable, then at times necessary. I am not sure thats the case, its just the mileau of culture that sugggests it has to be. Like Dawkins, and his lets not care about feelings (IIRC) perspective. I think he means not his feelings by the way, but those of his philosophical enemies.

'The feeling of awed wonder that science can give us is one
of the highest experiences of which the human psyche is capable"

compare with:

"The universe doesn't owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn't owe us a nice warmfeeling inside"

Obviosly in one case he is looking in the mirror, and the next case at a picture of someone like me.

Maybe science is too gendered. Masculine. It doesnt care about care, which would be a weakness. The scientific subject is mathematised and logocentric, rather than (in opposition) emotionalised and caring. But maybe to reverse the opposition, science is a form of care, and cold logocentricism is carelessness.

 

[variant]

Is that the same way you would speak of someone with say, autism? Lets not insist they see other agents as real, but lets "coddle" them instead.

The general implication seems to be that some form of cruelty to theists is if not preferable, then at times necessary. I am not sure thats the case, its just the mileau of culture that sugggests it has to be. Like Dawkins, and his lets not care about feelings (IIRC). I think he means not his feelings by the way, but those of his philosophical enemies.

I don't consider theism a learning disability, I consider it a psychological preference.

If people preferred to act autistic when they had the option (because it suited their psychology) I would consider that they simply had a flawed personality.

 

[variant]

Obviosly in one case he is looking in the mirror, and the next case at a picture of someone like me.

Please name who you are quoting, as your post makes it look like you are quoting me.

 

[variant]

Maybe science is too gendered. Masculine. It doesnt care about care, which would be a weakness. The scientific subject is mathematised and logocentric, rather than (in opposition) emotionalised and caring. But maybe to reverse the opposition, science is a form of care, and cold logocentricism is carelessness.

It's not a weakness for what science is intended to do, which is deal with factual matters in an unbiased way.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Please name who you are quoting, as your post makes it look like you are quoting me.

Oops sorry and thanks for the interesting replies.

I don't consider theism a learning disability, I consider it a psychological preference.

I am not sure that its an easy psychological choice for some people though. I recall reading about a brainwashed priest one time, and he held on after torture.

It's not a weakness for what science is intended to do, which is deal with factual matters in an unbiased way.

But unbiased does not mean or have to entail uncaring. Science is ultimately a tool which serves man, not man a tool which serves science. I think that philosophers sometimes put "the truth" first and foremost, and degrade emotion (such as "a nice warm feeling inside" - Dawkins) as some form of second order illusion. Like being regarded as animal, or less than divine.


But emotion is just as much a part of our unitive psychological dignity as truth awareness is, so we ought not train ourselves with the idea that ignoring it is more noble a trait. Which doesnt necessarily entail coddling, but acting with receptivity to all of our huminty rather than the suffering at the hands of the "heroic brut" of cold reason.

Take evolution vs creationism for instance. The debate must be metaophorical torture for some people, and yet they are lampooned for actually having feelings.

there might be an interseting religious psychoanalysis of this. Divinity = masculinity = logic = coolness = higher order.

 

[variant]

I am not sure that its an easy psychological choice for some people though. I recall reading about a brainwashed priest one time, and he held on after torture.

And it's not easy for some people to overcome a lot of their psychology (there are a huge number of psychological vices), but it isn't cruel to treat them as if they are capable.

But unbiased does not mean or have to entail uncaring. Science is ultimately a tool which serves man, not man a tool which serves science. I think that philosophers sometimes put "the truth" first and foremost, and degrade emotion (such as "a nice warm feeling inside" - Dawkins) as some form of second order illusion. Like being regarded as animal, or less than divine.

But emotion is just as much a part of our unitive psychological dignity as truth awareness is, so we ought not train ourselves with the idea that ignoring it is more noble a trait. Which doesnt necessarily entail coddling, but acting with receptivity to all of our huminty rather than the suffering at the hands of the "heroic brut" of cold reason.

It actually does mean this. Being emotionally invested in results so that you will not accept ones contrary to your viewpoints makes you a poor scientist.

Whether science can answer questions about God is not specifically true though as theists generally just define God so that it can not be tested.

What a concept of God does without any ability to test it objectively is debatable, but that there are so many theists attests vagueness to be effective dodge to inquiry.

Take evolution vs creationism for instance. The debate must be metaophorical torture for some people, and yet they are lampooned for actually having feelings.

People are lampooned rightfully in that debate for putting their feelings ahead of objective facts and being very stubborn about it.

Are you seriously saying that science should care about peoples feelings in matters of fact?

Precisely when do you think appeals to emotion should override factual evidence? Give me your standard.