Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

It's an interesting topic. It raises somewhat of a chicken-and-egg problem though. People often encounter religion through their upbringing. What some have called the "God instinct," a religious impulse, may simply be religious culture piggybacking off other more general-purpose cognitive mechanisms in order to cultivate religious sensibilities.

 

[KCfromNC]

The only problem with comparisons like these (and FSMs, etc.) is that they implicitly beg the question by equating God with something nobody takes seriously and is ridiculous.

Or it just highlights that the standards used to determine reasonable vs. ridiculous aren't being consistently applied in the case of god(s) people already believe in.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thanks to everyone for their replies

Is there any sort of "path" that you have seen that will always lead someone to atheism?

Atheism seems to be correlated with higher intelligence, education and better objective knowledge of religions, if you believe the research. Which is the cause and which is the effect there is open to interpretation. And of course correlation on a large scale doesn't guarantee any individual outcome, even if the direction of cause and effect can be determined. But it is an interesting observation nevertheless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The only problem with comparisons like these (and FSMs, etc.) is that they implicitly beg the question by equating God with something nobody takes seriously and is ridiculous. It begs the question by making God equivalent to ridiculousness; rather than making an argument from this, it appeals to images.

But suppose that someone did take it seriously. Would the mere fact that someone takes it seriously no longer make it ridiculous?

 

[Received]

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

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

Now you're speaking in Koans and I have to step back.

Let me be more clear. Equating God to something ridiculous assumes that God is ridiculous, which makes it impossible to imagine him being evidentialized. It quite simply takes out the motivational steam to even begin to think about giving God a serious thought. Who would want to when he's like a fairy tale that you know by definition is fictional?

There are more fair comparisons to God than things we strongly believe, and/or have strong emotional reactions against, than fairy tales, etc. UFOs would be a somewhat fair comparison: phenomena that are totally within the realm of possibility for existing, but nobody has any solid evidence aside from pictures (which are questionable by definition, given the relative ease of touching them up) and anecdotes (analogous to God in the sense of religious experience); the only problem here being UFOs are physical, whereas God (by definition from the beginning) isn't physical, at least not in the macro- sense, which makes it impossible to argue for UFOs along metaphysical lines like one can for God (possibly) existing.

 

[Received]

But suppose that someone did take it seriously. Would the mere fact that someone takes it seriously no longer make it ridiculous?

Maybe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But suppose that someone did take it seriously. Would the mere fact that someone takes it seriously no longer make it ridiculous?

Well, considering something ridiculous isn't exactly objective. It wouldn't be ridiculous to that person.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

We could also line up the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed by "christian" nations and militaries over the last decade.

Also, you are correct that western democracies need a stable economy. There are muslim countries that do have promising economies, such as Turkey. Saudi Arabia and other oil rich muslim dominated countries have more than enough wealth to support a western styled democracy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you're speaking in Koans and I have to step back.

If you read the Sagan essay it will make more sense.

Let me be more clear. Equating God to something ridiculous assumes that God is ridiculous, which makes it impossible to imagine him being evidentialized.

Those who believed in the invisible fire breathing dragon that lives in garages and didn't find it ridiculous were not able to present evidence for their beliefs. That was the whole point.

People who do believe in God who who don't find those beliefs ridiculous are not able to present evidence for the existence of God.

There are more fair comparisons to God than things we strongly believe, and/or have strong emotional reactions against, than fairy tales, etc. UFOs would be a somewhat fair comparison: phenomena that are totally within the realm of possibility for existing, but nobody has any solid evidence aside from pictures (which are questionable by definition, given the relative ease of touching them up) and anecdotes (analogous to God in the sense of religious experience); the only problem here being UFOs are physical, whereas God (by definition from the beginning) isn't physical, at least not in the macro- sense, which makes it impossible to argue for UFOs along metaphysical lines like one can for God (possibly) existing.

You haven't shown that deities are within the realm of possibly existing, at least not any more probable than invisible fire breathing dragons that live in peoples' garages.

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheism seems to be correlated with higher intelligence, education and better objective knowledge of religions, if you believe the research.

I don't think that is a fair comparison to make. At one time in history, the smartest and most well educated people in Europe were the preisthood. I think that says more about cultural and societal changes than the intelligence of the believer or non-believer. There are many intelligent christians in the world, and there are many unintelligent atheists.

 

[variant]

Now you're speaking in Koans and I have to step back.

Let me be more clear. Equating God to something ridiculous assumes that God is ridiculous, which makes it impossible to imagine him being evidentialized. It quite simply takes out the motivational steam to even begin to think about giving God a serious thought. Who would want to when he's like a fairy tale that you know by definition is fictional?

Which could all be easily dealt with by, you know, some basic evidence.

 

[variant]

We could also line up the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed by "christian" nations and militaries over the last decade.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my point, as I was talking about people willing to kill to show that their religion is correct.

Also, you are correct that western democracies need a stable economy. There are muslim countries that do have promising economies, such as Turkey. Saudi Arabia and other oil rich muslim dominated countries have more than enough wealth to support a western styled democracy.

Maybe, but those aren't the countries being overthrown, so I think you are being optimistic about the "Arab Spring".

 

[variant]

I don't think that is a fair comparison to make. At one time in history, the smartest and most well educated people in Europe were the preisthood. I think that says more about cultural and societal changes than the intelligence of the believer or non-believer. There are many intelligent christians in the world, and there are many unintelligent atheists.

It says more about who controlled information in the various epochs.

In the current epoch no one can really control information and the comparison holds.

 

[Received]

If you read the Sagan essay it will make more sense.



Those who believed in the invisible fire breathing dragon that lives in garages and didn't find it ridiculous were not able to present evidence for their beliefs. That was the whole point.

People who do believe in God who who don't find those beliefs ridiculous are not able to present evidence for the existence of God.



You haven't shown that deities are within the realm of possibly existing, at least not any more probable than invisible fire breathing dragons that live in peoples' garages.

Now we're arguing in a circle.

Again, fire breathing dragons are entities with emotional value leading a person to *not* take them seriously. You need a better metaphor. Yes, Sagan, you too.

 

[Chany]

Now we're arguing in a circle.

Again, fire breathing dragons are entities with emotional value leading a person to *not* take them seriously. You need a better metaphor. Yes, Sagan, you too.

But the point is that the when you compare the dragon to God on an intellectual basis, they are the same. The only difference is that people aren't as emotionally invested to take gods seriously. The metaphor shows the gap is entirely down to emotion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now we're arguing in a circle.

You are ducking in circles. Not the same thing.

As stated above, the only difference is that people are conditioned to think that gods are less ridiculous. That's the only difference.

 

[Received]

But the point is that the when you compare the dragon to God on an intellectual basis, they are the same. The only difference is that people aren't as emotionally invested to take gods seriously. The metaphor shows the gap is entirely down to emotion.

You can't, psychologically speaking, use a metaphor that emotionally inclines a person away from what you're comparing it to, and also intellectually use it for another reason while having both come together nicely to make a fair comparison to what you're talking about. There's also an intellectual part where the comparison is unfair, given that it presupposes you're comparing it to something that you *know* doesn't exist.

I mean, you can, but half of the comparison is fallacious whereas the other part makes sense. So if that's the case, why not use a more pure comparison, where the whole thing makes sense?

 

[Received]

You are ducking in circles. Not the same thing.

As stated above, the only difference is that people are conditioned to think that gods are less ridiculous. That's the only difference.

The only difference in what?

And we're both arguing in a circle. Don't take it personally, because it isn't about you or me, but about the circularity of how we're arguing.

 

[Received]

Which could all be easily dealt with by, you know, some basic evidence.

Scientific evidence, or another kind?

 

[Loudmouth]

The only difference in what?

In the comparison of invisible fire breathing dragons that live in garages and the deities that people believe in.

Don't take it personally, because it isn't about you or me, but about the circularity of how we're arguing.

I am just using invisible fire breathing dragons that live in garages as an analogy. The argument is that there is no evidence for God. I don't see how that is circular.