poll: is theism or atheism natural?
I don’t want everyone jumping to instant conclusions on this one:
- 99% of atheists will predictably tell me that atheism is natural because no child is born following a religion but that every person needs to be programmed with a specific religion to follow it
- 99% of theists will predictably tell me that the desire to seek a god is within everyone and that the history of the human race tells us we long for relationships with invisible superbeings
So, to bring new perspectives to the conversation, I hope anyone interested in discussing this will find the time to read this article from Science2.0. Here are some snippets:
Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.
While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.
This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”
This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.
….
If a tendency to believe in the reality of an intangible network is so deeply wired into humanity, the implication is that it must have an evolutionary purpose. Social scientists have long believed that the emotional depth and complexity of the human mind means that mindful, self-aware people necessarily suffer from deep existential dread. Spiritual beliefs evolved over thousands of years as nature’s way to help us balance this out and go on functioning.
If a loved one dies, even many anti-religious people usually feel a need for a farewell ritual, complete with readings from old books and intoned declarations that are not unlike prayers. In war situations, commanders frequently comment that atheist soldiers pray far more than they think they do.
Statistics show that the majority of people who stop being part of organized religious groups don’t become committed atheists, but retain a mental model in which “The Universe” somehow has a purpose for humanity.
….
There are other, more socially-oriented evolutionary purposes, too. Religious communities grow faster, since people behave better (referring to the general majority over the millennia, as opposed to minority extremists highlighted by the media on any given day).
Why is this so? Religious folk attend weekly lectures on morality, read portions of respected books about the subject on a daily basis and regularly discuss the subject in groups, so it would be inevitable that some of this guidance sinks in.
There is also the notion that the presence of an invisible moralistic presence makes misdemeanors harder to commit. “People who think they are being watched tend to behave themselves and cooperate more,” says the New Scientist’s Lawton. “Societies that chanced on the idea of supernatural surveillance were likely to have been more successful than those that didn’t, further spreading religious ideas.”
Does anyone still want to argue that atheism is natural?
Does anyone still want to argue that atheism is natural?
Natural in the sense that it is first, yes. And here’s why:
The “dread” is the prime mover. One must have the fear of something first before devising the colourful response. As the article says “nature’s way to help us balance this out and go on functioning.” Belief (in all its guises) is the action, the response to the thing that came first: fear and paranoia.
LikeLike
At last, you’ve conceded! I can die without that deep existential dread now. 😀
LikeLike
What are you blabbering on about? I showed you precisely where you’re wrong, as per the article you thought backed up your case… confusing the “effect” (the belief is magical things) with the “cause” (the fear of natural things). What you’re pointing to is superficial baggage, the result of fear and paranoia.
LikeLike
Ah yes, in my excitement I didn’t read your rubbish response carefully enough. Where I come from, we call this “clutching at straws”. Desperately. 😉
LikeLike
What strange bizarro world did you wake up in this morning, Alice?
Here, think on this question before unnecessarily wasting your profound neural abilities on another load of drivel.
What comes first: the fear of something, or the reaction to the fear of something?
Stop. Don’t. Hands-off the keyboard. Back away. Think. Breathe.
Now, calmly start typing these words: Yes John, I see the error in my ways. Thank you. Bless you. My thinking was assbackwards. I blame the weather, muddy water, Tony Blair, and the lack of sunkissed watermelons.”
LikeLike
But it’s not natural to live without that fear. Even now there’s something itching deep in our brains, we evolved with it and can’t escape. You must be high on ripe and juicy mangoes to keep conveniently ignoring this fact. Did you read the clever scientist article? It says you secretly think there’s a purpose to the universe …
LikeLike
It says you secretly think there’s a purpose to the universe
That’s textbook Terror Management Theory… But its beside the point, you poor, fruit-starved child of damp and gloomy cobblestone streets. Honestly, you used to think so clearly when you were in the Southern Hemisphere, and that’s despite the fact that you were in the land of buffoonery where the wretched and hopeless hang their hats.
One more time: what comes first, the fear, or the re-action to the fear? The fear, right? Good, now pay attention. I’ll write this slowly because I know you can’t read fast today. The individual who is experiencing the fear is the default human, OK. She looks around the world and thinks, Well, bugger me if this isn’t a horrid place… and what’s that tall pointy mountain over there doing burping and billowing smoke like that…?
LikeLike
That was actually quite funny. Shame it doesn’t make sense. The person doesn’t exist without the fear, you Aussie buffoon.
LikeLike
Codswallop. A child pops out looking for boobies, not afraid of them! Fear is either learnt or invented (in the form of paranoia), just like belief systems.
LikeLike
You never said boo to a baby? Clueless, absolutely …
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS Keith thinks it’s natural, and he uses LOTS of big words
LikeLike
LikeLike
But the real reason this is a pointless discussion is that ‘natural’ isn’t qualitative. We could reword this with, “Is racism or non-racism natural?”, and then offer a thesis on how racism is natural because tribalism ensured the survival of specific groups, hence racism served an evolutionary purpose, so very natural. Blah, blah, blah.
Whenever anyone sees the word natural being dragged into anything outside of science, it’s time to run, and fast.
LikeLike
Very good point. The real issue is what came first.
LikeLike
NOOOOOoooooooooooooo! Don’t you jump on her bandwagon! I get Violet going down the yellow brick road, but certainly not you! I will not accept it.
Neither natural nor first mean good or correct. These are classic manipulations begun by none other than proponents of alleged ‘Natural Law’. The one where slavery was perfectly natural.
Whenever anyone uses the word at all, we have to stop them and ask which definition they’re referring to- so they don’t get to play word games.
If they’re forced to say ‘from nature’, then suddenly the whole thing collapses. No such thing as theism from nature.
And if they have to reformulate the theory using the appropriate words, then the whole thing just looks ridiculous, as it should.
LikeLike
Devilish! I still think its an easy to make the case that the root of all supernal thoughts is fear and paranoia. That’s the bedrock, the rest is simply colourful and elaborate coping mechanisms.
LikeLike
Obviously, you’re right. But the problem I see here is responding to what is basically a flawed ‘theory’. There isn’t even a discussion to be had on what comes first. It’s indisputably atheism. Which is precisely why the word natural gets dragged in, particularly by theists. They think that by associating the word natural with their beliefs they lend them credence. Always have, always will.
I suppose Violet just gets confused sometimes. Maybe she tripped and one of those Scottish fried Mars bars went up her nose and caused brain swelling.
LikeLike
She hasn’t been herself since leaving the Southern Hemisphere. I blame it on the under supply of fruit, and the oversupply of mold up there in Pictland 🙂
LikeLike
“Pictland”
Are they still painting themselves blue?
LikeLike
I believe so, but only on Fondue nights, and, of course, for make-up sex 🙂
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Neither natural nor first mean good or correct.” You make good points Mr Pink. I think I’m just arguing against the smug atheist declaration that we are all born atheist. I don’t see it as our base state, we instinctively lean toward creating superstitious belief systems, which inevitably feature god-like creatures. Atheism is the next logical step beyond that, but it is by no means natural.
LikeLike
“we instinctively lean toward creating superstitious belief systems, which inevitably feature god-like creatures.”
IF that is true, it’s most likely because we were raised by gods, that we ultimately learned to call Mom and Dad. While in diapers, we fell every time we tried to stand, while they jumped and skipped and ran – they were gods to our fact-less minds. But it had nothing to do with our post-natal conceptions, merely our later observations of these two deities.
LikeLike
Absolutely, I agree that’s got to be part of the mechanism.
LikeLike
“Absolutely, I agree that’s got to be part of the mechanism.”
Then it has to do with later environment, and nothing to do with how we are at birth, the premise of this piece.
LikeLike
I said I agree it’s part of it all. And the need to bond with our parents utterly as children is obviously as big a part of our evolutionary success as anything else.
LikeLike
You’re making an ever so slight mistake by analyzing only the surface. What’s behind creating superstitious belief systems? What’s the point of it?
LikeLike
Naturally seeking comfort in the face of unknowns.
LikeLike
I’d say even more basic than that. .Animals have a need to understand how things work. It’s a basic aspect of survival. We need to learn how to crack a nut, to get what’s in it. How do we get to the water source? How do we make sure we have food in winter. Theism came about as an extrapolation of that. It was the early answer to the how and why we’re here, before we knew more. So it’s not even about beliefs or gods, we were just filling information gaps with the hypotheses available at the time. And then that took on a life of its own.
LikeLike
Sure. But it seems to be the natural way we do it. Because it’s natural, right? 😉
LikeLike
Yes- wanting to understand and coming up with theories is the part that’s natural. The theories themselves are a secondary, an irrelevant aspect.
A car isn’t natural, needing to get from point A to point B and figuring out how to do it is the natural part 😉
LikeLike
The difference being we have a number of transport options open to us. Up until relatively recently we only had one genre of explanation open to us – and it was supernatural in nature, naturally inclining towards theistic.
LikeLike
That’s rather absurd. It wasn’t naturally inclined towards theistic, it was naturally inclined towards ignorance. Not unlike the use of bloodletting for any illness.
You’re so focused on the minutia you’re not seeing what’s behind it.
LikeLike
Oh you’re being almost as pedantic as Arch. Being in ignorance has almost exclusively led to societies based on some form of theistic belief throughout the history of humanity. It’s natural, I don’t see what the big deal is, or why you only want to acknowledge the fear/ignorance aspect devoid it’s immediate and natural consequence. Dogs live in fear and ignorance for much of their lives yet as far as we can tell they haven’t created any religions around this (although it’s quite possible they have something similar within their individual pretty little heads and only lack of complex communication abilities has inhibited the rise of the doggy theists).
LikeLike
Pedantic, darling? Let’s not be idiotic. What I’m illustrating is the difference between motivation and theory. Do you really not see the difference?
If you can’t see what’s behind theism and take it at face value, then there certainly is a problem; And it’s not mine.
LikeLike
What difference does the difference make?? It’s still a natural consequence so in no way impacts on the discussion.
LikeLike
Really? You don’t see the difference? The difference is actually the crux of the discussion. If you don’t see it…
LikeLike
Are you serious? You don’t see that the difference is of no consequence? If you can’t see that …
LikeLike
The difference is the point, you fool. What the animal wants is an explanation, not a god. It takes an idiot to decide we’re ‘natural theists’.
LikeLike
Monsieur Pink! How very dare you call me both a fool and idiot. If you are going to attempt to insult me please use your signature name-calling card – nothing less than an under-educated imbecile will do. If you wish to glance out over the history of the human race and conclude we are not natural theists, because your atheistic pride can’t deal with it, that’s your business. If you wish to proclaim solely that we are creatures who lived in fear and ignorance, and that the overwhelmingly similar conclusions we came to in almost every society are of no interest beyond that, you, sir, might just be the fool.
LikeLike
Atheistic pride?
I suppose you’re right. Undereducated imbecile has now become appropriate. You started with a flawed theory that you’re trying to bolster. This entire last comment is a misrepresentation of what I said; which amongst other things means you’re intellectually dishonest. This in turn means your interactions here are an exercise in futility. I should have known better.
LikeLike
If that’s what you wish to believe. I know it’s difficult to back down.
LikeLike
Of course. Especially if you don’t know how to formulate a mathematical formula to support your point, which seems to be invariably your case.
If you can’t see the difference between impetus, method and hypothesis, then have a good night and consider drowning your computer in bath water.
LikeLike
You too, sleep well!
LikeLike
“Dogs live in fear and ignorance for much of their lives yet as far as we can tell they haven’t created any religions around this”
Who do you think they howl to?
LikeLike
Well, theism is ostensibly supernatural, aside from pantheism (have you noticed that nobody likes those guys, the pantheists?), whatever that means. Supernatural knowledge is an oxymoron, which pretty much stops the show in my book.
What the researchers are talking about is attribution of agency. That is a very deep-seated psychological trait. I’m not a big fan of evolutionary psychology, but I think it gets this one thing right: regarding the practicalities of believing that the noise in the bushes is the wind versus believing that the noise in the bushes is a tiger, the belief that there’s a tiger in the bushes is the hands-down winner. The attribution of agency even remains more useful if, besides making us prone to believe that there’s a tiger in the bushes, it also makes us prone to believe that the rumble from the dark clouds comes from the wheels of a giant chariot pulled by giant, immortal, and delicious goats.
The real question is: does anyone really hold a supernatural belief? I’d say, not really. I’d point to the discourse surrounding the Kalam Cosmological Argument as demonstrating the impossibility of truly holding such a belief. An then there’s Kant, Pascal, etc..
So, to answer the question, beliefs are all natural.
LikeLike
John Zande doesn’t agree that theism is natural, but I think his objection is coloured by pride in atheism and all things natural.
LikeLike
I can hear you….
LikeLike
“beliefs are all natural.”
The supernatural is merely the natural, unexplained.
LikeLike
Part of me, before reading this article, held the idea that atheism reasonably should be the first state of humanity. We’re clean slates, knowing nothing about any kind of fantastic deities.
This article changes that view by providing evidence and testable data that people can go find is true for themselves. I think it’s interesting that people are “hard wired” to have faith. It would explain how people can leap at it to find comfort.
Even more interesting is that I just demonstrated why skepticism and secular reasoning is superior to religious dogmatic thinking.
I had a view. That view got challenged by new data. And instead of having to make excuses for it, I was able to change my world view to reflect the new evidence.
Awesome post!
LikeLike
Thank you! I’m glad someone else gets it too. I think there are a lot of stubborn atheists out there who resist this kind of thinking because they feel like by conceding theism is natural, they’re conceding it’s superior or something. It’s our basic, barbarian state of belief. And even if we were born into a ‘blank slate’ environment devoid of religion, we would inevitably create something that looks like theism in our minds (in the absence of science …). I think the article makes the point very well.
LikeLike
“I think it’s interesting that people are “hard wired” to have faith. It would explain how people can leap at it to find comfort.”
According to the video I just posted, siriusbizinus, quite the opposite is true: we’re hard-wired to find comfort, to relieve our anxieties, and “faith” brings that to some of us.
LikeLike
Okay … I was interested than balked at the first hurdle and the use of the term God, pronoun an’ all.
This is such a biased piece of writing it borders on dogma.
And why is metaphysics ingrained?
FTS.
This is food for plonkers and really is not even worth discussing. I am disappointed in this. Unless it was for a wind up, of course, then I’ll give you 6/10
LikeLike
Really? I must have read it differently. It’s saying it’s all nonsense but we got where we are because of religions so it’s difficult to truly get the instinct out. I think it’s fair to say that atheists still have weird little beliefs at the back of their heads about meaning and significance, even if rationally we know it’s nonsense.
LikeLike
I think your highlights don’t help either, by the way.
It goes back to the days when were living in trees, no doubt.
This would change very quickly if the heads of the Liars for Jesus club and other assorted dickheads got round to saying “We made it all up!”
I have no Weird Little Beliefs, thank you very much.
In fact the more I research and read the more I realise it is simply rose fertilizer; and not very good fertilizer either, to be honest.
Maybe someone like Colonialist, falls into this category, yes, but then I am convinced he is a closet deist.
Weird beliefs
lol ….shakes head and goes for a refill.
LikeLike
How rude! My highlights are perfectly placed. Go shout some bully insults at some unwitting Christians instead of sticking your nose in this high brow discussion! 😉
LikeLike
High brow? My dear Violet, Uni-brow would be a more accurate description.
I’ll shout when Brandon arrives, how’s that?
LikeLike
Keep up, old man…
LikeLike
You really are enjoying this ”old” handle aren’t you?
It is such a comfort knowing that as blokes’ get older they generally become distinguished whereas most women tend to look extinguished.
btw. I can’t keep clicking on your blog to follow every damn comment you know?
LikeLike
It depends what you mean by “natural”. We are born atheist, because we are born without a concept or belief in gods.
However, it may be that we are wired to have supernatural perspective as we mature. But a supernatural perspective doesn’t mean a god-perspective; there are atheists who believe in the supernatural. So atheism would still be in the “natural” seat. Specifically having God-belief would be a particular construct in the supernatural perspective.
With regard to defining natural: Natural, opposed to what? If you mean it with regard to the neutral philosophical position, then atheism is patently the natural stance. If you mean natural as in “to contrast against man-made”, then all beliefs held by people are made by those people (and so only absence of believe in not created by people, or “natural”
Unless you mean this in the bigger picture of nature, in which case I put it to you that trees and bacteria don’t believe in God, so they’re atheists too. Nature is, generally, atheist.
If you mean “natural” as being synonymous with ‘inherent in humans’, then I doubt the definition used and you are talking about a snapshot in evolutionary time (it may not always have been the case, other animals don’t seem to have a supernatural perspective; I know a very rational Husky). Further to the idea that humans have a “supernatural” perspective, I don’t recall ever having a supernatural perspective, but, at best (for your argument), an ignorance as to the limits of cause and effect. Where is the demarcation between ignorance of the natural and acceptance of the supernatural?
… that comment covered more than I thought it would.
LikeLike
Thank you, yes!
Wisp, pay attention to the smart man here 😉
LikeLike
Hey! I’d like to meet the smart man as well!
LikeLike
Well, you can’t be smart and inhumanly good looking…
LikeLike
Like a well groomed Labrador. Inhumanly good looking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the risk of insulting both of you, and far be it from me to determine who should feel the more insulted – you sound like an old married couple! Enjoying the repartee, Reminds me of when, on the old “Saturday Night Live,” Dan Ackroyd and Jane Curtain used to portray TV anchorpersons in a point-counterpoint series, and Ackroyd would turn to Jane and say, “Jane, you ignorant slut….” and continue with his line.
Carry on —
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right that the question is complicated by the definition of natural. However, I don’t think you’re right that we’re naturally atheist in the absence of religious input – a baby may not conceive of a god, but it doesn’t really conceive of much beyond immediate comforts. As children our imaginations go haywire and we’ll believe or invent any old nonsense. I think we would always come to a god-like theist conclusion in the absence of scientific knowledge, and the history of humanity does back that up. I think the article makes an excellent case for why trait has brought us where we are today, and why it’s still hard-wired in the back of our head even when our rational minds tell us otherwise.
LikeLike
To clarify, are you of the position that it is hard wired into the human mind that, as it matures, it develops God-concepts?
Because that takes us quite a way from the research you presented. The research claims that we naturally get a supernatural perspective. That is not the same as believing a particular thing i.e. that a god exists.
And without appropriately distinguishing between ‘ignorance of natural explanations’ and ‘acceptance of supernatural explanations’. It may be that the human mind believes everything it can imagine as a child, and induction whittles away at that mass over time, religion being the last to go. But that would be distinct from having a supernatural perspective (which assumes that the supernatural explanations are psychologically preferable somehow).
And that still doesn’t account for me.
Even if we could establish that superstition is hard wired into us (and I’m not trying to suggest that is an outlandish claim, it’s not at all), that would just put it in the list of things humans intuit which are at odds with demonstrable reality.
LikeLike
We’re getting away from the point. Atheism isn’t natural – it doesn’t come as a default stance, but theism clearly does, and there are quite rational and easily understandable reasons why this is the case in our species. Obviously no-one is born believing in a particular god from a particular religion, or even necessarily dreaming up a pure theist position from scratch. But it’s definitely in our plumbing to create those beliefs, in the absence of accumulated scientific knowledge. And more than that, it’s interesting to note the amount of residual theistic beliefs that go on within atheism.
LikeLike
Hmm . . . you can say it, but we have living proof that’s not the case:
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm
There are major beliefs that exist without reliance on a god. By definition, holding no belief in a good makes you an atheist.
So, you can be a Bon or other type of Buddhist and have no belief in god. Or Confucian, for that matter. And those are just major religions.
Some ancient and modern religions are referred to as atheistic, as they either have no concepts of deities or deny a creator deity, yet still revere other god-like entities.
There are “naturalistic” religions that do not believe in a deity, and worship other conceptual entities, and those entities are not participatory to human endeavors.
Believers in “The Force” (yes, a religion has sprung up) can be considered atheists, as The Force is not an entity per se, but merely something to be tapped into.
So, perhaps the “natural” state of humans has nothing to do with theism or atheism, but rather credulity, which then leaves one open to all types of bullshit.
LikeLike
The latter point i would much appreciate if you could expand upon.
LikeLike
I don’t know how to explain it any better . . . but, given the time of year, perhaps this will help . . . people election after election continue to believe politicians who are running for office.
LikeLike
I’m going to choose option C and say that both atheism and theism are natural in a sense that we would expect to see both arise if we designed a controlled scientific experiment. I’ll have to be brief cuz I’m at work, but I think Keith is correct about agency attribution that primes us for religious belief but I also think that our rational minds counteract this. There’s a sort of push and pull in every person and this leads to population diversity with regard to religious belief with some on the far end of the spectrum being hyperreligious and the other end end of the spectrum being irreligious. That’s a bit of a simplification that doesn’t take into account other factors, but the generality is there are motivators towards religious belief and motivators in the other direction and these will be variably expressed in individuals and populations.
LikeLike
As ”motivators” can lead a person in either direction why did you choose the path of religion and god belief?
As verifiable evidence for your choice of god – the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth – is non existent why on earth would you opt for something that quite clearly is a result of contrived cultural indoctrination?
Option C is thus not natural given the circumstances.
Based on this patent lack of evidence, what on the gods earth made you become a Christian if not because of your previous indoctrination?
LikeLike
“I’ll shout when Brandon arrives, how’s that?”
I was about to say, “Ark – prepare to shout!” and here he is – it’s a miracle!
LikeLike
Thank the gods – pick one.
LikeLike
Gods? We don’ need no stinkin’ gods!
LikeLike
Holy Zeus, blasphemy! Thor … zap him!
LikeLike
Who’s sounding like an old married couple now Arch!
LikeLike
Hey, I can’t help it if he keeps begging me to take long showers with him! It’s certainly not MY idea!
LikeLike
The bigger question is whether it’s more natural to eat pasta with butter or with some odious sauce that’s going to stain the inherent beauty of pasta.
Seriously, what exactly is the definition of natural as used in the article?
And, is it reasonable to compare theism and atheism in this way? Atheism has one, and only one tenet . . . a lack of belief in god(s).
Theism spans a wide sets of beliefs regarding types of gods, how powerful they are, and their involvement in our lives, BUT, in addition, beliefs that span from the initial belief in god – beliefs stemming from imagined qualities of said god. Theist work hard at reconciling observation of the world around them with their imagined (and often conflicting) tenets.
Whatever other belief an atheist holds, it’s not coming from the lack of belief in a god (i.e. I don’t believe in god, therefore I ‘know’ pasta with butter is far superior to any other way of serving it. Also, apples should be eaten with sugar).
But, for the sake of argument, let’s equate the question to something similar, and perhaps use it as a determination of what is ‘natural’ . . . See if any of these helps make sense of the question.
Is it more natural to believe in Santa Claus or to not believe in Santa Claus?
Is it more natural to believe in chupacabra, or to not believe in chupacabra?
How about magic crystals, chi, Bigfoot, Jedi knights (the Force), vampires, orcs, goblins, Sauron, Superman, auras, horoscopes, crystal balls, John Edwards . . . I could go on.
The Santa Claus, I think, is the most relevant . . . Santa Claus believers are, by an overwhelming margin, inculcated from birth with certain ideas, usually from people who they trust . . . those same people eventually dispel the notion, and the evidence (actually, lack of evidence) is the final nail in the coffin of Santa Claus belief.
Take that to the whole religion thing . . . that notion is continuously reinforced by people who both cajole and threaten, and, most of all, hold that merely questioning the belief means nothing less than eternal suffering and torment.
I say that what IS natural is for people to question . . . when that happens, honest people will see the mess behind the facade.
But believers will work hard to shore up that facade, and dare not look behind it. That ain’t natural, but it is understandable.
LikeLike
Interesting post, violet.
My first inclination, oddly enough as a theist, is to ask: why must theism be natural? I tend to be perfectly fine–nay, chagrined!–with the idea that theism is not natural but supernatural, though I can respect the findings (suppositions? Idk) in the article you’ve cited.
I mean how natural can it be for somebody (in reality–that is perceiving and understanding such as through the faculty, at age, of reason–as well as from custom or ritual) to be “baptized into the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ” and thus believing He will come again to judge the Living and the Dead? This is, to be sure, religion getting really specific. This also qualifies not merely as believing in “a higher power, far off” but that that higher power has directly permeated and transformed/is transforming the individual. At any rate, my point being, it seems to me absurdly insulting both to Him and to peoples’ intelligence in general to qualify this as “natural.” Make no mistake, though, I’m not saying your point or that article is “insulting,” it’s not.
Perhaps I’m simply in a mood to be contrarian. At any rate, I certainly will agree with you insofar as I see no need to argue that atheism is natural.
Naturally, lol
LikeLike
“<…theism is not natural but supernatural”
The supernatural is merely the natural, unexplained.
LikeLike
Interesting comment. As a believer (I’m not confused about this, am I?) I would have thought you’d want to suggest that your god programmed us to naturally feel inclined towards believing. That seems to be what most theists believe. The article was interesting because it points to very good reasons that humans with the trait of creating and living in religious societies would be more likely to flourish, leaving a natural tendency deep within us to be drawn to supernatural conclusions – in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
LikeLike
I suppose it doesn’t inspire too much confidence in me to say that “theism is natural,” even if that’s what the evidence suggests and I respect that. Perhaps “theism” is broader than “religion?” I mean, I don’t know that it’s all too natural for anybody to believe in the Virgin Birth, Incarnation or Resurrection, even though they occurred in nature. Specifically in relation to arguing at atheists: “see, atheists these are all merely natural to believe, neener neener. Then again, there is Romans 1:20 perhaps arguing in your favor.
LikeLike
How is Atheism natural? Typically it is a rejection of known God ideas, which all tend to be rather ridiculous anyways.
We are born Agnostic, because we don’t know anything beyond the inside of the womb!
Even now, the known universe is like the womb to us – we don’t know anything outside of it.
Theism and Atheism are both learned, neither is natural.
LikeLike
Atheism is learned? . . . I don’t recall a teacher of any kind; quite the opposite.
As a pre-internet person, I did not know about atheism until in my twenties when I happily discovered other skeptics and atheists. So, not sure where I would have learned something which I did not even know had a name.
By the way, I still think atheism is a useless term . . . we don’t have, for instance Asantaclausism. But if we did, that would, indeed, be learned.
LikeLike
Alright, I consulted a couple dictionaries. Atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of a deity. In other words, the suggestion of the existence of a deity is required in order to not believe it. We aren’t aware of deities at birth, so we can’t be either until we learn of the idea of a deity.
LikeLike
You conveniently leave out the second part of the definition, where it says ‘ or lack of belief’.
But, let me point out the erroneous conclusion you draw . . .
I disbelieve, or have a lack of belief, that Yoda exists, even though absolutely no one has maintained (at least to me) that the little bugger exists.
You could classify me as an Ayodaist even though there is no suggestion that he does exist.
Do you see it? I don’t need anyone to believe in Yoda, or even someone to suggest to me that there is a Yoda for me to lack a belief in Yoda.
“AHA! But you have heard of Yoda!” you yell, all smug like.
Fair enough. Imagine, then, I know of an entity whose name is ****. No one else knows about it.
I convince you that **** exists. We two, then, are ****ists. We believe in ****.
Everyone else is, by definition, a****ists . . . whether they know about **** or not, because they do not believe in ****.
We tell them about ****, but they still don’t believe us, so they remain, and are a****ists.
Christians are atheists with regard to all other gods but their own, whether they know of those gods or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
In the second link you’ll find the problematic basis for this argument . . . it’s the difference between what you say I am, and what I say I am.
Trust me, you should take my word for what I say I am:
“The most common meaning among Atheists themselves refers to a weak, negative, soft, or skeptical Atheist: one who simply lacks a belief in and knowledge of any supernatural entities whatsoever.”
You see, the problem is that when people hear atheist, they frame it in relation to the god they imagine.
That’s why we never get past the first step . . . for me to not believe in a specific god, I first have to have god explained to me. In that respect, I am actually an Asupernaturalist. I hold no belief in anything supernatural, regardless of whether I have heard of it, will hear of it, or will never hear of it.
That is not a learned position. But, if you insist in telling me what I am, I’m afraid I’ll have to ignore you because, and this is pretty much universal, no one likes to be defined on the basis on what someone else thinks.
LikeLike
The second part of the definition that I have is along the lines of “the doctrine or belief that there is no God.”
I was using the dictionary on my computer as well as the Merriam-Webster dictionary, also just checked dictionary.com. “Lack of belief” is not a definition in any of them.
Check your Wikipedia link, it also defines Atheism as a rejection of belief in deities. You can’t reject what you aren’t yet aware of.
If Atheism included lack of belief, I would agree with you. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.
LikeLike
@Jason
The immediate problem with this sentence is the capital letter indicating a pronoun.
This is already pandering to social convention and is a tacit implication there is something tangible to deny.
The correct structure of this sentence would be to drop the capital ‘G’ and include an ‘s’.
LikeLike
I wonder how that debate is going between between the polar bears of the far north and those of lands further south?
LikeLike
Quite ….and asinine comments such as this win you the total of …. oops Zero points.
But you do get a badge for The Idiotic Comment of the Day Award.
Good one, Jason.
LikeLike
I guess the sod is greener on this side of the wall!
Can I win for the week now?
LikeLike
Only because of the splash-back due to the fact you keep pissing up the wall, Jason.
if you need to point score … be my guest.
LikeLike
Doesn’t piss kill grass?
LikeLike
There’s a point!
LikeLike
Darn it! there goes my perfect score!
LikeLike
“The Idiotic Comment of the Day Award” – you should feel honored, Jason – there were a lot of us on that list!
LikeLike
In that case, I’d like to thank God for being such a prevalent character that has brought us together in these online forums … oh! And I want to thank whatever led to existence too!
LikeLike
“there were a lot of us on that list!” – practically everyone who didn’t agree with The Wisp —
LikeLike
Holy crap on a cracker . . . I can’t tell if you are being deliberately dense, or if it’s a veritable condition.
Did you read the Wikipedia entry?
“Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.”
Now, I ain’t gots the claim that English is my first language, but I can read pretty good, and what it looks like to me is that you ignore the second, third, and fourth sentences.
Specifically:
“Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.”
But even what you say, the rejection of belief, how does that not come across as lack of belief?
“I believe in Yoda.”
“I refuse to believe (reject) that!”
Tell me that does not mean ‘lack of belief’. Because, I gots to tell you, I don’t believe in Yoda. Not only that, it’s not like I want to believe in Yoda and fight it. It’s that the idea that Yoda exists is so foreign to me, that I can’t even formulate a vision of it to deny. I ain’t Yoda’s Peter.
Now, we can sit here and quote dictionaries:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism
. . . but why is it so hard to accept what I, an atheist, tell you about myself?
Let’s take it another way . . . for me to become a theist, I would have to start believing, make a conscious decision to do so. I would have to acquire a belief I do not currently possess. If I did, I would transition from lack of belief to having belief.
Because I did not have a belief to begin with, there is nothing for me to deny, and to acquire a belief, it’s not that I would stop denying a belief I already had; no, I would have to formulate a whole new belief, one that I previously lacked.
Even that is not ‘learned’ . . . like all religious people, in the absence of any proof, I would have to ‘decide’ to believe, and to do that I’d have to rationalize a very specific version of an imaginary deity that can can be comfortable with.
The chance that it would match the version of anyone else is very small. For instance, when someone says ‘red’, it’s very difficult to know exactly what they mean because usually each person has their own idea of what “red” look like.
Now, it’s late, I want to write and do my next post, so how about this . . . you live and revel in your ignorance about my atheism, and I will ignore every post of your from now on, across the whole breath and span of the Internet.
That way, we’ll both be happy.
LikeLike
Who are you Disperser? You’ve rampantly run round various posts now, ranting at Christians in a disconnected manner and then ending in a damp flourish of unconvincing insults claiming they’re wasting your time. I would suggest you don’t jump in the pool if you don’t like the fish. 😉
LikeLike
Weird – – – I unsubscribed from the comments and the blog, and I still got notices.
Normally I wouldn’t reply, but . . .
. . . my apologies for my participation, especially if it came across as rude. I thought I was contributing, but obviously not. Perhaps I’m a jerk after all. Who knew.
I went through my subscriptions and removed all that I could see for this blog and people who comment on this blog, and all comments subscriptions, so I should not be tempted to participate in anything else.
. . . but, just to be clear . . . it wasn’t a claim; I do honestly think I was wasting my time (and yours). I would not have known that before I ‘jumped in the pool’.
LikeLike
“I thought I was contributing, but obviously not.”
I feel you were, Disperser, but if you’re gone, you’ll never know that. Ironic that the one responsible for your leaving, just posted a link on the evils of being rude.
LikeLike
He said he’d already left and unsubscribed because he thought it was a waste of time. So I wasn’t the cause. Is it rude to ask someone not to call people names?
LikeLike
Personally, I find to make a great deal of sense, far more than the topic of this post. And frankly, I jump into the pond because I DO like the fish – ummm, tasty!
LikeLike
Oh, and here are some tips on how to behave constructively, in my post, On Being Rude:
Please read it, it changed Ark’s life.
LikeLike
“Please read it, it changed Ark’s life.”
Are you saying he was even WORSE? Unimaginable!
LikeLike
Exactly, this is the reformed, polite Ark. I’m just pleased I could help him see the speck in his eye. 🙂
LikeLike
No .. I must not …must resist …. this woman … aargh … no. Leave it.
LikeLike
Ah, I found the source of confusion. The Oxford Dictionary includes ‘lack of belief’ in its Atheism definition. It seems to be in the minority though in acceptance of that definition.
LikeLike
“Typically it is a rejection of known God ideas”
I don’t see it that way, Jason. I’m broke – I don’t view that as a rejection of money, I simply don’t have any.
LikeLike
If you’re not yet involved in a financial system, how can you be broke?
LikeLike
Empty pockets.
LikeLike
Pockets have value.
LikeLike
Not empty, they don’t – empty pockets have only potential value.
LikeLike
Not to someone with money who needs pockets!
LikeLike
“Not to someone with money who needs pockets!”
Now I better understand your avatar – it must be the symbol for circular reasoning!
LikeLike
Guess I’ve spent enough time observing and engaged in Christianity debates that I’ve learned a trick or two!
LikeLike
“Theism and Atheism are both learned” Yes, I think this is the most sensible comment on the page. Other people have touched on the fact that it depends how you define ‘natural’ and what significance you’re attempting to attach to it, but essentially they are both learned states. However, I think we are generally more inclined to theism (naturally) and will continue to embrace it in the face of terrible logical stumbling blocks – you only need to look at the depth of breadth of insane beliefs that people curiously cling to. It’s obviously not because there is a theistic ‘truth’ out there that we’re trying to grasp but because it’s been an urge that has made us successful as a species.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Considering pre-scientific era humans almost always seemed to resort to the supernatural to understand the bigger picture of things, I would tend to agree in that sense. Where the possibilities of understanding end, the imagination begins.
LikeLike
Oh, and how can you be born an Atheist if you aren’t even aware of any God ideas to not believe in?
LikeLike
Seriously?
Atheist . . . not a theist . . . I’m pretty sure everyone is born atheist. Perhaps not in a position to defend the lack of belief, but for sure 100% not a theist.
LikeLike
Atheist = disbelieves theism. No deity, no disbelief.
LikeLike
a-theist: not a theist
It looks to me as if you are either not well versed in language, or you are deliberately misconstruing what is, ultimately a very simple concept.
a-moral: not moral (correct)
a-moral: disbelieves morality (wrong)
LikeLike
The English language is not as consistent as you are led to believe.
LikeLike
“The English language is not as consistent as you are led to believe.”
Not necessarily – while it may be inconsistent, it is consistently so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And re-reading your example, actually there is consistency here. You can’t be amoral unless you’re working from within an understanding of morality.
Are you saying we are amoral when we are born too?? All those evil babies!
LikeLike
“All those evil babies!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a natural born atheist, I would say, that believing in supernatural agents may be natural, in the sense, that it is a common trait among humans, but it is not natural in the sense that we are born with religious, or even spiritual expectations of reality.
I am a big fan of science, but sometimes the research gets bogged by the preconceptions of the researchers. Religion – for some reason – is one of those subjects, that affects often negatively on the researched subject, because religious (or atheistic) assumptions are such a big part of the identity of even the researchers themselves. I have found that this sadly often affects the research of archaeology for example. I bet it is the same in psychology.
I personally know a lot of atheists as my entire family and many friends are, but I do not know one who believed in any sort of spiritual stuff, let alone souls. Yet there is this: “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.” I think these are the sort of people from among come the Theists who tell us that they were once atheists, but then they found Jesus, Buddha or what ever other woo. I mean, that there are plenty of people out there who have no religious affiliation and when asked they identify with atheists. They are as proper atheists as any other atheist, but not for the same reasons as the atheists who have critical thinking skills. The world is full of misinformation and spiritual beliefs are a good example of that. If a person has critical thinking skills she/he is more likely to see how truth is determined, but not all people who do not hold religious beliefs have critical thinking skills. In the net I have met atheists who believe in UFOs, for example.
Then there is this: “…we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting.” Wich is ridiculous. We are indeed pattern seekers and that is indeed the source from wich beliefs about the supernatural spring from, but by no way does this make us default to religious or any other imaginary beliefs. Yes, there are a lot of people who seem to have this unrealistic expectation of some universal justice, but to infer, that the natural hope we have for future is automatically connected to beliefs about imaginary entities or the supernatural is childish. A child who has been treated with some form of justice, wether good or bad, expects that the adults who rule the world of children behave according to that form of justice. An adult who expects the universe, or gods to act in the same manner of justice as the adults in his/her childhood did, to confer some inner security is in that respect infantile. That is one of the the main things I disrespect religions and think they are actually harmfull, even when I can fully understand, that individuals who have grown to have this sort of emotional support system may be substantially dependant on it and experience it as a benefit of their religion. However, from my vantage point, it is more like an addiction, than a benefit.
This is just social Darwinism: “There are other, more socially-oriented evolutionary purposes, too. Religious communities grow faster, since people behave better (referring to the general majority over the millennia, as opposed to minority extremists highlighted by the media on any given day).” It is incredibly patronizing and mind nubingly stupid. What is the comparrison group? Is this trying to say religious communities grow faster than secular groups? Human “groups” do not grow faster when they are secure and well, but in the opposite situations, like when their lives are insecure. Religions, that have rules about contraception grow faster, than religious groups that do not have such rules. Religious rules sometimes endorce people to behave “better”, but also often endorce very bad behaviour models also. Religious societies have often a very non-democratic way of deciding what is “better” in comparrison to secular societies. Religious doctrine is not a very good method of spreading “better behaviour”. Adult people should behave, not because they think there is a mind police controlling them, or even because they expect rewards or punishment, but because they know what is moral and just. Endorcing the idea that the supernatural police watches you, tends not to decrease anti-social behaviour but to increase it, because even when the believer acts morally, he/she is not doing it for moral reasons, but has been left on the chilish emotional state of personal gain.
And this: “If a loved one dies, even many anti-religious people usually feel a need for a farewell ritual, complete with readings from old books and intoned declarations that are not unlike prayers.” This is very, very annoying. Humans are indeed pattern-seekers. If atheists hold a seremony to remember their lost ones in funerals, the Theists, think they can recognize a pattern of religious seremony. As if all seremonies we hold are religious. It is only because the Theist automatically connects death to supernatural beliefs that a funeral seremony for an atheist seems like a religious practice, but that same Theist is fully capapable to recognize a military parade not to be (necessarily) a religious ritual, though it certainly is a ritual.
Oh, I do not have time to analyze it all, but this one is possibly the most ridiculous claim: ” In war situations, commanders frequently comment that atheist soldiers pray far more than they think they do.” First of all, such comments from the commanders, more likely come from their own cultural bias, than any worthy evaluation of other peoples commitments, or inner actions. For what sort of commander has time to make any statistics or even evaluations of their subordinates prayers in combat situations? How were these commanders tested wether they are qualified to even recognize a prayer, from a soldier under fire and fear? If the soldier her/himself did not report to praying, howcome the commander came to think that she/he did? There is this proverb, that there are no atheists in foxholes, wich is nothing more than propaganda. Unverified, but then the Theist does not desire for verification to his/her beliefs, only confirmation.
LikeLike
Hey Rautakyy,
I think by “default” or “natural” all these scientists are saying is that if we evolved humans on many different Earths that we would find religions on perhaps every single one rather than them starting out with an Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution and never developing religions. In that sense religions are “default” or “natural”. But, I think the same could be said of the Enlightenment. There are qualities of the human mind which naturally push for this (curiosity, logic, skepticism), so in our many-Earths thought experiment we might expect to find many Enlightenments as well meaning this phenomenon is also “natural”.
What do you think about a view like this?
LikeLike
To be honest Brandon, I really do not understand how the many earths model expands the question. Because we already know that different beliefs about a concept, that we today may commonly call the supernatural, have given arise in human cultures separated from each other by generations and oceans.
Enlightment and scientific revolution are results of cultural evolution of aquring more and better information. There is no inevitability in history to be observed. What happened happened, but not because it had to happen, rather because the circumstances were just right for just it to happen.
The thing about us being pattern seekers is, that it is a succesfull evolutionary trait of our species, though not limited to our species, to formulate intuitive fast descision making processes (sometimes also called the free will) to survive in new situations, that resemble the ones we have previously aquired information about either by experience, or by communication. However, to us humans it plays the trick, that we tend to look at our history in hindsight and see purpose where there are coincidences and patterns even when there are none. And as such it might give us a false sense of security…
LikeLike
Well said, rautakyy.
LikeLike
Hmmm, I’ll have to think about this comment Raut, because I don’t agree with anything you’ve written, and that’s odd.
LikeLike
It’s because you’re being deliberately stubborn 🙂
LikeLike
Raut could be wrong, however improbable that sounds. He has wonky taste in music so there definitely is a section of miswiring in his brain somewhere. 😀
LikeLike
You can’t use his musical taste to dish his well-thought-through, entirely accurate argument. All Europeans have shocking taste in music 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, I didn’t, it’s just an indicator. I’ve trashed his comment in detail. 🙂 Cough, Australian music, cough, Kylie.
LikeLike
Is that the Thompson Twins I see over there?
LikeLike
Eh? That’s a bit of a random English band to throw around. Stefan Denis.
LikeLike
They were Scottish. See you’re in compete denial mode.
And for your information I met Kylie in Bora Bora, and that blonde haired actor/singer lout she was dating at the time. Forget his name, but she was delightful, so don’t blaspheme.
LikeLike
Oh, I might be thinking of Big Country. My bad.
OK, Del Amitri!
LikeLike
Have to share this with you. Here’s an example of how religion takes away the fear:
Now we know that there are terrorists living among us right here in the United States, as well as those trying to infiltrate our country by stealthily crossing our borders. When will the next beheading or 9-11 take place on U.S. soil? Who will the next victim be? Will it be you? Will it be me? Will it be thousands of us in one fell swoop?
Any reasonable person would be afraid of that.
Don’t.
That’s what Jesus said. Just don’t.
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28
We’ve got bigger fish to fry in the fear department. Even though it would be awful, the worst thing that could happen to someone is not being killed or even tortured by a terrorist. The worst thing that could happen is for someone to spend an eternity in Hell because she has rejected Christ (which should tell you something about how horrific Hell is).
If you have never turned from your sin and placed your faith in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection as payment for the penalty for your sin, how you’re going to die is the least of your worries compared to what’s going to happen to you after you die. That should scare the living daylights out of you.
The good news is, Christ offers to forgive you today. His goodness for your badness. His purity for your sinfulness. His grace for your gross. He will set you free from your sin so you’ll no longer fear standing before Him on the day of judgment.
And, if you belong to Christ, you have nothing to fear in this life or the next. Take a look back at that verse. It says to “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” But if you’re in Christ, you no longer have to be afraid of him. And the first part of the verse says not to be afraid of people who can kill your body but not your soul. Nothing to fear now. Nothing to fear later.
So what’s left to fear? Nothing.
LikeLike
That’s really sad, and utterly hopeless. This is essentially a proclamation of no action… of inertness. Just hold your delusion close, believe in fairies, and all will be fine. The boogeyman won’t get you.
Is that from Insanity?
LikeLike
Oh no, I obviously would have crafted a post round it if it was the work of my buddy Insanity. Just a random I follow who writes painful things, but not enough offensive things to get bothered about.
LikeLike
You’re a tremendously good friend to her 😉
LikeLike
Aw thanks John! I like to think I’m a tremendously good friend to lots of people in Blogland. I’m so lovely I could almost be a Christian. 😀
LikeLike
“people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”
This was just an example, albeit an extreme example and, I would imagine, unusual in a seriously considered atheist, as opposed to a “I’m not religious” atheist. However, I think atheists still look for meaning and purpose, but struggle to find it. We defend the sense that we are all part of this big existence, a bag of interchangeable atoms, and that improving the world for everyone, improves the world for us too. But it’s not as satisfying as a ‘conscious plan’ and ‘continued life beyond this existence’ that most religions bring. Take John Zande the Great Atheist, he gets unreasonably excited about the possibility that atoms could have memory. It’s grasping at almost supernatural straws with a more rational, physical basis.
“”we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting.” Wich is ridiculous. We are indeed pattern seekers and that is indeed the source from wich beliefs about the supernatural spring from, but by no way does this make us default to religious or any other imaginary beliefs.”
The argument is that in the absence of our current scientific knowledge, it does make us default to any old imaginary beliefs. Our ability to reason and use logic, combined with the information available to us today, makes it easier to reject religions (or indeed never consider them in the first place, if we’re brought up without them), but the underlying draw is still there, because it’s natural.
““There are other, more socially-oriented evolutionary purposes, too. Religious communities grow faster, since people behave better (referring to the general majority over the millennia, as opposed to minority extremists highlighted by the media on any given day).” It is incredibly patronizing and mind nubingly stupid. What is the comparrison group? Is this trying to say religious communities grow faster than secular groups?”
Oh, this is one of my favourite bits and you say it’s mind-numbingly stupid! What comparison group could we use? We have no records of any atheist societies from ancient or primitive times – every group of people that survived had some crazy superstitious beliefs. I think it’s fair to conclude that the urge to organise and believe in these binding superstitions is a key feature in the growth and success of our species as we experience it.
“If atheists hold a seremony to remember their lost ones in funerals, the Theists, think they can recognize a pattern of religious seremony. As if all seremonies we hold are religious.” You probably have a point with this one. The desire to formally and publicly recognise key events doesn’t need to be linked to religion. But perhaps the article meant to point out that many atheists borrow heavily from the religious rituals of their cultures in doing this.
“but this one is possibly the most ridiculous claim: ” In war situations, commanders frequently comment that atheist soldiers pray far more than they think they do.””
I don’t know why you think this is ridiculous. If Victoria pops by, she’ll provide endless links to the effects of stress on the brain and how it makes humans susceptible to religion. Here’s a link to the study about veterans:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-013-9733-y
Anyway, I do appreciate that you have a completely different experience to most of the atheists here, in that you were never involved in religion at any point in your life, even lightly in passing as a child. So it’s interesting to note what a different response you have to the claims in the article. Perhaps as atheism becomes more grounded generationally in the world we’ll develop a completely different understanding of how our brains work in this regard.
LikeLike
Take John Zande the Great Atheist, he gets unreasonably excited about the possibility that atoms could have memory. It’s grasping at almost supernatural straws with a more rational, physical basis.
Nothing supernatural about that. In fact, its the complete opposite. It would be a physical connection to the ongoing processes of the universe: a tiny, tiny, tiny influence.
LikeLike
Makes you feel all warm and comforted, doesn’t it? 😉
LikeLike
Not really, no. I think of it more from the perspective of motivating people in the here and now to behave better.
LikeLike
John, wouldn’t that open the door to the possibility of Atomic Alzheimer’s?
LikeLike
Well, that might just explain an awful lot about this universe, wouldn’t it?
LikeLike
“We have no records of any atheist societies from ancient or primitive times – every group of people that survived had some crazy superstitious beliefs.”
The Pirahã – a tribe without gods, or even a word for gods.
LikeLike
The confusion is being caused by Violet’s use of the word “atheist” in the sentence you quoted. The rest of sentence implies that she means that there is no society without some kind of “crazy superstitious beliefs.” Or to put it simply, there is no society that exists without some sort of supernatural belief. If I’m interpreting her wrong and she meant there is no society that exists without a belief in G-d, she can of course correct me.
Granted I haven’t read Everett’s book. However, according to the wikipedia entry, “they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people. Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.”
If those statements are true, this would not be an example of society that lacks “superstitious belief”/”supernatural beliefs.”
LikeLike
“The rest of sentence implies that she means that there is no society without some kind of ‘crazy superstitious beliefs.’”
Sadly for your premise, implications don’t define terms – the title of the topic was “is theism or atheism natural?,” and the Greek words that comprise the term, “atheist” mean “no god/gods.”
I read the Wikipedia article before I posted the video. The Pirahã might believe in the Easter Bunny for all I know, but as long as they don’t see him/her as a god, they’re atheists.
I take it you’re Jewish, Consoled —
LikeLike
You’re getting overly focused on definitions of terms, when the real question is: what was she trying to communicate? I’m not disagreeing on what atheism means, I’m disagreeing on what she was attempting to communicate in the first place.
Put simply, she might have said atheist societies have never existed, but really meant a society has never existed without some sort of supernatural and superstitious beliefs.
“We have no records of any atheist societies from ancient or primitive times – every group of people that survived had some crazy superstitious beliefs. I think it’s fair to conclude that the urge to organise and believe in these binding superstitions is a key feature in the growth and success of our species as we experience it.” (emphasis mine).
The context clues suggest she seems to have meant the latter, which would mean giving an example of a society which has no belief in G-d, but believes in spirits, doesn’t challenge the point but actually confirms what she was trying to say. It really all depends on what, in fact, she was trying to say.
I’d be more than happy to concede the point, however, if Violet were to come in and clarify that what she literally meant was that there had never been a society that existed without God or gods.
LikeLike
“she might have said atheist societies have never existed, but really meant a society has never existed without some sort of supernatural and superstitious beliefs.”
I responded to what she said. No one can be expected to respond to what they think she meant – as soon as someone tries, the next commenter has to respond to what they think the first commenter meant – and so it goes.
LikeLike
Yes, you’re right, I don’t think it makes sense to describe societies that don’t have exact god-like beings, yet believe in invisible spirits with odd powers, as atheist. Even belief in karma indicates there is acceptance of some kind of higher power which we do not understand. Arch is being a bit pedantic in my opinion calling superstitious societies with supernatural beliefs atheists. I suppose I could change the title to:
“Poll: are beliefs in supernatural powers which have usually led to some kind of theistic religion or lack of beliefs supernatural powers which usually lead to some kind of theistic religion more natural in humans”
Not quite as catchy though.
LikeLike
“Not quite as catchy though.”
So you were going for catchy?
I mean, assuming that I understand what you meant by what you said, and grasped all of the hidden implications —
LikeLike
It’s under the entry Piraha people on wikipedia.
LikeLike
Pingback: A Predisposition to Believe | Amusing Nonsense