Religion
Related: About this forumScientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected
By Nury Vittachi | July 6th 2014 08:03 PM
WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesnt exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.
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 outlandishafter all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in Godevidence 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.
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Sort of like how you define 'vegetarian', with various people eating or not eating eggs, fish, whatever.
There quite obviously are people who consciously reject the existence of the 'supernatural', even if they may not subconsciously. So you still need a term for that set of people, and might as well use the term they claim, even if you then want to throw on the word 'consciously' as a caveat when speaking of their beliefs.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)So god belief is 'deeply hardwired' into our neural networks, ... yet one might rightly ask, "which god?"
Your choice, rug .... and choose wisely ...
Uh huh ....
rug
(82,333 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Not sure what the protocols would be.
rug
(82,333 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)No pop-songs about God, no churches/temples, no holy books, no Santa, no Easter-Bunny, no Tooth-Fairy...
If they develop religion on their own, THEN atheism is impossible.
rug
(82,333 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)His premise is that all atheists secretly have some spiritual beliefs at odds with their atheistic world-view.
Those spiritual beliefs might as well be remnants of being raised and taught inside a religious society.
Therefore we need a sample without impurities to check whether they have an influence or not: An atheist who wasn't raised and taught in a religious society.
If you do an experiment, do it as rigorous as you can. Why do we even need telescopes mounted on satellites? Because stray-light from Earth messes up the measurements of several spectra.
rug
(82,333 posts)His premise is that humans are neurologically disposed to nonmaterial concepts.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Which might be in part, from animal instinct. The mothering instinct say, even in wolves. The social cooperative instinct in ants.
No need to resort to supernaturalism to find candidates for hard-wired values in the brain.
rug
(82,333 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)The author says, atheists believe in karma.
He could have said that people are neurologically disposed to look for cause-and-result relationships.
He could have said that people are neurologically disposed to look for statistical balance (e.g. in weather-phenomena, in day-night-cycles, in seasons).
"If I commit a sin, it is not an isolated event but will have appropriate repercussions."
That is not immaterial. That is one of the rules for the survival of a herd. No wonder evolution hammered that into our brains.
"An unnamed, unidentified mechanism ensures that this is so, and is a fundamental element of storiesperhaps the fundamental element of narratives."
You know what else is a fundamental element of stories? "The hero's journey". Leave the security of your herd, be brave, wander around, get something precious, return, share it with the group.
All the examples the author gives can also be explained by hardwiring rules of survival and society into a brain. A balance of sin and punishment? How about if a group of monkeys ate one of their babies as punishment for misbehaving? No need for an immaterial concept to enforce that balance is considered normal.
The author could have written the whole article without mentioning God or atheism and it would have represented exactly the same knowledge to the reader. He chose not to. Combine that with his religious and conservative agenda, as evidenced in his choice of words.
This article is about nonmaterial concepts, not about religion, not about God and atheism. He mingles them in to further his agenda.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)beyond a simple Boolean 0/1.
Some of us really do select 0 though. In all things.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)If the existence of humanity precedes the existence of religion, then that's already been done.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Science as in "explanation for things". Early humans just liked their initial explanations so much that they refused to doubt them when they discovered contrary evidence. With dogma, science turned into religion.
This is just speculation, but entirely possible.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And religion IS government for ages and ages and ages. Claiming some kind of relationship with the supernatural is a way to get power over people.
And you really should use quotations when you say "science". Investigation sand speculation are what you mean. Science is a certain set of rules for investigation....the best we've ever come up with. Religion is its far inferior ancestor.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)It's possible that the human mind is predisposed toward supernatural beliefs. That doesn't mean it's predisposed to any particular set of those beliefs.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Which universal religious belief can bring to a society ...
It is believed that common belief in religion actually helped societies survive by helping organize in other areas of community need, like in common defense and warfare, which helped tribes and clans resist attacks by rival tribes and clans ...
I do not doubt a positive effect through common religious belief ... yet, it doesn't make it 'truth' ...
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Clearly the writer has picked a side in this.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Religious believers are only "militant" when they wage holy wars or blow up buildings. It's a grotesque double standard.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In his Science 2.0 article on an elbow-licking primate:
"The new species of loris found in the Philippines has a poison gland at its elbow, says the American Journal of Primatology. If the creature feels threatened, it attempts to grabs a slurp of poison before biting the attacker."
Clearly he is interested in sensationalistic stuff.
Sells newspapers I guess.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)short on facts.
Still interesting, though. Needs to be followed up, not sneered at.
Myself, I've been wondering here and there just what the evolutionary aspects of spirituality would be since just about every society has had some sort of religion central to it. I vaguely remember hearing about some primitive tribe having none, but maybe the investigators just missed it. Maybe there's a "wonder" gene that gives us our inventive genius but also makes us look at the sky and say this can't be all there is. There's also a sense of justice that leads us to think an afterlife would take care of injustices not dealt with in this one.
I suspect there's a lot of confusion over just what an atheist is. There's the whole thing about "hard" and "soft" atheists and how agnostics fit in there somewhere, but I'm thinking that there's a huge group of people who don't really fit in some label. People who can't help feeling something is "out there" but don't quite know what it is, and maybe feel a little foolish subscribing to some organized dogma.
Or, maybe that's just me and I'm projecting. I became a Quaker partly because they they are big on mystery instead of dogma. No active Quaker meetings where I live now so found a UU church close by.
If we ever develop the ability to see in higher dimensions, a lot of this may be cleared up.
rug
(82,333 posts)I tried to get it but a subscription is required.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)mike_c
(36,214 posts)...since belief in deities is rooted in our psychological hardwiring, rather than in the actual existence of deities or any objective experience of them. And conveniently, the objective question is left behind as the focus shifts away from the question of whether deities exist, to whether we are capable of even imagining their non-existence.
Not buying this.
SamKnause
(13,043 posts)I am.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)There is a very clear difference (in principle, if not always in fact) between our cognitive biases and intuitions, over which we may have little control, and our conscious beliefs, which are a product of deliberation (or should be).
This research is about the former. Atheism is about the latter, and the author's determination to deny this very obvious fact shows nothing except that he is a massive jackass.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It's a nonsensical proposition along the lines of 'how many angels can dance on the sphincter of a leprechaun?'
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Just because religions tend to believe in the existence of the soul does not give them exclusivity. I find no incompatibility between being an atheist and accepting the existence of a spiritual dimension.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Premise:
"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."
I am not attempting to address the question of whether belief in a spirit thingy is religious or not, I'm pointing out there exists at least one atheist that finds the idea of an immortal soul about as likely and supportable with evidence, as a prototypical human-invented 'god'.
To address your question, the idea of whether or not a supernatural god, and a supernatural soul exist, are along precisely the same unproven, evidence-bereft path that at least for now, leads nowhere.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Yes, I did read the article, and tend to agree, in part, with the author. I am entirely open to the so-called supernatural realm. I do not believe in a god creator, nor do I believe in an immortal soul, though I am open to the possibility of either.
I have little doubt concerning the existence of the soul, though I do not assume it is immortal. None of this conflicts with my atheism. Also, none of this necessitates any religious affiliation. My main problem with all religions is that they pretend to have answers to the meaning of life and the universe. To me, there are no answers to those questions apart from those created by man.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It sounds like you say you do not believe in, but are open to, all three items here:
"I am entirely open to the so-called supernatural realm. I do not believe in a god creator, nor do I believe in an immortal soul, though I am open to the possibility of either."
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)A soul, to me, is that part of me which has nothing to do with my physical being. Some may call it one's essence. I think every living creature probably has a soul, which is an integral part of their existence. Can I prove it? No, and feel no need to. It is something that has always been obvious to me and has nothing to do with religion.
I have no idea of how immortal the soul may be, nor do I care. I keep an open mind as to all possibilities.
Several events in my life have confirmed the existence of the metaphysical. I feel no need to convince others. We each have a unique experience. None of my experiences have led me to believe in a creator, or almighty, or a savior, or heaven, or hell, or afterlife, though I am still open, with a good amount of skepticism, to reincarnation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Do you think our nature requires such a non-physical dimension to it? That life or consciousness must have some other-worldly, extra dimensional, or otherwise non-'reality as we know it' source or hiding place?
I cannot imagine why that would be necessary.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Is it necessary to our nature, or to our existence? Probably not. But it is part of my perception and my reality.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)Another weird attempt to bend and twist all roads to lead to some deity-of-choice.
Need for validation?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Insists that I believe in God because I was raised as a Catholic, despite my earnest declinations.
djean111
(14,255 posts)that good into my heart. Rolling one's eyes whilst wearing hard contact lenses is not very comfortable......
Jim__
(14,045 posts)I tend to agree with this:
I'm not quite sure about his opinion of The Road:
At the end of the book, the man dies. Against any possibility that has been indicated in the book, the boy goes on to meet a couple. The couple has a young daughter. Nothing is made of it in the book, but the implications are clear. The story is depressing, but throughout, the man gives some hope for the future to the boy. I'm not sure that it is a bleak narrative.
rug
(82,333 posts)VLADIMIR: Yes.
ESTRAGON: I can't go on like this.
VLADIMIR: That's what you think.
ESTRAGON: If we parted? That might be better for us.
VLADIMIR: We'll hang ourselves tomorrow. (Pause.) Unless Godot comes.
ESTRAGON: And if he comes?
VLADIMIR: We'll be saved.
Vladimir takes off his hat (Lucky's), peers inside it, feels about inside it, shakes it, knocks on the crown, puts it on again.
ESTRAGON: Well? Shall we go?
VLADIMIR: Pull on your trousers.
ESTRAGON: What?
VLADIMIR: Pull on your trousers.
ESTRAGON: You want me to pull off my trousers?
VLADIMIR: Pull ON your trousers.
ESTRAGON: (realizing his trousers are down). True.
He pulls up his trousers.
VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.
Curtain.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)At least not from the tree in this rendition:
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Given the chance, I'd .... not see The Road again because it's a piece of shit that doesn't live up to the book, despite one of my favorite actors shouldering nearly the entire load, and an incredibly easy story to tell, practically in perfect screenplay form already.
But you hand me a Pixar movie in book form, and The Road, and I'll read The Road every time. And not necessarily because of the slightly hopeful uptick at the end.
We humans are not hardwired to believe in magic.
edhopper
(33,208 posts)definitive statement. Are we hardwired to see patterns and causes, sometimes when there aren't any?
I think this question is open to debate and not resolved.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)pretending you don't need it--that you have the famous "View from Nowhere"--is in fact the surest way to completely submit oneself to some 19th-century eccentric
it's not so much that many forms of atheism are just "Protestantism minus the Christianity," but more Keynes's process whereby "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist."
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)New Scientist requires a subscription so I haven't read that article.
Jim__
(14,045 posts)From Current Events:
Norenzayan has yet to work out the relative importance of these different routes to atheism, partly because they are mutually reinforcing. But he says his hunch is that apatheism is the most important. "That is probably surprising to a lot of people who think you get atheism by analytical thinking. But I see striking evidence that as societies become more equal and there are social safety nets, secularisation follows," he says.
To some religious proponents, this is evidence that most of the "nones" aren't really atheists at all a claim that is backed by a recent survey from UK-based Christian think tank Theos. It found that even as formal religion is waning in the UK, spiritual beliefs are not. Almost 60 per cent of adults questioned said they believed in some form of higher power or spiritual being; a mere 13 per cent agreed with the line "humans are purely material beings with no spiritual element".
Some scientists notably Pascal Boyer at Washington University in St Louis have even claimed that atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think. 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.
To Norenzayan, this is all semantics. "Labels don't concern me as much as psychology and behaviour. Do people say they believe in god? Do they go to a church or synagogue or mosque? Do they pray? Do they find meaning in religion? These are the variables that should interest us." By these measures, most of the nones really are irreligious, meaning atheism is much more durable and widespread than would be the case if the only route to atheism was actively rejecting religious ideas.
...
rug
(82,333 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,192 posts)It is certainly true that people tend to seek for patterns and causes; tend to conduct internal dialogues with real and imagined others; and tend to expect or at least prefer to believe that being 'good' will have good consequences and being 'bad' will have bad consequences.
And these characteristics may contribute to the fact that most cultures have some sort of religion. But they are not in themselves religion. Unless one does want to equate religion with magic, or God with an 'imaginary friend' - something that in general is considered, and indeed is, disrespectful. But which follows from this sort of inclusion of everything under 'religion'.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm satisfied in following him to a predisposition to nonmaterial thoughts, but not much further.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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 Scientists 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.
Woo peddlers should stick to writing fantasy and leave the thinking to real scientists.
phil89
(1,043 posts)the existence of a "god" or "gods" or any other such nonsense does not depend on what people believe or how they think. It has never been demonstrated and I can assure this woo peddler, I do not believe in anything supernatural, including an immortal soul.
rug
(82,333 posts)Objectivity.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We should just accept the op's word that religious people are morally superior.
rug
(82,333 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nury Vittachi is a woo woo and a bigot.
rug
(82,333 posts)Point out specifically where he establishes himself as a bigot, and how.
Note, your own opinions and your own prejudices are not evidence.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But you didn't answer part 2. How do you consider that bigoted?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)As if you didn't know that.
rug
(82,333 posts)Don't you have an answer?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)From religioustolerance.org:
Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected;
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)First off, let's review 'bigot'.
"Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."
Author's claim:
"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 Scientists 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."
Not only is that a bigoted assumption, it's just plain wrong.
http://www.alternet.org/religious-people-more-likely-commit-crimes-atheists
rug
(82,333 posts)Nor does he exhibit prejudice, fear or hatred.
I mean, if you want to take offense, don't let me stop you. But the evidence isn't there.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Come on, AC.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Circularity occurs when the conclusion is a repetition of the premise ... saying a person is a bigot because they make bigoted statements is not a "Circulus in demonstrando" fallacy ...
rug
(82,333 posts)The "Circulus ad Jerkulus" fallacy.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That study by Baylor Uni that I linked an article about doesn't just specify that athiests (and spiritual religious people) behave better than the 'spiritual but not religious', but that atheists and the 'spiritual and religious' commit crimes at about the same rate.
Meaning, religious people, in fact, do not behave better. (or worse)
Edit: I am of course, being super charitable there.
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
rug
(82,333 posts)Religious communities are usually homogeneous communities, which in turn is both the result of, and intended for, social control.
But that's my opinion. The fact that his is different doesn't make him a bigot.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That falls directly under distrust, which is one of the hallmarks of bigotry.
He has identified a group (atheists) and ascribed distrust to that group. Actively. First person. He's making a positive statement about atheists that is bigoted. And stupid. And easily disproven.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)rug hides behind a bigot and feigns ignorance.
Same shit, different day.
rug
(82,333 posts)"Religious communities grow faster, since people behave better" doesn't on its face refer to atheists at all.
It doesn't say why people may behave better (athough I alluded to it above) nor does it even affirm that the growth is better. It is an observation.
I think you're too quick to use the dichotomy that anything nonreligious is automatically atheist.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"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."
The implication that atheists would therefore be worse people is obvious. Except, that isn't true. Religious people don't behave better. For all that lecturing and reading, and whatnot, they commit just as many (and in some cases, more) crimes than the irreligious.
And the context of irreligious in this case is not simply secular, the author specifies it in the very next paragraph:
"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 Scientists 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."
A non-religious yet spiritual person may well still believe in karma or some vengeful sense of cosmic justice, or any number of things that wouldn't apply to an atheist. The 'Committed Atheist' as he puts it. He does specify when he's talking about one group or the other.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"This is not simply a matter of religious folk having a metaphorical angel on their shoulder, dispensing advice. It is far deeper than thata sense of interconnectivity between all things. If I commit a sin, it is not an isolated event but will have appropriate repercussions. This idea is common to all large scale faith groups, whether it is called karma or simply God ensuring that you reap what you sow. "
This is precisely why he is talking about atheists as the antonym of his claim about religion making religious people behave better. He's lumping in the non-religious but spiritual category that I referenced earlier, IN with religion there. 'whether it is called Karma', bing. There it is. He just identified a non-religious but spiritual category, and lumped it with the religious AND spiritual.
Leaving....
Non-religious and non-spiritual. Generally, you would call that group atheists.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Some of this is just willful misinterpretation, however:
"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."
Author is assuming this is for the dead. It is not. It is for the living. When I get together with other people to mourn a dead person, it is not for the dead, we do it for each other, to help us deal with our loss. This is not in any way analogous to a prayer or faith. So that part was just plain stupid.
But 'no atheists in foxholes' implies we break down in the face of our mortality, and either convert to, or reveal long hidden religious faith. It's a lie, and a smear, and a vicious thing to say to someone.
rug
(82,333 posts)Since the dead are dead, the only group he can be referring to is the grievers.
You are inferring the foxhole meme here.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Prayer is generally an appeal to a god, yes?
"Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication."
Such speech/quotes, etc, are for the attendees, to invoke memories, humor, etc. It's not aimed at some outside force or place or sending a message, etc.
I have had occasion to read passages that referred to, or were special to a particular dead person, to fellow mourners. It is not in any way a invocation/communication to any being not in that room.
rug
(82,333 posts)Beyond that, there are similarities in various intonations that have nothing to do with a god. The effect of speaking to those of us that survive is not unlike seeking to explain death in terms of a god.
Here's one:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/05/18/an-atheist-delivers-a-eulogy-for-his-religious-grandmother/
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Including the dead person.
I don't see anything religious or spiritual in the one paragraph you quoted. That statement was literal truth. It essentially says what I just said, that these memorials are to enable the aggrieved. The people in the room.
rug
(82,333 posts)"he wanted to strike a balance between the two worlds that wouldnt disrespect her beliefs but also wouldnt compromise his own."
You really don't get the OP's point in this passage?
"encompass us all" is not scientific fact and traveling photons are not grandma. I'll give you they're her subatomic particles. But they're not grandma.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)She 'exists' in neural links describing memories of perceptions of photons that reflected off her surface. And whatever media recordings might exist.
Waxing poetic != Spiritual/metaphysical and by extension 'Religious'.
rug
(82,333 posts)But that's not grandma.
Your last line is closer than you think.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Those links may not hold a charge at any given time. The links are what reconstitute (reconstruct really, we don't record memories like reel to reel) memories when retrieved. People are rendered into a nonsensical state without brain electrical activity for certain surgeries all the time. Their memories are not lost by the lack of electrical activity.
Memories are lost when neurons die.
rug
(82,333 posts)She doesn't live on in there.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And possibly a lack of understanding, since what he specified is quite impossible. In no way does that statement constitute anything I would recognize as "The effect of speaking to those of us that survive is not unlike seeking to explain death in terms of a god."
We are stuff, and energy. (And stuff is energy, when you get down to it.) Attempting to explain such, even badly, does not seem to me to be anything like 'terms of a god'.
Response to rug (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gore1FL
(21,034 posts)I can pretty much dismiss God and this article in one clock cycle.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I not that this author has a Muslim father, buddhist mother, christian wife and lives in an atheist country. This may account for his unusual interest in this area.
I tend to agree with him that religiosity/spirituality may be hard wired to some extent in some individuals. I also think that very few people are on the extremes, and most live in the grey areas of belief no matter what they call themselves.
The issue of whether humans are born as believers has been discussed her previously. It's interesting, but clearly very young children are more prone to believe in magic or a fairy tale than adults. Does this mean that we are born with some powers of perception that are drummed out of us as we grow older?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I would not put much credence in this article.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No real need to read anymore.
militant atheists.....
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to do the same.
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism/transcript
Why is it offensive when others call him that?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)It came up twice
I fail to see how those prove your point.
And if I missed something and it does, do you not realize the concept of terminology reclamation?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Is this the quote you mean.... with the laughter and the obvious quips and making fun of the term "militant atheist"?
"...what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism. (Laughter) (Applause) But that's putting it too negatively. If I was a person who were interested in preserving religious faith, I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science, and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular, to inspire and enthrall, precisely because it is atheistic."
His comment about the religious being afraid was right on the money.
libodem
(19,288 posts)But I care about religion and it's effects on culture. I really like science and I understand it pretty well. I also care about what is unseen and what you can't know. The occult has always intrigued me. I like metaphysical studies. Miracles and magical stuff. I like coincidences and synchronicity. I like reports of esp. I like any reports of the other side from near death experience. I like hearing accounts of reincarnation. I don't have to buy into all of it but dammit I like to know about it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that some of it might be true.
This is particularly the case when my favorite baseball team is losing and I start getting all ritualistic.