Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think -- The Conversation
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Many atheists think that their atheism is the product of rational thinking. They use arguments such as “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science” to explain that evidence and logic, rather than supernatural belief and dogma, underpin their thinking. But just because you believe in evidence-based, scientific research – which is subject to strict checks and procedures – doesn’t mean that your mind works in the same way.
**********
The problem that any rational thinker needs to tackle, though, is that the science increasingly shows that atheists are no more rational than theists. Indeed, atheists are just as susceptible as the next person to “group-think” and other non-rational forms of cognition. For example, religious and nonreligious people alike can end up following charismatic individuals without questioning them. And our minds often prefer righteousness over truth, as the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has explored.
Even atheist beliefs themselves have much less to do with rational inquiry than atheists often think. We now know, for example, that nonreligious children of religious parents cast off their beliefs for reasons that have little to do with intellectual reasoning. The latest cognitive research shows that the decisive factor is learning from what parents do rather than from what they say. So if a parent says that they’re Christian, but they’ve fallen out of the habit of doing the things they say should matter – such as praying or going to church – their kids simply don’t buy the idea that religion makes sense.
This is perfectly rational in a sense, but children aren’t processing this on a cognitive level. Throughout our evolutionary history, humans have often lacked the time to scrutinize and weigh up the evidence – needing to make quick assessments. That means that children to some extent just absorb the crucial information, which in this case is that religious belief doesn’t appear to matter in the way that parents are saying it does.
**********
But are atheists more likely to embrace science than religious people? Many belief systems can be more or less closely integrated with scientific knowledge. Some belief systems are openly critical of science, and think it has far too much sway over our lives, while other belief systems are hugely concerned to learn about and respond to scientific knowledge.
But this difference doesn’t neatly map onto whether you are religious or not. Some Protestant traditions, for example, see rationality or scientific thinking as central to their religious lives. Meanwhile, a new generation of postmodern atheists highlight the limits of human knowledge, and see scientific knowledge as hugely limited, problematic even, especially when it comes to existential and ethical questions. These atheists might, for example, follow thinkers like Charles Baudelaire in the view that true knowledge is only found in artistic expression.
**********
Clearly, the idea that being atheist is down to rationality alone is starting to look distinctly irrational. But the good news for all concerned is that rationality is overrated. Human ingenuity rests on a lot more than rational thinking. As Haidt says of “the righteous mind”, we are actually “designed to ‘do’ morality” – even if we’re not doing it in the rational way we think we are. The ability to make quick decisions, follow our passions and act on intuition are also important human qualities and crucial for our success.
----------------------------------------
Excerpts from article published by The Conversation. Click on the seed link to read the full article
Tags
Who is online
98 visitors
Is subjective rationality more tenable than subjective faith? It all distills down to a question of belief.
Is there objective and testable evidence to support the existence of a creator?
Religious people are making a positive statement that God exists, so the logical onus is on them to prove that claim to be true. Absence of proof we revert to the idea that there is no god until there is some evidence to support the existence of a creator. This is Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot argument.
The fact that we exist does not mean that there was a creator involved.
Your faith and religious belief do not constitute objective proof of a god.
Is there objective and testable evidence that November 3, 2020 exists?
The constraints and limitations of existence means some questions are impossible to test.
It doesn't exist yet but it will exist unless something intervenes between now and then
How is a date 18 months in the future analogous to god existing?
Where is the support for god existing, unless you are saying that your god doesn't yet exist?
Yes, there is testable evidence for that date: the measurement of time, based on known and measured planetary rotations and revolutions. We already have calanders to measure current time. So that can be the basis to measure the future and determine what day of the week Nov 3 will fall on. So we know that date will "exist." But there's still no objective or testable evidence to suggest or support the existence of any creator.
Would that be the Gregorian calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582?
The future does not exist and no available evidence can prove the future does exist. 'Might, maybe, should, would' only shows the necessity of believing the future will conform to the past.
Science cannot observe what does not exist. Why is existence necessary for there to be a God? Existence is why faith is required. Atheist reasoning involves a lot of rationalization needed to constrain possibilities so they fit with atheistic confirmation biases.
The requirement is for God to exist. That means that God must be contained within objective reality to be observed. Testing whether or not there is a God by observing existence requires believing that the observable universe is all there is.
Prove that November 3, 2020, exists. The constraints and limitations of existence makes obtaining that proof impossible. November 3, 2020, is scheduled to be election day but the ballots do not exist and the candidates on the hoped for ballot are unknown. However, people are expending a lot of effort and resources on the belief that they can bring what does not exist into existence. People have faith that the future will conform to the observable and testable past.
People do not live in the observable past where proof can be found and tested. People live on the nexus of the present, expending effort to bring a desired future into existence. The future is on a different plane of being that is beyond the capabilities of scientific observation and testing. Human progress would be impossible without faith in a future that cannot be observed and tested.
Based upon the criteria of objective and testable evidence, belief in the future would be irrational. Something more is needed to believe in the future. What is needed is faith; the same type of faith acknowledged and embraced by theology.
November 3, 2020 does not exist. There is lots of objective and testable evidence that November 3, 2020 will exist.
But that is speculation based on belief that past observations are a definitive predictor of the future. Proving the future does exist is impossible.
If God cannot be evidenced then how can the Bible be deemed divine? How can anything anyone claims to be true about God be considered credible? If one claims to believe certain things about God on faith, then how is that different from them claiming: 'I just believe this to be true for no reason other than it pleases me to do so'?
The future will exist. We may not be there to see it but it will exist.
Pick any measurement of time you like.
We know based on our measurements of time the future will exist with 100% certainty.
And science has not observed god. interesting.
The opposite can be asked too.
Faith is required to explain existence in an emotionally appealing way. But it doesn't actually explain existence. It just makes assumptions about it with a theistic flavor.
Atheist reasoning involves rational analysis and evidence rather than making baseless assumptions. Faith in itself is its own confirmation bias.
There is no evidence to suggest that any god/s do exist.
There is nothing to logically support that there is anything other than the objective observable universe. Belief is irrelevant to that.
We know the future will comes, as a measurement of time. It's the specific events or circumstances that occur in that particular point in time that is uncertain, but might be predicted.
The future is just an unarrived point in time. But time itself is a part of the natural universe as a component of space-time.
How so? Progress is based on what we desire, need, innovate, ect. at a given point in time. Sure we can think of a Star Trek like future and strive to achieve that. But it is not necessary for progress itself to occur.
Belief is irrational. Predict would be a better term.
Why? A "belief" in the future is just an emotional desire. While it might be appealing, it's still emotional and irrational in itself.
There is no faith needed to know that unless something drastic happens between now and then that election day will occur in 2020. The Earth has been rotating for well over 100 million years and therefore we can expect it to continue unless something intervenes. There is no faith involved.
Where is the objective evidence to support any supernatural religious deity/creator existing or has ever existed?
I wish that I had thought of either of these questions.
The question now is if either of them will be honestly and directly answered. Certainly not with 'that is why we have faith' or equivalent.
I have my doubts.
This is prototypical circular logic.
I wish I knew how to get beyond this point with religious believers
There is no getting beyond it. We have all observed believers run out of answers, clearly in a conceptual dilemma, only to ignore the problem and deflect. It is as though they see the problem but refuse to accept it because it would bring into question that which they need to be true.
In other words, if someone really, really wants something to be true, facts and logic are not going to make a dent. Take, as a prime example, the flat Earthers.
Ive tried to explain Plato's cave allegory to them and how it applies to religious belief but it doesn't seem to make a difference.
I've heard it said that you cannot use logic to debate religious conservatives because if they were logical then they would not be members of a conservative religion.
Is this possibly a mental health issue to be treated with medication and talk therapy?
Divinity is not limited to God alone. A human that achieves inspiration beyond what can be observed or what is known experiences divine inspiration. The Bible is divine because it was inspired by belief and faith in God.
A question I ask Christians is why God needs a Bible? God understands God. And according to Christian teachings God created everything; existence itself would be the Bible from God. Existence is divine. According to Christian teachings, science is engaged in a divine quest for knowledge about God and God's creation. (BTW, science in the ancient world was typically pursued by priests.)
Doesn't that depend upon the confirmation biases of the 'anyone'? Someone predisposed to denying the credence of anything concerning God will always reject evidence that does not conform to their set of beliefs. Atheist do not demand evidence to justify their belief that God is not credible.
How can the bible possibly be inspired by God when you cannot provide any evidence that god exists. the fact that the bible exists isn't proof of god. Logically you must exist before you can act.
It would seem that you are convinced that God exists because you want or need God to exist so as to confirm your religious beliefs but that argument is circular logic.
Would you consider any book that was inspired by belief and faith in God to be divine?
A non answer.
The Bible was inspired by belief and faith in God.
GOD DOES NOT EXIST. If God was part of objective reality then God would be a shadow on the wall of Plato's cave. The observable universe is Plato's cave where humans are limited by their senses.
So anyone can claim they were "inspired" and suddenly their work is to be considered "divine?" Is that what you're really trying to say? That kind of diminishes the meaning of "divine."
That's just mere religious belief and nothing more.
Meaningless tripe. Science is in a "quest" for knowledge and to understand nature. God doesn't factor into that.
Fortunately we have the scientific method. No priest, religion, or god necessary or required.
No, it depends on the evidence.
Where's the evidence for god? Mere claims and stories of god is not evidence.
How is that a belief exactly? Atheists are simply not convinced that any claims for god are credible or valid, as there is no evidence!
How can faith and belief inspire the bible? If it is only an inspiration will you also admit that your god may not agree with the bible?
Is this an admission that you merely believe that exists? I could equally believe that 1+1=11 according to your belief.
Isn't that the definition of divine?
Perhaps not the desired answer but an answer none the less. How can anything anyone claims to be true about God be considered credible? The same way anyone determines if anything is credible. The future does not exist, how can anyone determine the credibility of claims about the future? A calendar performs the same function as a Bible.
But someone predisposed to denying the credence of God cannot determine if anything concerning God is credible; their conclusion precedes the question. If someone is predisposed to denying the credence of a specific future then claims concerning that specific future will be not be accepted as credible. That's how confirmation biases work.
No. A book whose author was inspired by belief and faith is not ipso facto divine. With your definition we could easily find thousands of religious books that you would have to deem divine.
You did not answer the question; ergo a non-answer.
No.
It can't! Plain and simple. Evidence is needed to support the claim for it to be credible. Simply accepting a claim, especially an outrageous one like god, with no supporting evidence and no questions asked, just makes one either gullible and/or intellectually lazy.
Yes, evidence.
The "future" as a matter of time, is a progression. Time marches on. Whether it's 1 second, 1 minute, 1 year, ect. from now.
The bible measures time?
There is no credence to god. Only belief.
Theists start with the conclusion there's a god, and then makes up the "evidence" or facts to support the claim.
Future events can only be predicted, based on current and past events.
Who has more confirmation bias than theists?
Basically, yes. That's the story of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, isn't it?
Do not overlook that theology also tests postulates (or inspired writings). However testing a religious postulate involves a method more akin to that used by ancient Greek philosophers and accepts both physical and spiritual evidence. Theological method of evaluating postulates tends to rely more heavily on deductive logic (as did the Greek philosophers) rather than inductive logic, as does science.
Keep in mind that the origin of organized theology was contemporary with origin of philosophic inquiry using the method of deductive logic. The scientific method relying more heavily on inductive logic did not arise until the 16th and 17th centuries. The modern scientific method has also adopted the use of abductive reasoning.
Perhaps. But that belief has been tested by philosophic and theological inquiry for over two millennium. Modern science has been around for less than two centuries.
The planet has survived thousands of years of religion. It seems science may have destroyed the planet in less than one hundred years. Science has proven to be the existential threat to humanity.
You do not distinguish between science and the abuse of scientific findings?
Science unravels the mysteries of reality. That knowledge can be used for productive and for counter-productive purposes. The engineered use of scientific findings is not science itself.
Well, of course, that is correct. The writings of an author inspired by belief and faith in the ability of technology to shape culture and change the world would not be considered divine. Divinity does require God to be in the mix somewhere. But divinity does not require that God be the author. Divinity does not require God to tell an author what to write, either.
But I did answer the question. Twice.
Why did you pretend that by 'belief and faith' I was not speaking of 'belief and faith in God'? That was the context; I even explicitly stated 'religious books'. You chose to ignore the context and the explicit reference to 'religious books' and pretended that I was talking about general belief and faith (not particular to God). I have little patience for such tactics.
Here is my observation again with the obvious context made explicit:
A book whose author was inspired by belief and faith in God is not ipso facto divine. With your definition we could easily find thousands of religious books that you would have to deem divine.
And movies "inspired" by true events must also be "divine," right? Just because someone claims to be inspired doesn't mean their work is anything special, much less actually divine. It's little more than an empty claim.
Making things up is not testing.
"Spiritual evidence" sounds like an oxymoron. Especially since there is no evidence of anything spiritual.
Science uses both types of reasoning. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories. But hypotheses and theories are based on observations made through induction. Deductive reasoning allows science to apply the theories to specific situations. Deductive arguments must also be valid and sound.
Which is absolutely meaningless, as there is nothing of substance to support it. It's just belief supporting belief.
And look at how much science has discovered, learned, and helped civilization progress in comparison to religion.
Religion has caused plenty of strife in history. Science does not. It's only how the products of science are applied that determines if there is an abuse or not.
If everyone had that mentality, science would be shunned and we'd still be living in huts.
So all one has to do is merely mention "god" and then *poof*, a work is magically divine?
I see. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Don't blame the scientific knowledge for how it is used.
Science does not provide any moral guidance. If science did establish moral standards then science would become a religion based on belief and faith that knowledge and resulting technology can shape society and nature in 'good' ways. But that would require a definitive description of 'good' that would not change according to circumstance. And science does deliberately pursue knowledge that would rationally considered 'bad'.
Theology unravels the mysteries of spirituality by evaluating both physical and spiritual evidence. However, the purpose of any knowledge acquired from those inquiries is to provide moral guidance. Theology doesn't always get it right and theology can be misused for counter-productive purposes, too. But the purpose of pursuing theological knowledge is distinctly different than the purpose of pursuing scientific knowledge. Morality is not included in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Because you stated "A book whose author was inspired by belief and faith is not ipso facto divine." That statement is incorrect. Inspiration by belief and faith in God is a definition of divine. Something explicitly originating with God is also divine. Divinity requires God to be in the mix somewhere. Inspiration that does not include God in the mix cannot be divine according to the definition.
Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon is a divine text. Acceptance of divinity is a different matter. Atheists do not accept divinity because they do not accept belief in God. But that lack of acceptance is based upon comparison with other systems of belief using methods other than theology to test and evaluate divinity.
Actually, it's the internal trauma caused by the bullet entering the body that kills people. If you want to get technical about it.
I guess we shouldn't blame religious knowledge for how it's used (or misued) too, what with a history of stake burnings, torture, forced conversions, ect..
No one ever said it was supposed to. Science provides knowledge.
What knowledge is bad specifically? It's funny how religion deems knowledge bad, as if it was a threat to religion. I think religion deemed evolutionto be "bad" knowledge once.
What spiritual evidence? There is no such thing.
Morality is not unique or exclusive to religion. Many religions don't even agree on what is moral or not.
Understatement.
Well duh. The purpose of science is to gain and discover knowledge of the natural world we live in. Religion teaches mythology.
Again, no one said it is supposed to be. So what's your point?
Correct. Rather obvious.
Correct, that is not what science does.
Theology, IMO, dreams up ideas. It does not unravel mysteries, it simply invents and then declares 'answers' - typically claiming truth.
Correct. Science is a process whereby we understand how reality works. Morality is a different matter entirely and it is the moral failure of human beings that causes the findings of science to be abused.
I disagree, my statement is spot on. Just because an author was inspired by his/her belief and faith does not mean that their resulting book is divine.
Further, your 'because' does not address my question:
It sidestepped the question entirely.
You are claiming that the Book of Mormon is the word of God? The Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon, the Vedas, etc. are all the word of God? How about Dianetics and the Iliad and the Odyssey?
Movies inspired by belief and faith in God would be divine. God must be in mix somewhere. Without God there is no divinity. (That isn't limited to the God of the Bible but that is the most familiar context in western culture.)
In that context, science also just makes up postulates, too. Asking the question is not the test.
Perhaps. But then individual spiritual experiences (obtained from arts, communing with nature, or human stories) would be oxymoronic, too. In secular terms, a spiritual experience could be described as an epiphany of insight, a revelation of some deeper meaning.
Science is involved in expanding the specific to the general. A controlled experiment in a test tube describes how the entire universe works. And those general principles are applied depending upon circumstance.
Applying general principles using only a limited amount of available data is abductive reasoning. Science uses abductive reasoning to create data using general principles rather than obtaining data from observation.
While science can and does use deductive reasoning (primarily for thought experiments), that use of deductive reasoning is fairly uncommon in the formulation of scientific theories.
Is disrupting nature and destroying the planet progress? Today humanity is more concerned over acts of man rather than acts of God. Science has allowed humanity to create its own apocalypse.
Seems to me you have your own meaning for the word 'divine'. Apparently you define 'divine' to mean 'about God'. Silly me going by the conventional meaning of the word:
'Of God' means comes from God.
The fact that human beings wrote or filmed something based on their belief and faith does not make their product 'divine'.
Sorry, divinity is a club for God-believers only. Do you believe in God? That's the price of admission.
How can anything non-believers claim about God be considered credible? The claim that God does not exist (which only states the obvious) makes any other claims concerning God irrelevant.
Making claims about God doesn't work the same way as making claims about a flat earth. Since God is a state of being outside of existence (God does not exist, God is not contained within objective reality) then no amount of physical evidence has any relevancy. Science simply cannot make any credible claims about God.
This is too silly for me to continue.
You just described a club where the people admit to being deluded. You do not want anyone else to join who is not similarly deluded.
You cannot create the idea of god and then turn around claim that since there is an idea of a god that you believe that God actually now exists, and anything written that agrees with that idea is both divine and factual. There are multiple layers of circular logic in that claim, to the point where you are chasing your own tail.
The Bible is a work of plagiarized fiction and myth.
You are making a positive claim about your god existing outside of existence and objective reality. The next question is how do you know that? You cannot just make up rules to suit yourself as a way to put yourself beyond facts, logic, and reality.
I can make this claim. The FSM exists outside of objective reality and your god both answers to him and is controlled by the FSM. Can you prove that statement wrong, other than via your own subjective belief?
I will let the rest of this post pass by but this claim needs to be addressed. Knowledge is always neutral. What is learned can be used for positive or negative purposes but the knowledge itself is neutral.
GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
No, God does not exist. Claiming that God does not exist is stating the obvious. Claiming that non-existence refutes God is irrational. Best to forget arguing about the Biblical God and direct one's belief in science toward Sun worshipers, nature worshipers, or American Indians who claim certain animals are god spirits. Christians are not Druids, Gaians, or Pantheists. (Neither are Jews or Muslims. Same God, different religions.)
It isn't possible to know there is a God by using the senses. It's not possible to see, smell, hear, or touch God. There will never be any scientific instruments that can detect God.
Meditation (prayer is one form) is used by many different religions as a means of achieving spiritual understanding. Contemplation and self awareness are also methods used by many religions to achieve spiritual understanding. Spiritual growth and understanding can only be obtained by using the mind (Plato's reason). It's necessary to separate oneself from existence and objective reality to obtain any spiritual understanding, including any understanding of God. That was Plato's method of inquiry, too. So, meditation, contemplation, and self awareness are also secular methods of achieving rational understanding of morality, the human condition, and spiritual understanding.
Yes, many theists (and atheists, too) claim belief (or lack of belief) because 'its the thing to do'. The camp-followers and group thinkers have tried to use a shortcut; they haven't exerted any mental discipline or effort to use their minds to arrive at a rational conclusion.
You have constructed an epistemological catch-22. How is it possible for god to exist if god cannot be detected by any means? If something exists then it must be able to be detected by some means. Surely something that created the universe and everything it in must be able to be detected by some means.
Your idea of faith and belief appears to be no more than a wish that god exists.
What does it mean to exist? How is it possible to distinguish between what does exist and what does not exist? What is the rational description of existence?
If existence is the criteria it really is necessary to understand how to quantify existence.
That cheapens the meaning and impact of divine to essentially be meaningless.
Science asks a question, then seeks to answer the question through the scientific method and going where the evidence leads.
No, that would be subjective and anecdotal.
In secular terms, that would be nothing more than a feeling-also subjective and anecdotal, or a delusion.
Your understanding of science seems to be lacking.
See previous statement.
Your complain is about the misuse of science.
No such thing as "acts of god." They are considered "acts of nature."
Wow, such arrogance! Religion may use the term "divinity," by it doesn't own it or make up the definition to suit its purposes. And now you contradict yourself: all you said was god had to be in the mix somewhere. That doesn't necessarily mean belief is required.
How can anything believers claim about God be considered credible? Especially when they have no evidence for a god!
Non-believers do not make that claim as fact, as that is a logically indefensible position. They are simply not convinced god exists, as there is no evidence.
Yeah, it does! You make an affirmative claim, you bear the burden of proof. Claims of god does not get a free pass from that!
Claims like that for instance. Oh, and I almost forgot: that's nice. Prove it!
Neither do any claims for a god!
Science doesn't deal with god. I thought we already established that?
Nice of you to admit that.
It's all the same.
Then there is no reason to make any claims, much less accept any claims of a god existing.
That's just a mater of the mind.
How do you know?
What is justice? Does justice exist? How would science go about quantifying justice?
What is morality? Does morality exist? How would science go about quantifying morality?
What is imagination? Does imagination exist? How would science go about quantifying imagination?
So is a sense of well being, a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, and a sense of meaning. What is mental health? Does mental health exist? How would science go about quantifying mental health?
Social constructs.
A function of the brain.
Yes, and...?
You do know mental health is a field of medical science, right?
This is the definition of what it means to exist,
Please see above.
The provided criteria does not require an observable presence in objective reality. By that criteria, God exists.
The concept of god exists. There is nothing to support the claim that God actually exists.
Lewis Carrol created the idea of jabberwocky so does it also exist because we have the word and an idea of what it might be?
God existing is nothing more than a belief or abstract concept. There is nothing to suggest, much less support, the idea or claim of a god actually existing.
I think the Nerm is arguing that the FSM likewise exists. Praise be to Nerm and pass the parmesan!
I'm not even sure what he's arguing. It makes no sense.
From my perspective it appears that he is desperate to create a loophole or logical gap where god can exist but he doesn't have to put forth any evidence to support it. That is why I mentioned the epistemological catch-22 that he seems so desperate to construct.
It's almost Schrodinger-esque. Maybe his god is a cat person.
Here is the criteria for existence that was provided:
5. (Philosophy) philosophy
By that criteria Uncle Sam, GI Joe, Blind Justice, Father Time, and the Pillsbury Doughboy all exist. So, yes, these criteria allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist, as well.
But that approach establishes God as an allegorical character used as literary device to convey cultural ideas, concepts, and descriptions. That makes God an allegorical representation of cultural history, heritage, and identity. Attempting to ban a specific cultural tradition and identity from participation in government would be just another form of Jim Crow. And that would make religious tests to bar participation just another type of government enforced segregation based upon bigotry rather than rational justification.
Wouldn't that lead to a rational conclusion that atheism is more about ingrained, group reinforced prejudices that use intellectual rationalizations to justify segregation? Wouldn't that make atheism the KKK of religious bigotry?
Good article. It's amazing how much atheists take on faith but seem not to realize it.
Do tell: what do atheists take on "faith?"
Since you are not being specific it is not possible to assess the quality of your claim. So let's assume that you are correct and that atheists take a lot of things on faith.
My question is this: do you consider it sensible for an atheist to accept a proposition as true without solid supporting evidence and logic?
'Why Atheists Are Not As Rational As Some Like To Think'
This is irrational.
Interesting article.
Science can explain WHAT happened within the confines of its terms, but it cannot explain why. When we are talking about the "ultimate" questions which demand "answers" , why is more meaningful than what. People focused solely on science dont seem to get that , in some cases.
It takes all kinds they say.
But religion/faith/god does not provide explanations either. They might make things up or go with something along the likes of "god did it." But that is not an explanation for anything either. That is a failure to explain, wrapped in an emotionally appealing package.
"Many atheists think that their atheism is the product of rational thinking."
"For example, religious and nonreligious people alike can end up following charismatic individuals without questioning them."
So the argument apparently made here is, because atheists can be fooled and aren't always right either, then they must not be as rational as they claim to be.
"a new generation of postmodern atheists highlight the limits of human knowledge, and see scientific knowledge as hugely limited, problematic even, especially when it comes to existential and ethical questions"
I see no evidence that this is "new", I believe atheists have always understood the limits of what humans currently know or understand and can explain. None of that is at all problematic when debating ethics or the existential.
This article is nothing but an attempt to tell the religious that they shouldn't feel so bad about believing in things on faith, because atheists have to accept things on faith too, as the article claims: "The science of the biological world, for example, is much more than a topic of intellectual curiosity – for some atheists, it provides meaning and comfort in much the same way that belief in God can for theists."
The difference is that while it's true, we don't know everything yet so atheists do have to in a way accept on faith that some super natural phenomenon will someday be explained by science whereas a believer takes that phenomenon and has faith it will be revealed someday that their God was cause behind it.
So if it makes believers feel any better about themselves, not feeling all alone on that flimsy branch of faith, by claiming their belief in an unproven all powerful creator being is just as rational as an atheist believing that someday science will explain our origins, then that's their choice. Personally, I think there are levels of rationale with some being based on far less than others, so while atheists might not be as "rational" as some believers thought, they are still light years more rational than your average believer.
There is no available evidence for the future. Everyone must plan for the future based upon beliefs, not evidence. And if we must wait for direct evidence of the future then every action we take would be too late.
According to a new idea, the future may exist with the current and the past.
Religious people of various faiths have been claiming that their god exists for the very large majority of the past 4000 years but as of yet, there is no more proof that their god exists then there is of leprechauns or unicorns. I have to ask why you are so emotionally invested in the existence of God? How long should people wait before they begin to rethink their theistic religious beliefs?
I disagree. We have loads of evidence of matter in different states with measurable decay showing the passage of time, thus the evidence suggests that the next moment will occur just like the last one did. Thus time is predictable. Many of us have appointments this next week and we have evidence based on observation that time will pass next week much like it did last week and thus we can set clocks and make appointments and predict when a client will show up so we can be there when they do.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. The future is an aspect of our natural world and is both explainable and predictable because of our extensive observation and measurement of both the present and the past. We can even follow the evidence all the way back to the big bang which, as far as we know, is when time began in our universe.
Nonsense. I base my belief that the sun will rise on observation and repeated testing, so far 100%. Same with the future, we don't have faith that tomorrow will happen, we are certain of it based on observation and repeated testing. And even if we don't see tomorrow for some reason, that doesn't mean tomorrow doesn't happen and most know that almost certainly time will march on after they die.
Speculation is not objective, testable evidence. Mathematical proofs and prophesies isn't direct evidence. Anyone can write a Bible.
But a theological postulate is not a scientific theory. Theology tests postulates too using a different method of measurement and observation. Theology acknowledges and embraces the unknowable through faith; something science cannot do.
But the next sunrise never exists. For a sunrise to exist it must become part of the past. Scientific observation and measurement is constrained by the need for existence. That's how science differentiates between what does exist and what does not exist. For science, existence requires an observable presence in objective reality. Scientific predictions and prophesies are objectively invalid unless they are accepted on faith that the future will conform to the observed past.
If something can't be measured, then it is immeasurable. Faith is not something that can be measured or even observed, though one might claim we can observe someone "being faithful". But how can one truly quantify a feeling? How do you measure love, or hate, or even pain or pleasure? Thus there is zero ability to "measure" theology. If there were, humans would have done so long ago and we would have only one religion, the one measured and found to be most accurate. Measuring theology today is nothing more than a bunch of men sitting around in a room expressing their opinion on whose farts smelled better.
Not really, it exists as it's happening which is the present. And, much like all the "past" we've been able to study, we can definitively conclude that it came from the present, which in turn has always been preceded by a future. The universe is in constant motion, it's motion is predictable, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that "reaction" can only happen in the future but is as certain as any other law in physics.
Tomorrow never exists and can never be directly observed. Faith that past performance is a definitive predictor of future events is still nothing more or less than faith. Scientific dogma does provide a comforting justification (or rationalization) for that belief but it is still nothing more or less than belief in the unknowable.
But faith can be measured because faith is present in the observable universe; faith does exist. Faith is present in objective reality; faith is real. Denying the tangible presence of faith in objective reality would be irrational.
Aren't atheists claiming that theological measures of faith do not align with their own beliefs?
In scientific terms the present cannot be measured because it is an infinitesimal point in time. All scientific measurements are made in the past. Even the speed of light is far too slow to capture the present.
The time for light to travel from the Sun to Earth is 8 minutes 20 seconds. Observing a sunrise is actually observing the Sun as it was in the past. From any point of observation there is a measurable time lag between the observed sunrise and the actual event because of the constraints of space and time.
You are focusing on the usage of 'faith' which means rational expectation that what has been consistently found to be true will more likely than not be true. If I drop my iPhone I am quite convinced it will hit the ground (rather than, say, float in mid-air for a few seconds so that I have a better chance to catch it before it falls). You would say that this is me having 'faith' in gravity.
It is legit to use faith in that manner (this is usage #1 in Oxford) but it is semantic trickery to then use faith with its religious usage (usage #2) and equate the two. The same word has two very different meanings (usages).
Pick a usage of faith and stick with it. It is vague and semantically flawed to mix both usages of faith together. The two usages of 'faith' per Oxford :
A claim such as: ' Faith 1 is real so it is wrong to criticize religious people for using faith 2 as a form of knowledge.' is ill-formed and semantically confused.
Tomorrow exists as a concept and of course tomorrow comes. Tomorrow's date is Jun 6, 2019. That date belongs to and only belongs to "tomorrow" as we sit here and speak. And we know that Jun 6 2019 will come because every previous "tomorrow" has come. As I said, it is justified through the scientific application of probability. So expecting tomorrow does conform with science.
The distinction between the two definitions is that God is not a 'thing'. Faith that something which does not exist but may or will come into existence has the same origin as spiritual conviction; faith begins with non-existence.
The expectations arising from the two definitions are different. The first definition describes faith that what is non-existent will come into existence. The second definition describes faith in what will be found after ceasing to exist. The distinction is between the expectations of the observer. That would be an example of confirmation bias in expectations arising from belief.
A building plan is an expression of faith that what does not exist can be brought into existence by application of effort and resources. A fundamental premise of that faith is the humans can directly influence and control non-existence; humans are in control of their fate.
A Bible is an expression of faith that what does exist will cease to exist but can continue on another plane of being. IMO many religious doctrines are premised on influencing non-existence by exerting control over existence. That, too, is driven by human desire to control their fate.
"But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" - James 2:18-20
So according to your bible, faith begins with action. Without action it is dead. Therefore, the only thing you can measure are actions that those acting claim were prompted by their faith.
Atheists in general are not "acting" on any faith, their lack of belief requires no works. I suppose one could say that a rocket scientist is "acting on faith" when they calculate the orbital trajectories, but really they are just applying repeated science to achieve a specified outcome. Religious faith relies on people to have no expectation of certain results. Praying for someone to get well cannot be defined as any sort of "work", spending your time and energy getting them to a specialist who can possibly cure their affliction, now that's work.
Time is linear. It's a universal invariant that marches forward no matter what happens. It's not something that is debatable because time doesn't speed up, it doesn't slow down and it doesn't stop. How do we know this? Have you, or anyone else, observed time stopping, speeding up or slowing down? No.
Now if you want to discuss the equivalence principal, feel free, it will still not stop time because with time, perception is everything, (but it never stops, speeds up or slows down).
So, lack of belief depends upon accepting the infallibility of those who wrote the Bible?
Plato did not use the scientific method and was scientifically wrong about a lot of philosophical conjecture involving reason and rationality. Since Plato has been refuted should we denounce Plato?
Atheists put their socks on one foot at a time, like everyone else. Atheists rely on the same type of faith as do theists. Atheists and theists only employ different confirmation biases to justify their disparate faiths.
The certain result is that everyone dies, theists and atheists alike. No one escapes death. Assembling whatever rationalizations that allow coping with that certain outcome is really what faith is about, in the end. And if someone fails to cope with their pending death, aren't they really something less than how we want to perceive humans?
But time is not constant and time is not linear. That has been demonstrated by scientific observation and testing. The experience of time depends upon the observer as a frame of reference.
First you say no one escapes it, then you identify those who refuse to accept that fact by rationalizing a way to escape death.
It sounds like the faith you describe is a bit like convincing cows in line to the slaughterhouse that they're really destined for wide sunny fields of heavenly grass to graze upon so they are less stressed just before their head is chopped off.
Making up fantasies to "cope" is generally unhealthy.
Not for me, I was merely pointing out what the book many believers claim to have faith in says about faith.
Deepak Chopra style answers are a waste of time. I am not going to try to unravel this.
My post was about your conflating two distinct usages of 'faith'. What you wrote in reply is a non sequitur.
Like I said, perception is everything, but, that doesn't mean time stops, speeds up or slows down.
Right out of the gate the author displays a lack of understanding about atheists: Atheists do not "believe" in science. They go where evidence takes them.
Of course. That's a social mentality and conformity. Not questioning something is a bad practice. Unlike theists however, atheists do question religious tenets, such as claims of a god.
What exactly are "atheist beliefs?" That almost sounds like an oxymoron.
That might be one reason why religion is so potent. Less thought required.
I'd say probably.
But belief systems is not a replacement for science nor does it provide scientific explanations.
This is true. Many belief systems have been historically hostile to science.
Not seeing a problem with that.
Artistic expression is just that, an expression.
As opposed to religious belief?
That is more of a social evolutionary process.
The author is trying to rationalize his religious faith but claiming that science is equally based on faith, so the two are the same and therefore religious belief is just as valid. The problem with that argument is that science rejects faith and is the opposite of religious belief. Science is driven by facts and hypotheses that can be tested and verified by anyone who is technically qualified to conduct the experiment and follow that line of thinking.
Which is probably the most irrational think of all.
Indeed. Science goes where the evidence leads. Religion makes up it's own "evidence" to lead you to its own conclusion.
While religion makes baseless, emotionally appealing claims.
Lol I wouldn't call all religions claims to be emotionally appealing, some are downright disturbing.
Or outright ludicrous.
In the end it's all about being lucrative for the priest class.
Basically yet another article attempting to portray an atheist as a believer so as to claim that both atheists and theists operate on faith and thus their opposing views are equivalent.
Even an incredibly easy concept to understand —atheism— is spun into some nuanced glob of confusion to match that of collective theism.
Not complicated. The theist typically props up faith (belief sans sufficient evidence) as a virtue when it is actually a flaw in reasoning. And for the more assertive theists, a positive claim is made: 'my God exists!'
The atheist, in contrast, makes no claim (except for the rare gnostic atheist whose claim that no god exists is logically flawed). Rather, the atheist (read: agnostic atheist) challenges the theist to convince them (with solid evidence) that their theistic claim holds water.
An atheist is simply not convinced a god exists. That could change if solid evidence were to appear. Given we have had god hypotheses for thousands of years without a shred of solid supporting evidence that any of these gods exist, it does not seem likely that any atheist living today will be presented with solid evidence supporting the proposition that god 'X' exists.
Atheism attempts to force theism into conformation with atheistic confirmation biases. Atheists are demanding direct, observable, testable evidence of God from within something created by God. It's like searching for the baker by making observations inside a loaf of bread.
Doesn't that really distill down to a belief that the observable universe is all there is? A belief that there must be more than just the observable universe (other planes of being) isn't any different than theological faith; that's just a belief in a different God. Anyone can write a Bible.
That is more an analogy for deism rather than theism. One who merely holds that a creator is the most likely reason for the existence of the known universe and who does not presuppose anything about the creator is a deist. Atheists and deists have little to debate. An atheist is not convinced a god (i.e. creator of the known universe) exists while a deist thinks a god is more likely than not. If the deist were to make a claim such as a god does exist then the atheist could challenge that claim of certainty. But that would be rather pointless since the deist has no declared attributes for god and thus has made an unfalsifiable (and irrational) claim.
Your analogy, if you mean to show atheism vs. theism, needs to be modified. In the modified analogy, not only are the observers speculating on how their loaf of bread came into existence but some of them (the theists) have an elaborate tale which include specific attributes of the baker, a story line describing historical acts and feasts performed by the baker, rules commanded by the baker, specific plans for the loaf of bread and all who inhabit it, etc. Now you should recognize that the atheists in this loaf of bread are not at all unreasonable to challenge how their theist cohorts have come to know all this very specific information about the baker. How could they possibly know this?
The atheists naturally challenge the theists to provide evidence for their claims. The theists will object stating that the baker is beyond the world of baked dough and cannot be evidenced within the limits of a loaf of bread. The atheists will then ask how then the theists discovered all these details ... given god is unevidenced. The theists will claim that god has revealed his stories and attributes to select ancient loaf dwellers in the past who carefully wrote down the details. ( Of course, they disregard the fact that revelation would serve as evidence and that someone demonstrating revelation today in a verifiable venue would actually have evidence for god. ) When asked how one determines the ancient bread dwellers were not simply making up stories, attributes, acts, feats, rules, plans, etc. for the hypothesized baker the resort to: 'I just believe'.
No, it is what I wrote. An atheist is simply not convinced a god exists. Since the existence of the supreme entity, creator of the known universe is a very big deal, the lack of a shred of verifiable evidence for same is curious at best. And worse, all the specific knowledge professed about god ... claims by ancient people to have interacted with god ... are also wholly unevidenced.
Sure, if people believe that. There is a rather profound difference between belief and plausible speculation based on contemporary physics. People generally do not believe in a multiverse, but there are people who find the multiverse hypothesis to be plausible.
Demonstrably true.
That isn't a modification. That's an extrapolation.
How could they possibly know? Through faith. Faith is a tangible presence in objective reality; faith is real.
IMO Christian faith is to prepare for non-existence. The ultimate test for Christian faith is death. I think that applies to many other religions as well.
Science cannot observe non-existence. There isn't any tangible evidence that describes non-existence. Proving non-existence is a process of elimination through lack of observation. But every human will cease to exist; every human will die. Depending upon science to describe or explain non-existence would seem to be an irrational expectation. If God must exist in objective reality to justify faith then there is no hope beyond death.
If the observable universe is all there is and there is no more then belief in the future becomes irrational.
Faith is just an emotional state of mind. It's wishful thinking at its core.
What's to prepare for? One moment you exist, the next you do not. Kind of like conception, only backwards.
Which only shows faith is just an emotional comfort mechanism because some people cannot deal with the fact they will die and that's all there is. They need to believe there's a god and afterlife waiting for them to make death itself more palatable.
Yes, belief is irrational. Now you're getting it.
Perhaps. But death is objectively real.
If we have one shot, if this is it and there is nothing more, then sacrifice becomes an extraordinarily irrational expectation. Society devolves into a competition to take from others.
Perhaps. What's the problem with that?
Someone that makes a rational analysis of the need for a God knows God does not exist in scientific terms. The scientific existence of God would be self defeating.
Contemporary physics supports a rational conclusion that there is a God or deity. Science may refute religion but is incapable of refuting God.
Scientists can write whatever Bible they wish about the unknowable but that, too, is an expression of faith. Theories that cannot be tested are more attuned to spiritual belief than objective evidence.
A non answer. Faith is not an explanation nor is it knowledge. Faith is wishful thinking.
Explain.
Science does not attempt to refute either. Science is a process of discovery and explanation of observations. The fact that science provides well-founded explanations that at times contradict the nonsense of religions is not because science is trying to do so. It is simply the result of religions guessing wrong. It is on them (and the Bible and the Qur'an).
Science is also incapable of refuting the FSM, or Zeus, or unicorns.
Contemporary physics does not in any way support a rational conclusion that any gods exist.
Yes, so?
What do you base that claim on? From an evolutionary standpoint, cooperation in a society helps the species.
Nothing, except that it shows people are irrational and emotional. To the point where they cannot deal with or accept reality. That sounds almost like a psychological condition.
Then there is nothing rational about a need for god.
Really? how so? Is the scientific community aware of this?
Science doesn't deal with god or religion. Science deals with the reality of nature, not superstition.
But as long as they say it's "inspired," then that "bible" must be divine, right? lol
Do you even understand what a scientific theory is?
Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think
And believing in the existence of an unprovable entity or entities is?
My first and only question regarding a belief in a god is always: Which one would you prefer me to believe in or will any god or gods do?
That's not the case for most of the atheists I know. For me, it was intellectual reasoning. Heck, my mom became an Episcopal deacon later in life, so it was definitely not a case of my parents getting less religious.