Nury Vittachi said Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke. (meaning, believe)

[JD59]

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected


WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that?s not a joke

[mordant]

I think a number of things are going on here, not the least of which is that it's not common in my experience for people to recognize that (un)belief isn't voluntary. It is simply a response to the accumulated knowledge and experience that one possesses, the evidence one is aware of, and one's ability to objectively and empirically evaluate evidence. You can ignore what you know at some level to be (un)true to an extent, because of social pressure or fear of consequences and similar factors, but what one believes (or disbelieves) is really not a function of one's will.

It is probably true that gene expression and brain wiring / conditioning mean that some people will never escape the gravitational pull of theism, but it cuts both ways, and theism's gravitational pull is definitely on the wane. So I don't see that the article's superficially provocative conclusion is remotely warranted. It is unquestionably true that unbelievers exist and are not readily shamed / herded back into the "flock", and no amount of hopeful tap dancing is going to change that.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by mordant

I think a number of things are going on here, not the least of which is that it's not common in my experience for people to recognize that (un)belief isn't voluntary. It is simply a response to the accumulated knowledge and experience that one possesses, the evidence one is aware of, and one's ability to objectively and empirically evaluate evidence. You can ignore what you know at some level to be (un)true to an extent, because of social pressure or fear of consequences and similar factors, but what one believes (or disbelieves) is really not a function of one's will.
It is probably true that gene expression and brain wiring / conditioning mean that some people will never escape the gravitational pull of theism, but it cuts both ways, and theism's gravitational pull is definitely on the wane. So I don't see that the article's superficially provocative conclusion is remotely warranted. It is unquestionably true that unbelievers exist and are not readily shamed / herded back into the "flock", and no amount of hopeful tap dancing is going to change that.

I have read similar denials from alcoholics and drug abusers. Interesting article, btw!

This article is a mess of unsubstantiated claims.

Basically what they mean to say is that the brain is wired to think metaphysically - that is abstractly and metaphorically. That's not real news. It then translates this into God/s, spiritualism, intelligent forces, justice, etc. Then tries to correlate the latter with the former. It does not fly! In fact it is ironic since what they did here is just what I said.

Many evolutionary general or broad traits can be co-opted for more specific beliefs under different social and environmental conditions - that does not mean we are wired for those specific beliefs. But even worse is that terms like God are not specific yet it is used in poll questions. It leaves too much room for some 'atheists' (that is atheist in the since that they don't believe in the general idea of a God) to answer with things like karma or intelligent forces in the universe.

Some of the anecdotes were just laughable:

'Atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs like immortal souls.' Funny - I don't!

'13% of people polled believe humans are purely material human beings w/ no spiritual element.' How does this jive with these conclusions - they don't!

At one point they use 'set in stone' and in another they say 'predisposition'.

Then they say we are born believers because we are pattern seekers, believe in karma, and cosmic justice - what? Patterns are not necessarily religious or metaphysical. There is plenty of evidence for the misappropriation of patterns as well. None of these beliefs about patterns necessitate any correspondence to reality.

Lastly, even with these predispositions and wiring for the misappropriation of these patterns into abstract beliefs they are checked by our further understanding of human nature, reason, logic, and the scientific method.

Anyway, much more can be said but I just aint in the mood. I could barely get through the article since at every turn there was some BS assumption regarding the science behind our own thinking patterns.

[Grandstander]

If we are indeed hard wired to embrace unsupportable beliefs, then wouldn't atheists be people who rose above that programming? Escaped from the genetic prison?

I would also seem appropriate if these same researchers addressed the relationship between advanced education and the probability of religious belief. If religious belief is determined by biological factors, then why does the eradication of ignorance seem to improve the probability of non religious belief?

The authors of the article also make some unsupported leaps in logic:

Furthermore, every time we read a book or watch a movie, we are reinforcing our default belief in the eventual triumph of karma. While there is certainly growth in the number of bleak narratives being produced, it is difficult to imagine them becoming the majority form of cultural entertainment. Most of us will skip Cormac McCarthy’s crushingly depressing “The Road” in favor of the newest Pixar movie.

Why would they assume that an atheist's preference for a happy ending in our cultural fictions is also a subscription to the validity of karma? Are we supposed to accept that by being an atheist, one now wishes to go through life focused only on bleak aspects and hard core disappointment? I find the idea of karma to be wishful thinking, the product of a desire for a cosmic justice, not evidence that such a thing exists. That I do not believe there is any cosmic sheriff around to make sure everyone gets a fair shake, does not mean that I reject the idea of everyone getting a fair shake if possible....or don't wish to see people depicted in fiction getting that fair shake. There is a reason that fiction is typically described as "escapism"..it is an escape from the reality of the absence of cosmic fairness in real life.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's an interesting take on a not very new idea - that we are 'believers from birth'. In a way, I would agree, as we have an instinct to trust in some higher power that empowers and validates us. Some may see it as a real perception of a cosmic being. I rather incline to doubt that.

Specific religions and gods are not really relevant here - it takes a leap of Faith to get from a sorta -innate god to a specific religion -god. And while I understand the point being made, I have enough doubts about whether this innate instinct represents a real 'God' or just a superstition, that I have to say that I do not believe that it it is really 'God' until I get some proof.

That is enough to make me atheist, and I rather think that the bod who wrote the article should have to and atheist first, and then he wouldn't have made a rather absurd blunder. Again we see that people who know their science inside out, somehow, don't really understand atheists and atheism, even if they ARE atheists.

P.s I looked up Nury Vittachi and he is not actually a scientist, but a journalist and author. The point he argued is an original and well thought -out one which requires a fair answer. I believe I have given him one - though I suspect that he wasn't looking for any disagreement, but thought he had solved something.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I have read similar denials from alcoholics and drug abusers. Interesting article, btw!

Yes, but needs to think a bit further, as you do in your analogy. I might take it a bit further and point out some people with speech impediments who habitually are misunderstood as being drunk or stoned. No doubt their attempts to assure you that they were neither smashed nor zonked would be dismissed by you as denial of theor condition, because it conflicted with what you had already decided to believe.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The authors of the article also make some unsupported leaps in logic:

Why would they assume that an atheist's preference for a happy ending in our cultural fictions is also a subscription to the validity of karma?

They are attempting to construct a false equivalence between a willingness to suspend disbelief for an entertainment with a hopeful storyline, with a belief in reliable correspondence between effort / intention and outcomes. As well as a false equivalence between unbelief and nihilistic despair. Their implication is that if life has no inherent meaning or purpose, the realization of that must necessarily result in pessimism, despair and hopelessness. And therefore if I enjoy a movie with a happy ending I am belying my hard wiring against unbelief. Nonsensical associations, all, but that doesn't stop them from spinning such ideas to the slothful thinker who wants to embrace such rubbish.

Basically the idea is, would all you unbelievers either just go away and die, or get with the program.

Alas for believers, those aren't the only two choices. Not by a long shot.

What they don't understand is that they didn't invent morality, hope, or optimism. They come by it the exact same way we unbelievers do, and it is no easier for them than it is for us. Like us, they have to live, experience disappointments and setbacks, rationalize them, and keep coming back for more. What they will never admit in a million years is that we do it more or less as well as any of them, or that they experience just as much depression, despair and disillusionment as anyone else.

[JrzDefector]

I'm not a very philosophically minded atheist. I just really think religion is terribly silly.

If I'm interpreting this article correctly, it seems to indicate that having any sort of illogical belief is proof of one's belief in the divine. But why couldn't it just as easily be part of an internal conversation or a social bonding situation?

At my grandmother's funeral, I meditated while everyone else prayed. But that communal act was cementing a bond I had with my community and family. For me, it was not an acknowledgement of a supernatural being, but a shared moment with the very real community I was inhabiting.

And when I helped pack up some of the things in my grandmother's house, it was a way to bring myself closure and ease my grief. My aunts and cousins believed she was looking down on us. I just was summarizing her life and coming to terms with our fraught relationship. I did not labor under the belief that she was present in any way.

I think this article is a bit of a stretch.

[agnostic soldier]

What this article really says is that the author doesn't know anything about atheism or atheists.