Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Belief in atheism also explainable by evolution
Theodore Dalrymple, atheist, offers his two cents on all the anti-theism books out there:
The curious thing about these books is that the authors often appear to think that they are saying something new and brave [...] Yet with the possible exception of [one] they advance no argument that I, the village atheist, could not have made by the age of 14 (Saint Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence gave me the greatest difficulty, but I had taken Hume to heart on the weakness of the argument from design).
Of the argument that belief in God can be explained by evolution, Dalrymple offers this terrific analysis: “But of course it is a necessary part of the argument that all possible human beliefs, including belief in evolution, must be explicable in precisely the same way; or else why single out religion for this treatment?”
back to top57 Comments to “Belief in atheism also explainable by evolution”
Oh there was proof of God. He actually wrote tablets that he gave to Moses. But Moses, in a hissy fit broke them. Can you imagine getting mail from God and then just throwing it away?
Report comment to moderator
I saw this article earlier–beautifully written and opens fresh territory for discussion in the moral and social realms. As an atheist, he winces at the dogmatism and blind wrath of some bestselling members of his tribe.
Anything Dalrymple writes is worth reading beginning to end. He reminds me of CS Lewis’s atheist tutor, an example of “Old Western Man,” as opposed to the new “Men without Chests” (see “The Abolition of Man”).
Report comment to moderator
Kwerna in #2: Anything Dalrymple writes is worth reading beginning to end. He reminds me of CS Lewis’s atheist tutor, an example of “Old Western Man,” as opposed to the new “Men without Chests” (see “The Abolition of Man”).
Too bad he’s going to hell, huh?
Snarkiness aside, I can’t say I put much confidence in anyone who consider’s Anselm’s ontological argument to be difficult at all to refute, let alone “the greatest difficulty.”
Anselm’s argument was basically, God must be the greatest entity that can be concieived, and that to exist both in human imagination and reality is greater than to exist only in human imagination; therefore God must exist.
It’s a classic case of begging the question, when that phrase is used properly. Anselm assumes that God exists and has a particular definition at the beginning of his argument. He never actually proves the premise, he just assumes it.
There’s no difficulty there at all. Like Pascal’s Wager, it’s an argument that looks on first glance to be a lot more compelling than it really is.
Report comment to moderator
“He never actually proves the premise, he just assumes it.”
Which is actually how logic works. We prove a conclusion by showing that it is a necessary inference drawn from assumed primary and secondary premises. Premises might be buttressed by evidence, derived from empirical observation or concluded from a previous argument,
but initial premises are by definition unprovable. Logical reasoning is operational and instrumental, not foundational. It requires the raw material of premises before it can be pressed into service.
Report comment to moderator
Most atheists and agnostics only get ticked off enough to do or say something when the religious insist that they conform to religiously derived behavioral prescriptions.
The appearance of so many atheist books of late is a direct result of the rise of political involvement by a lot of evangelical Christian leaders and the spectacular political acts committed by some fundamentalist Muslims.
Of course there is little new in those books. The same arguments have been going on for centuries.
Overall, I think religion will continue to lose, but the battle will always wax and wane.
Report comment to moderator
Dalrymple’s article thrives on both unfounded assumptions and mischaracterizations.
The authors of these new atheist books quote previous atheists, so what leads Dalrymple to think that these authors believe they are breaking new ground?
His absurd statement, “Reason can never be the absolute dictator of man’s mental or moral economy,” answers nothing at all. It says absolutely nothing. What, then is the “absolute dictator of man’s mental or moral economy”? Do we need this absolute dictator?
Do the authors of these books ignore spirituality and mysticism in human existence? If Dalrymple thinks so, then he hasn’t read their books (or, more likely, assumes his audience has not read them and feels comfortable in mischaracterizing).
Why would Dennett have to avoid the language of purpose, intention, and ontological moral evaluation?
And this question simply baffles me: “But how can reality have any moral quality without having an immanent or transcendent purpose?” – Is this meant to be a serious question?
He finds it odd that Dawkins appears to “need” an atheistic 10 commandments, but in The God Delusion, which is completely wrong if you actually read the passage in question.
He then attempts to portray The End of Faith as a call to genocide against the religious when the author expressly condemns violence throughout the entire book; as if the eradication of religion (an idea) means the murder of humans.
A thoroughly dishonest piece of writing.
Report comment to moderator
I wanted to read this article. Tried to read this article. Even printed it out.
I finally got through it, but I found it to be extremely laborious reading.
Some good irony though: one atheist writer rambling on (poorly) about how lacking other atheist writers are.
My question – are all of the prominent atheists poor communicators? Who stands out? I.E., Who’s the C.S. Lewis of the atheist community?
Report comment to moderator
Adam catches the cheating mischaracterizations in Dalrymple’s game. The trio of books he reviews don’t all claim to be discovering a brave new world. They aim to quell a cultural backlash. Dalrymple shows his ignorance when he claims atheism hasn’t discovered anything beyond the insights of a troubled adolescence. Dennett has explained the intellectual developments particularly well. Modern atheism has given us ideas that David Hume himself recoiled from as “inconceivable.” Contemporary naturalism for the first time can “conceive” of how matter can precede mind. Ironically, it takes a theist like Alvin Plantinga to accord a thinker like Dennett the careful attention he deserves. Dalrymple isn’t up to it.
For Dennett, to prove the biological origin of belief in God is to show its irrationality, to break its spell. — Dalrymple
Baloney. The common origin of human phenomena in evolution doesn’t make evolution “irrelevant” to religion as Dalrymple claims, but enables explanations of how phenomena came about. Evolution tells a story which allows human beliefs to have various histories. (Dennet thinks that some beliefs evolve as self-replicating, viral memes which occupy niches in human thought.) The natural stories are spell-binding.
I think Dennett’s use of the language of evaluation and purpose is evidence of a deep-seated metaphysical belief (however caused) that Providence exists in the universe, a belief that few people, confronted by the mystery of beauty and of existence itself, escape entirely. — Dalrymple
Of course. We have not “escaped” mystery, beauty, or habits of belief and figures of speech. This isn’t an argument, however. Our characteristics and behavior don’t prove anything about the nature or reality of God.
Dalrymple seems to be arguing that “atheism” doesn’t exist, because humans are constitutionally incapable of being atheists. Even classic formulators of philosophical naturalism like Dennett retain “deep-seated” inescapable and involuntary belief in Purpose, Dalrymple says. But what a “thin” argument, to use Dalrymple’s own term. If there is no atheism, you may or may not be able to regret religion, but you may not be able to be grateful to religion, either. The Nazi’s were a variety of believers in purpose and transcendence. All you can do is accept what was, and is, and shall be.
Dalrymple’s real purpose in this article is to be a drama queen and describe contemporary atheists as nasty people, not worth listenting to. I know, Dalrymple says, because I’m an unbeliever myself. Be consoled — I’m a bit jealous of you. An article like Dalyrmple’s is always a shot heard round the evangelical world, summoning gallant Christians to put on their spiritual armor and go forth tilting like Quijotes. Belief is an expression of prideful contrarianism. Dalrymple is patronizing, and his comfort is cold.
It is true that religion gave us Chartres (what that religion was is a story that may give an evangelical yet colder comfort) but it is also true that humans can produce works of great beauty and fine workmanship without religion. It’s not enough to “justify” religion. Perhaps religions of the future, including christian versions of religion, will prove to be far more regrettable than anything we’ve experienced so far. Who knows what kind of transcendence, purpose, and mystery humans will unite themselves with in cyberspace? It’s one thing to mix these lovely concepts with stone, glass, wood, and the base and noble metals. Who knows what may happen when religions mix them with electromagnetic energy?
Report comment to moderator
There is no Lewis among the atheist authors because they all lack graciousness.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, atheism is genetic. I said so long ago. Did anybody listen to me? No. Does anybody give me credit? No.
Adios, if I write a gracious atheist book will you acknowledge it?
No.
Report comment to moderator
I will, Random. Let me know when you finish.
Report comment to moderator
I like the phrase “Gracious Atheist”. Transitional species, somewhat of a variant of “Radical Agnostic”, but without the prehensile tail.
Report comment to moderator
Travis Birkenstock:
CS Lewis wrote absolutely tedious nonsense aimed at a war-ravaged people so starved for hope they had no desire to look for the ingredients (and I do not blame or judge them for it). I do not know who the CS Lewis of the atheist movement is, and if I did know I would not want to read it.
I find Dawkins’s writing to be engaging and populist in The God Delusion; very easy to follow and even entertaining.
Report comment to moderator
AB,
Thank you for the recommendation.
By “CS Lewis” of the atheist movement, I meant exactly that – easy to follow and entertaining. And perhaps more importantly, the writer who is viewed from those within the movement as the leading voice, the person whose words have near universal appeal and endorsement.
And Grace, too.
(HT: Gordon Downie)
Report comment to moderator
Where to begin?
Mark Twain, sometimes a hot-head, a quarreler against God, and increasingly dark and lonely, defines New World graciousness and (a somewhat too masculine) humanity.
William James, not much of a believer either, was as gracious as they come — ingratiating enough to assemble a pragmatic eclecticism that 100 years later keeps giving religion it’s best preserve and sanctuary. As the Founding Fathers secured freedom of religion in the context of government, William James secured the right to believe in the context of science.
A.N. Wilson, a biographer of both C.S. Lewis and Jesus, is a generous, kind, and elegant writer who never takes the license to sound any more saucy than the subjects of his biographies.
Report comment to moderator
Whether I write a book as an Gracous Atheist, Elusive and Unreliable Radical Agnostic, or Faux and Fhony Evangelical Christian (and I may do all three), I am only in it for the money.
You could save a lot of trouble by just sending the money directly to me. Cut out the middleman (or Middle Deity) as the case may be.
As far as Radical Agnosticism (my true love), the prices to join are as follows:
High Agnosticism (near atheim):
$5,000.
Middle Agnosticism (very much in doubt, but not sure):
You decide how much to send.
Low Agnosticism (compatible with Christianity; only requires common sense and paying attention to mundane reality while exercising what ever supernatural beliefs you wish to take for a walk as long as you keep them on a least):
Ten Cents. You may insert the dime into your computer.
(15 Cents if you want a shot of graciosness with that)
Report comment to moderator
Belief in atheism also explainable by evolution
Kenneth Miller made this point eloquently awhile ago in “Finding Darwin’s God”
Report comment to moderator
#16 – Darwin evolved from theist to more of an agnostic near the end of his life. Here’s his take on “atheism”.
Darwin once asked his atheist dinner guests “Why do you call yourselves Atheists?”, saying that he preferred the word “Agnostic”. Aveling replied that “Agnostic was but Atheist writ respectable, and Atheist was only Agnostic writ aggressive”. Darwin responded “Why should you be so aggressive?”.
Report comment to moderator
Darwin died in 1882. He obviously had remarkable insight. But come on. 1882? No one constantly brings up Columbus when discussing navigation. No one constantly brings up Madame Curie when discussing radiation. The reason? Because those sciences have moved way beyond what was known in those days.
The same way the science of evolution has moved beyond Darwin. There are dozens of new fields of science where the science of evolution is the foundation. Everybody knows it. It can’t be denied.
Report comment to moderator
My best atheist jokes (B-level material at best):
-Have you ever heard of the atheist insomiac with dyslexia? He used to stay up all night wondering if there was a dog. (In all fairness, though, this would probably work better as an agnostic.)
-God doesn’t believe in atheists.
-Atheists believe two things: There is no God, and I hate him!
Ok, seriously, though. The man does make a few good points.
(As a sidenote to post #3: Personally I also don’t find Anselm’s argument that compelling. I do, however, thing that Pascal’s Wager is a genius common-sense work in game theory, though it goes down easier next to ample other arguments for God’s existence. Pascal’s Wager doesn’t really argue in favor of God’s existence as much as argue that you should seriously consider living for God if you have reasonable doubt either way. It doesn’t establish that doubt on its own, however.)
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I’ll suggest that Dalrymple makes two excellent points:
Point 1. Linking back to one of my awful jokes (joke #2), God actually doesn’t believe in atheists. In the Bible (Romans 1), it claims that humans innately believe in a transcendant God when they see anything bordering on transcendence within nature, and that humans will often choose to “suppress the truth” and even believe in false gods rather than turn to the real one. If Christianity were true (I’m setting up a hypothetical here), then this passage is consistant with provable, observable reality in the following ways:
a. Man’s tendency to believe in a “God” who created everything
b. Man’s tendency to believe in many wacky gods that never claim to have created everything and set up temples, idols, shrines, etc. to them.
c. Man’s tendency to believe lots of wacky things so they don’t have to believe in God (like Time+Chance=ComplexIntelligentLife)
d. The anger and bitterness expressed regularly by many of those that don’t believe in God (if they in fact do “suppress the truth”), which is reflected in bad atheist joke #3.
From Romans 1:
“18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”
Point 2. I give Dalrympl credit for admitting that without transcendence, there is no such thing as objective morality. There can still be a subjective morality, where a society or culture looks down on certain things and praises others, but there can be no final, objective morality without a final objective standard. Christians believe that this standard is God himself. Most atheists I’ve talked to tend to think that reason is the root of their morality, but when it comes down to it, reason cannot condemn muder, rape, etc. and other things we all agree are wrong because if we’re mere animals then we’re simply hardwired by evolutionary-driven instinct to kill and fight each other for our own survival and to mate whenever the urge comes. I’ve met a few honest atheists that realize this (including a few here), but most athesists I’ve met tend to recoil from this even though they cannot prove it wrong.
Final notes:
-Bad joke #1 has no point. I just added it because it was punny, which is almost as good as being funny…. and yet… isn’t.
-Hitchens seems to be the most interesting atheist to read (at least that I can think of right now). He still gets unreasonably mean for a man who claims to believe so strongly in reason, but he can be funny, too. I could picture him having his own sitcom or TV drama, perhaps a bit like “House M.D.” but with philosophers instead of doctors…
Hitchens: “No, we already ruled out Anselm’s argument. There’s only one possible explination… this scientist is lying!”
Dr. Wilson: “Calm down, Hitchens. I think you need to lay off the amphetamines. You could get fired for this!”
Hitchens: “But my brain hurts! I need to think faster! A few pills never hurt anyone. Christianity on the other hand…”
what do you think? Does it make up for my bad atheist jokes earlier? I think I might have a great idea to pitch to the networks!
Report comment to moderator
I also found this interesting:
“We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs, including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution cannot be known to be true.”
He admits that a mind formed by random chemical processes is not a reliable mind, and may have a very limited grasp of what is true and what is reasonable. Could we trust our brains if they were designed by other humans? (See also MS Windows: http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=2275) What if they were designed by monkeys? What if they were designed by the brilliant mind of nature itself (i.e. no mind at all)?
See also the Pentium 4 glich for the danger of a flawed processor:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2082713,00.htm
If our our very brains are unreliable, how do we know if our very sense of right and wrong is right or wrong?
Report comment to moderator
Since I can never be sure of anything I tried to give Random my ten cents worth but the computer doesn’t accept Canadian dimes. (Now worth 11 cents american)
Don’t buy Hitchens or Dawkins, read Hume for free
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4583
or http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfbits/hd.html
or http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialogues_Concerning_Natural_Religion
Report comment to moderator
19 – evolutionary theory has certainly advanced, since darwin’s day. But I don’t see where its philosophical ramifications have changed one whit. Darwin understood them very well – his comments are both historically interesting and still relevant.
Report comment to moderator
Zanzibar, good posts in 20 and 21. Even though “B-level” is a bit generous for your jokes (;)), I laughed at this one: Atheists believe two things: There is no God, and I hate him!.
HRW, excellent resources in #22! Project Gutenberg alone is worth a look! Thanks for linking these.
Report comment to moderator
Good grief, Beckham.
Is there anything you disagree with that isn’t dishonest?
Honestly,
SG
Report comment to moderator
Zanzibar:
I think it should be obvious that trite humor is not worth very much in an intelligent discussion. It has enough substance to pass for tedious pablum, but nothing more than that.
Let’s look at #3, specifically, since it seems to hold so much purchase in the minds of the easily convinced…
Atheists believe two things: There is no God, and I hate him!
The part of the joke that is funny (how can you hate something you do not believe in?) does nothing but reveal the poor understanding of those that find the joke funny.
Firstly, you can hate a fictional character. I think Dolores Umbridge (from Harry Potter Book 5) is one of the most detestable characters in all of fiction; I sincerely hate that woman. She does not exist.
Secondly, it is possible to hate religion (either as a concept or individual religions) without having any opinion at all about the fictional deity those religions center themselves around.
There can still be a subjective morality, where a society or culture looks down on certain things and praises others, but there can be no final, objective morality without a final objective standard.
Is there any final objective standard even with the faulty concept of a transcendent intelligence? If so, what is it? Christians certainly do not seem to be able to tell us; all we get are some waffling about having to believe and then a lot of in-fighting about what the particulars of those beliefs must be.
Should we not judge others or should we?
Should we take an eye for an eye from murderers or shouldn’t we?
Should we practice usury or shouldn’t we?
Should we be able to divorce or shouldn’t we?
Should we be able to use condoms or shouldn’t we?
Should we embark on unnecessary wars or shouldn’t we?
Can Christianity answer these questions to the satisfaction of a majority of humans?
And if there are questions of morality that most humans agree on, are those moral judgments rooted in Christianity?
Reason absolutely can condemn both murder and rape, and far more satisfactorily than the mixed messages of the Bible.
Your logic is beyond absurd. If “mere animals” are “hardwired” “to kill and fight each other” then why do we not see this behavior in the animal kingdom? Why do animals cooperate? Why will species attempt to interbreed?
Serious George:
There is plenty that I disagree with that I would not consider “dishonest”. Do you have an argument that Dalrymple’s arguments are actually honest representations of the books in question? Am I wrong or are you just tired of my talking?
Report comment to moderator
Beauty, love, courage. These transcend the angry soulless existence that atheists struggle with eternally. Religion itself is an explanation for these noble characteristics.
I pity atheists in their quest to convince religious believers. It is tough to argue with someone who feels divine guidance in their life that God doesn’t exist. You can tell me that God is dead and life is meaningless but I feel God’s presence and see meaning in life.
The blind man can say that there is no such thing as color but the sighted man would not believe him.
Report comment to moderator
Adam — Firstly, you can hate a fictional character. I think Dolores Umbridge (from Harry Potter Book 5) is one of the most detestable characters in all of fiction; I sincerely hate that woman. She does not exist.
Roger — I detect a possible equivocation here. Emotions like hate have two components: the subjective feeling of intense dislike, and the objectification of that feeling. I except your word that you hate Dolores Umbridge, but have you attempted to objectify that hatred in a tangible way? Have you written letters to Rowling objecting to the inclusion of Dolores Umbridge in the books? Have you gone to Harry Potter blogs to let fans know of your dislike? I dare say, hating a real person is qualitatively and substantially different than hating a fictional character. The fact that hating a fictional character is possible, doesn’t account for the visceral, acrid, bitter attacks against those who affirm God’s existence by some who don’t.
The “joke” speaks to those atheists who hate God subjectively and objectively. These atheists not only hate God, but they hate the very idea of God. It isn’t enough to let the religious have their joy as they worship and venerate a “fictional character”, these want to stamp out the very idea of God such that no religious expression is allowed at all. These are not satisfied to allow Christians to chat amongst themselves concerning a very personal and intimate encounter with the real God, these atheists attempt to objectify their anger, wrath, resentment, and hatred of God through every possible form of malicious defamation. I have never heard or read such behavior coming from those who hate fictional characters.
Report comment to moderator
Theo Godwyn:
Beauty, love, courage. These transcend the angry soulless existence that atheists struggle with eternally. Religion itself is an explanation for these noble characteristics.
Why haven’t all atheists committed suicide?
Roger:
I detect a possible equivocation here. Emotions like hate have two components: the subjective feeling of intense dislike, and the objectification of that feeling. I except your word that you hate Dolores Umbridge, but have you attempted to objectify that hatred in a tangible way?
How could you know that I hate this fictional character if I never attempted to objectify that hatred?
I dare say, hating a real person is qualitatively and substantially different than hating a fictional character. The fact that hating a fictional character is possible, doesn’t account for the visceral, acrid, bitter attacks against those who affirm God’s existence by some who don’t.
You put your own framework onto these “attacks”, you cannot prove them “visceral, acrid, bitter”, you just put them in that category because it fits your prejudice.
The “joke” speaks to those atheists who hate God subjectively and objectively. These atheists not only hate God, but they hate the very idea of God.
So your evidence that atheists really do hate a god they claim to not believe in is simply to repeat the accusation? Brilliant work.
It isn’t enough to let the religious have their joy as they worship and venerate a “fictional character”, these want to stamp out the very idea of God such that no religious expression is allowed at all.
Oops, we’ve gone hysterical. Who is saying that no religious expression should be allowed at all. You should calm down.
These are not satisfied to allow Christians to chat amongst themselves concerning a very personal and intimate encounter with the real God, these atheists attempt to objectify their anger, wrath, resentment, and hatred of God through every possible form of malicious defamation. I have never heard or read such behavior coming from those who hate fictional characters.
Who are these fictional atheists you are talking about? You obviously hate them.
Report comment to moderator
I love an atheist. I have been married to her for 41 years. (Forty two around Thanksgiving.)
I love another atheist, though in a slightly different way. She has been my daughter for 40 years.
My granddaughter is only three. She has a pretty good vocabulary for a little girl. For example, she told us not long ago that she knows where butterflies come from. They come out of a “raccoon.”
She doesn’t know about God and Jesus and Darwin and such like, yet, though. However, she is a big fan of Curious George.
If I am still around when she get a little older and starts to think about such things, I will love her if she is “brainwashed” into becoming an atheist of if she escapes the family irreligious tradition and becomes a Christian.
However, if she becomes a Christian and rejects her two mommies, I will in turn reject her and write her out of my will.
However, my wife and I are spending our children’s inheritance. Also, I think inherited wealth does tend to ruin children.
Those of you reading this (you know whom you are) who are leaving your wealth to your children, do you realize you are endangering their everlasting souls and they may not get into Heaven, just because of your foolish actions?
Where were we? Oh, yeah, whether atheists become atheists because they evolved that way? If both religious belief and atheism have a genetic component (like alcoholism and depression, for example), what kind of God would let me inherit genes that led me to atheism?
I suppose you will tell me that even if I had bad genes (a “bad seed” so to speak), if I strive, I can overcome it. Rather like people believe homosexuals can overcome homosexual urges by praying a lot.
Report comment to moderator
“Yes, but my hands are tied and my lips are sealed; I am being forced to wager and I am not free; I am being held fast and I am so made that I cannot believe.”
Report comment to moderator
Adam Beckham:
Why haven’t all atheists committed suicide?
Anger does not lead to suicide. Anger poisons the body and soul, shortening your lifespan but except in the case of suicide bombers it rarely leads to suicide.
Without God, we feel empty inside. We feel a void and a loss that we can’t fill. We try to fill it with anything we can find that will distract us but it will always fail. Perhaps we attack God and others out of resentment. We blame God or those who we view as representing Him.
Whether mankind evolved to worship God or was designed to worship God, it is a part of who we are. We see God’s hand in the minor coincidences of life. We see a pattern in our lives and meaning in the daily experiences that we face.
You may deny it. You can lie to yourself. I have been there. I have felt that emptiness. I have tried to rationalize an atheistic viewpoint to reject God. I also know the joy it feels when you recognize God’s hand in all things.
Belief in God is as innate as the beauty of a rainbow or the warmth of a gentle embrace. We were made in God’s image. God is never far distant no matter how hard we try to push Him away.
Report comment to moderator
Theo Godwyn:
Suicide bombers believe very deeply in god, I am interested to see where that line of argument is supposed to go.
Anger does not lead to suicide. Anger poisons the body and soul, shortening your lifespan…
Do you have statistics on this?
Without God, we feel empty inside. We feel a void and a loss that we can’t fill. We try to fill it with anything we can find that will distract us but it will always fail.
Do you have any evidence at all on this? Anything?
You may deny it. You can lie to yourself. I have been there. I have felt that emptiness. I have tried to rationalize an atheistic viewpoint to reject God. I also know the joy it feels when you recognize God’s hand in all things.
This is it? This is what you bring to the argument, a completely unfounded confidence that atheists are miserable?
Report comment to moderator
There certainly are statistics on all of my claims.
I’ll let you do the legwork though since you are claiming I am wrong. Show me a study that shows angry people live as long or longer than people who aren’t angry. Show me a study that says atheists are as happy or happier than non-atheists.
Show me the statistics to back your claims.
Report comment to moderator
Theo:
You cannot simply make a claim and tell someone else to back them up for you.
You are the one arguing that atheists are unhappy and dying younger, back it up.
What intellectual cowardice; to assert something then demand someone else prove it for you. Quite fitting, really.
Report comment to moderator
if both religious belief and atheism have a genetic component (like alcoholism and depression, for example), what kind of God would let me inherit genes that led me to atheism?
I asked that question and became an agnostic.
Report comment to moderator
There’s a fee to become one.
High agnostic: $5,000.
Middle agnostic: Whatever you feel like paying.
Low agnostic (compatible with belief in your favorite myth, but you must exhibit common sense and pay attention to facts in the mundane world): insert 10 cents into your computer.
For $5.00 I will stop recycling my old jokes. This is known as “protection money.” Rather like tithing, except I can’t wield lightning to punish those who don’t pay.
Report comment to moderator
I just inserted a five into my DVD drive and now my computer is making funny noises. Is this part of the conversion experience?
Report comment to moderator
A few days ago, I tried to insert a Canadian quarter
(now worth 26 cents US) in response to an other thread and my harddrive rejected it. Even American toll booths take Canadian change. Is agnosticism more exclusive? If so do I really what to belong?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, dear, I guess you’ve come under a wahfat. We bore you to death by repeating the same jokes.
Report comment to moderator
That was for hrw.
Adam, that’s an agnostic baptism.
Report comment to moderator
Really?
Praise… something! (well, maybe)
Report comment to moderator
Adam,
The literature is quite supportive of my assertion that religious people are happier than non-religious.
It is also quite clear that stress, anger, and sorrow are unhealthy emotional components that can significantly affect someone’s health.
I have presented literature reviews in the past and it has simply been a waste of time. You will reject any studies that I offer. Rather than waste my time, in a fruitless endeavor I will simply summarize my findings. If you dispute them than offer evidence. This is a blog and not a scientific review journal. I have better things to do than conduct a three hour review of the literature to present a finding that you will reject off-hand.
If you reject my conclusions than offer evidence.
Report comment to moderator
#43
It seems possible that believing in a myth may make people happier than trying to confront reality on a daily basis.
Everybody, check your mileage.
Report comment to moderator
Theo:
What literature?
You will reject any studies that I offer.
You have no idea whether or not that is true.
If you have better things to do, why are you even talking to me? You act outraged about this grand waste of your time when no one at all is forcing (or even asking) you to participate.
As far as rejecting your conclusions; that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You asserted that atheists are unhappy relative to believers. I never made a statement either way.
Pure, unblinking intellectual cowardice.
Report comment to moderator
“unblinking intellectual cowardice”
That’s a new oxymoron. I’ll have to add it to my collection.
Report comment to moderator
What wonders are foisted upon the world when it is a sign of great faith to say things that make absolutely no sense; hence seeming oxymorons like “ublinking intellectual cowardice”.
“I know this is absolute nonsense, but it will show my love of god/country/party, so here I go…”
Report comment to moderator
Adam,
“You will reject any studies that I offer. ”
“You have no idea whether or not that is true. ”
My past experience with you and others.
“Pure, unblinking intellectual cowardice.”
You make no effort to check yourself. Pure intellectual laziness.
Report comment to moderator
Theo:
Why would I check sources for your argument?
Report comment to moderator
OK, this is the last time I will play this game.
You don’t want the truth. You can’t handle the truth.
The Science of Happiness
Mary Paquette, PhD, APRN, BC
“More than 1,000 scholarly articles were published in academic journals between 2000 and 2002 on the relationship between religion and mental health (Wallis, 2005). Such studies indicate that religious people are less anxious, less depressed, and less suicidal and are better able to cope with a crisis. Religious faith seems to genuinely lift the spirit, although it is tough to tell whether it is the God part or the community aspect that does the heavy lifting.”
“Greater anger was associated with more depression and poorer health-related quality of life.”
Source: PSYCHOSOMATICS Volume: 48 Issue: 3 Pages: 223-229 Published: JUN 2007
“The related traits of hostility, anger, and aggressiveness have long been suggested as risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD). Our prior review of this literature (Smith, 1992) found both considerable evidence in support of this hypothesis .”
Source: JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY Volume: 72 Issue: 6 Pages: 1217-1270 Published: DEC 2004
Report comment to moderator
What I said in #44.
The thought of becoming a believer because “believers are happier” strikes me as drilling very deeply indeed into the cynicism mines.
Report comment to moderator
Theo:
Let me just highlight part of your quote…
“Religious faith seems to genuinely lift the spirit, although it is tough to tell whether it is the God part or the community aspect that does the heavy lifting.”
And let’s see what it says in the rest of the paragraph you cut in half…
” Diener and Seligman’s research (2002) found strong ties to family and friends produced the highest levels of happiness. That seems to be the most fundamental finding from the science of happiness. “Almost every person feels happier when they’re with other people,” observes Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1991, p. 32), a Hungarian-born psychologist who has spent 25 years examining connections between satisfaction and daily activities. This suggests that helping patients develop close interpersonal ties and social skills would be beneficial to raise the happiness quotient.”
Again, can you prove that “Without God, we feel empty inside.”
It is quite obvious that social involvement relates directly to happiness. We are, after all, social animals. What you asserted is that “without God, we feel empty inside”. All you have established thus far is that we are happier in groups, which is not what is being discussed.
Report comment to moderator
Adam,
I established that religious people are happier than non-religious.
The benefits of religion in health go beyond mere social involvement. Many studies have shown that social clubs do not provide the same health benefits as active participants in religion. Some thoughts as to why this occurs are the differing health practices between religious and non-religious social networks, degrees of social support, psychosocial resources such as self-esteem and self-efficacy that occur with religious involvement, and belief structures such as sense of coherence and sense of belonging.
In own my personal experience, without God, I feel lonely inside and I hear this same sentiment expressed by hundreds of other people.
People who find God express clearly the difference between their feelings before and after. People who depart from God, also reveal clearly their loss of joy.
I can tell from your blogs, you have lost that joy in your life that you once enjoyed. It has been replaced by bitterness, sarcasm, and anger.
You feel vindicated however in that you are now enlightened. Too bad, this enlightenment has left you less happy.
I heard one atheist say on NPR that he didn’t feel the need to force atheism on others because he realized that religious people were genuinely happier than non-religious people. He stated that they were living in a euphoric disneyland of untruth but that they were truly happier that way.
I would argue that since God cannot be proven true or false it could just as easily mean that the atheists are living in a miserable web of lies and only stay there because they are trapped by their own self-conceit and pride.
Report comment to moderator
Theo Godwyn:
No, you did not. You showed that people who attend social religious gatherings are happier, and the evidence you provided states clearly that it is not clear if it is the god belief or the socialization that actually makes them happy.
The one you just provided says that being around family is more important. If you’re trying to prove an argument you should not provide evidence that seems to disprove what you are trying to prove.
What people? Where? In church?
Again, what is your selection group?
Internet Psychology engaged!
I guess if thinking is not one’s skill, personal attack might be! How Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Are you claiming that thinking is not my skill?
I find your tactics amusing more than anything else and am certainly not intimidated by your hostility.
Here is your strategy.
1. Ask for evidence.
2. Reject evidence.
3. Attack persons intelligence.
Did I get that right or am I not at your level?
Report comment to moderator
I did say “if thinking is not your skill”.
I do find your innocent, wounded flower act amusing after accusing me of being a misanthrope.
And what evidence did you provide? You provided a study that showed that socialization and family are important to happiness (and religious grouping can be part of that socialization) then you levied an ignorant personal attack.
Report comment to moderator
There is evidence that private religious behaviors, such as prayer, can be health promoting. These religious benefits do not involve social networks (Benson, 1983; Benson, 1996; Benson, Malhotra, Jacobs, & Hopkins, 1990).
Many studies have shown that religious activities, such as praying, lead to positive physiological changes including a decrease in heart rate, blood pressure and muscle tension, an increase in certain kinds of brain activity, and an increase in immune function (Lazar et al., 2002).
Similarly, clinical intervention trials have found positive effects of private religious observance on health outcomes (Alexander, Langer, Newman, Chandler, & Davies, 1989).
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!