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

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.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.


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

Well, I don't know if there is a God or not, but I do know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. And while our body eventually falls to the ground lifeless, the energy within us, our consciousness I.e. our soul, by our understanding of physics, is transferred elsewhere. Whether or not it is religious in nature is, for all intents and purposes, unknown at this time. But I suspect that advancements in math and science will eventually prove or disprove the notion of an actual God as envisioned by billions of people.

Jango said:

But I suspect that advancements in math and science will eventually prove or disprove the notion of an actual God as envisioned by billions of people.

Click to expand...

How exactly would that happen?

I saw a similar thread posted by Tosca, and both are relying quite heavily on certain interpretations of the studies. Specifically, they are linking a 'metaphysical outlook' to 'theism'.

Every single one of us believes thing we cannot prove - Dawkins included (in fact, I have a book on the topic). More complex concepts aside, ultimately ideas such as free will (vs determinism) and an external universe (vs solipsism) (or vs omphalos) are unprovable. We come up with metaphysical ideas to explain the things for which there is not yet evidence - this is not too suprising.

However, it's a large jump from that to theism - the specific beleif in an external (normally personified, if unknowable) God. While theism can be described as metaphysical, that doesn't mean that 'having metaphysical beleifs' means 'theistic'.

iangb said:

I saw a similar thread posted by Tosca, and both are relying quite heavily on certain interpretations of the studies. Specifically, they are linking a 'metaphysical outlook' to 'theism'.

Every single one of us believes thing we cannot prove - Dawkins included (in fact, I have a book on the topic). More complex concepts aside, ultimately ideas such as free will (vs determinism) and an external universe (vs solipsism) (or vs omphalos) are unprovable. We come up with metaphysical ideas to explain the things for which there is not yet evidence - this is not too suprising.

However, it's a large jump from that to theism - the specific beleif in an external (normally personified, if unknowable) God. While theism can be described as metaphysical, that doesn't mean that 'having metaphysical beleifs' means 'theistic'.

Click to expand...

One of the studies cited by the author was one survey conducted of people[not atheists] in the UK.

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/files/files/Reports/Spirit of Things - Digital (update).pdf

Theos is a religion and society think tank with a broad Christian basis. It was launched in
November 2006 with the support of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
Cormac Murphy O’Connor, then Archbishop of Westminster. Our objective is help make
the debates about religion in public life more informed and more gracious. We conduct
research, publish essays and reports and hold public lectures and debates on the role
of religion in general and Christianity specifically in public life.

1750Texan said:

One of the studies cited by the author was one survey conducted of people[not atheists] in the UK.

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/files/files/Reports/Spirit of Things - Digital (update).pdf

Theos is a religion and society think tank with a broad Christian basis. It was launched in
November 2006 with the support of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
Cormac Murphy O’Connor, then Archbishop of Westminster. Our objective is help make
the debates about religion in public life more informed and more gracious. We conduct
research, publish essays and reports and hold public lectures and debates on the role
of religion in general and Christianity specifically in public life.

Click to expand...

So...?

iangb said:

I saw a similar thread posted by Tosca, and both are relying quite heavily on certain interpretations of the studies. Specifically, they are linking a 'metaphysical outlook' to 'theism'.

Every single one of us believes thing we cannot prove - Dawkins included (in fact, I have a book on the topic). More complex concepts aside, ultimately ideas such as free will (vs determinism) and an external universe (vs solipsism) (or vs omphalos) are unprovable. We come up with metaphysical ideas to explain the things for which there is not yet evidence - this is not too suprising.

However, it's a large jump from that to theism - the specific beleif in an external (normally personified, if unknowable) God. While theism can be described as metaphysical, that doesn't mean that 'having metaphysical beleifs' means 'theistic'.

Click to expand...

I think you're reading more inro this than was there. When the study says that human beings are hardwired to seek patterns it tells me that even atheists aren't immune.

I'm not sure how the statistics he uses support the conclusion he's (or the people he is quoting are) trying to make.

it's just me said:

I think you're reading more inro this than was there. When the study says that human beings are hardwired to seek patterns it tells me that even atheists aren't immune.

Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't mean that God exists, or that atheists don't. It just means that different people have different ways of interpreting the information that they perceive. An atheist is probably going to chalk it up to random, but predictable numerical odds. A theist may think of it as something which was "meant to be". Either one may very well be right.

it's just me said:

I think you're reading more inro this than was there. When the study says that human beings are hardwired to seek patterns it tells me that even atheists aren't immune.

Click to expand...

An atheist with metaphysical beleifs is still an atheist. The OP was "atheists might not exist" - that's what this response is to.

A couple of problems here...

The link from the OP points to an article talking about one or more "studies" but does not name any of them, nor the process used to get to the conclusions in any of them. Almost as if the article is an anecdotal written blog based on a thought exercise that ends at the point of thesis without a process. It then becomes suspect that everyone is wired in such a way that atheism might not exist. The irony is the thought process the article uses is not all that far removed from the thought process that atheism uses to suggest God does not exist.

What does clearly exist is atheism is just the flip side of theism, both are schools of thought based on a system of belief one way or the other. One place the article seems close to being right, and probably by accident, is both have no real methodology to prove they are right. What also clearly exists is our thought based mechanism to suggest one or the other is right anyway.

The joke here, if there is one, is humanity for as far back as we can determine looked up at the sky and suggested explanation for things we could not otherwise more logically understand. At each step of evolution eventually those systems of belief were replaced with other suggestions for systems of belief showing that theism has been through just as much evolution, if not more, than atheism. Another irony. That does not confirm that the article is right but really confirms that we seem to inherently by majority want to find systems of belief no matter if that is some form of theism or some form of atheism. It is not that atheism does not exist, it is that all forms of belief systems are designed based upon what we cannot prove to exist (or be right.) We cannot prove God exists anymore than we can prove God does not exist. There are only few of us who have given up on systems of belief and consider the exercise futile at best, aka agnosticism.

lizzie said:

Well, that doesn't mean that God exists...

Click to expand...

I don't think the article says that.

...or that atheists don't.

Click to expand...

I think what the article was saying was that atheists still believe something, regardless of what they tell you. I have always thought that atheism and "hostile to religion" are two different things.

it's just me said:

I don't think the article says that.



I think what the article was saying was that atheists still believe something, regardless of what they tell you. I have always thought that atheism and "hostile to religion" are two different things.

Click to expand...

Yes, they believe it's random numerical odds. That was my point. It isn't a belief in the way that theists view the issue. It's the belief that certain odds do indeed exist.

iangb said:

An atheist with metaphysical beleifs is still an atheist. The OP was "atheists might not exist" - that's what this response is to.

Click to expand...

Well, I was a little confused by that one, too, but I also think that some people who self-identify as "atheist" protesteth too much.

it's just me said:

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.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.


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

Click to expand...

That is why atheists get so excited about the thing. They truly and deeply believe.

it's just me said:

I don't think the article says that.



I think what the article was saying was that atheists still believe something, regardless of what they tell you. I have always thought that atheism and "hostile to religion" are two different things.

Click to expand...

You're right, atheists do believe in something.

joG said:

That is why atheists get so excited about the thing. They truly and deeply believe.

Click to expand...

Truly and deeply believe that religion has a powerful effect on politics, etc. there, fixed that for you. One can hardly read the news without hearing about how some religious group wants to effect public policy or avoid a duly enacted law for religious reasons.

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

29A said:

Truly and deeply believe that religion has a powerful effect on politics, etc. there, fixed that for you. One can hardly read the news without hearing about how some religious group wants to effect public policy or avoid a duly enacted law for religious reasons.

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Click to expand...

It is curios, because private individuals and groups have a constitutional right to argue for any policy they want. It is the government that is not allowed to curtail this.

Certainly some people that claim to be atheist yet seem extremely angry with religion are likely really angry with God.

I can understand atheists being a bit irritated by various things. But generally I would think an atheist wouldn't care. I don't really care what Muslims do.

joG said:

It is curios, because private individuals and groups have a constitutional right to argue for any policy they want. It is the government that is not allowed to curtail this.

Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:

Certainly some people that claim to be atheist yet seem extremely angry with religion are likely really angry with God.

I can understand atheists being a bit irritated by various things. But generally I would think an atheist wouldn't care. I don't really care what Muslims do.

Click to expand...

It's just me seems to think that every single atheist is a militant asshole bent on the destruction of religion.

Most atheists are just regular people who don't believe in God and although may have a distaste of religion
(some not all), don't really act up on it and just stay quiet.

joG said:

It is curios, because private individuals and groups have a constitutional right to argue for any policy they want. It is the government that is not allowed to curtail this.

Click to expand...

Far be it from me to deny them the right to argue for policy, but policy based on religion is simply the legislation of morals. How else does one get things like California's Prop 8 or any of the other states which passed anti-homosexual amendments?

It is also when a corporation is allowed, for religious reasons, to disregard a law, deny contraceptive methods by claiming they're abortifacients, yet that corporation is not not required to present supporting evidence, or when an individual refuses to testify for religious reasons, and the court recognizes that right, that some of us get disturbed.

Luftwaffe said:

It's just me seems to think that every single atheist is a militant asshole bent on the destruction of religion.

Click to expand...

Persecution complex. He attacks everybody that doesn't affirm his beliefs. It's because he doesn't really believe it.

Most atheists are just regular people who don't believe in God and although may have a distaste of religion
(some not all), don't really act up on it and just stay quiet.

Click to expand...

Most of my friends that are atheist are as you described.

Some people have very weak faith and in order to build it up they have to blame others for its weakness. They do this by attacking people that don't agree with them.

CLAX1911 said:

Certainly some people that claim to be atheist yet seem extremely angry with religion are likely really angry with God.

Click to expand...

No doubt, there are some of those.

I can understand atheists being a bit irritated by various things. But generally I would think an atheist wouldn't care. I don't really care what Muslims do.

Click to expand...

I care when it affects me.

As far as Muslims/Islam goes, there is of course no recognized hierarchical head, one must go by what the majority does.

Leading up to 2008, the OIC led the charge on UNHRC Resolution 7/19, Combating the defamation of religions. The resolution was adopted. It is dangerous development, and contrary to the principle of free speech, recognized not only in the USA's First Amendment, but in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf

29A said:

Far be it from me to deny them the right to argue for policy, but policy based on religion is simply the legislation of morals. How else does one get things like California's Prop 8 or any of the other states which passed anti-homosexual amendments?

It is also when a corporation is allowed, for religious reasons, to disregard a law, deny contraceptive methods by claiming they're abortifacients, yet that corporation is not not required to present supporting evidence, or when an individual refuses to testify for religious reasons, and the court recognizes that right, that some of us get disturbed.

Click to expand...

I can see that you are disturbed. But that does not give government the right to interfere with the reasons for which a citizen strives politically. Why should that citizen not want laws that he considers ethical? That is what you are doing.