Posted on 07/15/2014 9:37:28 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
For some, “God doesn’t believe in atheists” is just a clever (nor not-so-clever) jab directed against the faithless in our culture. But based on the findings of secular researchers, the statement may not be so far from reality.
That is because multidisciplinary research is increasingly backing the idea that human beings are hard-wired to believe in God, according to Science 2.0 writer Nury Vittachi in an article titled, “Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke.”
“[A]theism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” Vittachi cites avowed atheist Graham Lawton as writing in 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.”
Even atheists hold to several tacitly religious concepts, including the existence of an immortal soul, according to Lawton. The article also cites another atheist researcher who demonstrated that all people engage in internal monologue, regardless of whether the person to whom their thoughts are directed is actually present.
Equally demonstrable is the intrinsic human tendency to believe in divine justice. Vittachi describes both religious and non-religious persons as possessing the innate sense that “If I commit a sin, it is not an isolated event but will have appropriate repercussions.” This sense of cosmic justice is credited for the popular belief in “karma.”
This idea, he writes, is played out on a number of differently levels—including narrative literature, where even atheist authors invariably write stories that “exist to establish that there exists a mechanism or a person—cosmic destiny, karma, God, fate, Mother Nature—to make sure the right thing happens to the right person.”
Even the staunchest nontheists are not exempted from such habits, according to the writer. “If a loved one dies, even many anti-religious people usually feel a need for a farewell ritual, complete with readings from old books and intoned declarations that are not unlike prayers,” Vittachi writes. “In war situations, commanders frequently comment that atheist soldiers pray far more than they think they do.”
According to the writer, atheists tend to exhibit the same sociological, psychological dependence on the intangible as religious folk do, even if the former reject the existence of anything supernatural. “Statistics show that the majority of people who stop being part of organized religious groups don’t become committed atheists, but retain a mental model in which ‘The Universe’ somehow has a purpose for humanity,” says Vittachi.
While Vittachi attempts to connect all these theistic proclivities to an evolutionary source, missing one key bit of evidence: it is the biblical Christian worldview, not the secular humanist worldview, which accurately predicts a human bent towards belief in God.
In Romans 1:18-23, the apostle Paul writes that “what can be known about God is plain to them”—that is, all men—and that “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” He then goes so far as to state that all such people “knew God” (v. 21). The implication, thus, is that man innately assumes the existence of his Creator until he convinces himself to think otherwise.
This biblical teaching is not unique to Paul. Proverbs 9:10 says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding,” echoing the same sentiment of other Old Testament passages. In essence, one cannot truly possess wisdom and knowledge if one denies the essential fact of existence: that the transcendent God is the ultimate measure of reality.
While Vittachi may be a few steps short of walking down the aisle at the next altar call, the findings he describes lead to one critical conclusion: perhaps it is atheists, not God, who truly do not exist.
While we’re still breathing, there’s always hope.
I care about them plenty. Though let’s be honest, the “moral imperative” is still utilitarian, you want to be judged by God a good person and get to go to heaven when you die. I want to be judged by myself a good person so I can look myself in the mirror every morning when I shave.
I’m in a society, and my life works better when it works better.
Everybody is in a position to contribute to the full extent of their ability. That’s the nature of the phrase. Now what that full extent is varies from person to person but we all can do something.
Malthus was an idiot.
"According to the writer, atheists tend to exhibit the same sociological, psychological dependence on the intangible as religious folk do, even if the former reject the existence of anything supernatural."
-----
Though let’s be honest, the “moral imperative” is still utilitarian, you want to be judged by God a good person and get to go to heaven when you die.
That's not the position of the Bible-believing Christian. We believe that we've already been judged by God to be anything but a good person, and that no matter how good we might think we are, that is not nearly enough to "get to go to heaven."
That makes much more sense than his argument.
On that we certainly agree.
However, I hope you will forgive me for pointing out that his premises look an awfully lot like those you have posited.
He just carried them to their logical conclusions.
We can?
Do so.
Tell us all step by step how they came to be starting from the big bang.
Demonstrate your hypothesis.
Oh, I think they understand about being judged by [a] god - but in their case, THEY are god, and set their standards according to the way they want to behave.
Atheists DO do “good” things, but only to justify themselves in their own eyes to give substance to their belief that “I’m a good person”.
Ah, the “were you there” argument...
Only One was there, and He told us how He did it.
Caring isn’t super natural. Caring is a chemical brain reaction that can be tracked and triggered.
His premise looks nothing like what I have posited. He came from a stupid position that reality was a zero sum game, that at some point there would be too many people and then you have to decide who is contributing enough. I come from the historically proven position that reality is NOT a zero sum game, that more people contributing fully can and do create and free up more resources and there is simply no such thing as too many people.
He started from incorrect and historically dis-proven assumptions and carried them to an incorrect logical conclusion. Interestingly his incorrect assumption bear a striking resemblance to the incorrect assumptions of Marx which lead him to communism. Zero sum basis is just plain bad thinking.
Oh look, demanding an experiment for something you know full well is outside of experimental scope. I’ll return the demand, demonstrate the Biblical hypothesis, go ahead, show me how you make a universe in 7 days.
Meanwhile, out here in the land of science we’ve got a pretty good path on how matter coalesced, made planets and stars, life came from somewhere, that one’s still a little rough but we’re a young brain on a young planet deciphering an old and large universe, things evolved, here we are. If you were actually interested in the subject, which we both know you are not, there’s a whole lotta books you can read.
Signed, Daniel Dennett.
The fact that Dennett espouses this view specifically makes me dismiss it out of hand.
Too bad for you. I don’t dismiss things out of hand. Knowledge can come from anywhere, I study and assess.
You just proved my point. He thought he got to decide based on "who is contributing enough," and you have said that you think you get to recognize rights based on your utilitarian judgment that, and I quote: "equal rights maximizes your society’s output, because you have more people in a position to contribute to the full extent of their ability."
Same premise: your opinion about what is best for you, and/or for "society."
Without God, and the in-born morality that all of us recognize in our conscience, in the equation, all that is left is your subjective, impetuous opinion. Or the opinion of Malthus. or Marx. Or whomever.
If it ain't God-centered, it will be self-centered. And, as all human history has shown, disastrous in the end.
No VASTLY different premises, which I have explained to you, multiple times. Sorry but at this point you are simply being willfully ignorant to erect strawmen. Thus there’s no reason to continue. Bye.
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars...Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle...Morality is a necessary spring of popular government...Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation?
— George Washington, Farewell Address
“We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed.”
— President Calvin Coolidge, Speech given in Philadelphia, PA, July 4, 1926, on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence
Even a smart man is wrong. Anybody that thinks you can’t be moral without religion is frankly frightening. What these people are basically saying is that were they to ever lose the faith they would become serial killers. If you can’t figure out how to be moral without God you are actually evil even with God.
The very fact you have to keep coming back to them proves the article to be correct.
"According to the writer, atheists tend to exhibit the same sociological, psychological dependence on the intangible as religious folk do, even if the former reject the existence of anything supernatural."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.