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.
Actually, the article says the exact opposite, that even those who claim not to believe in God act in the real world as if He does exist.
Again, you're proving it.
Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools..."
If it is outside the realm of observation, then by definition it is within the realm of philosophy and conjecture, not the realm of science.
It doesn’t matter how many idiots try to confuse the two.
Thank you for confirming that you can not tell the difference between the two.
Since you have already proven on this thread that you are personally dishonest and have no intention of abiding by agreements you make, that makes you zero for.two.
You’ve now resorted to full on lies. Really pathetic, but funny, in a pathetic way. Bye.
It’s a lie that atheists can and do act morally?
It’s not outside the realm of observation. We’ve got all kinds of observations about how planets and sun and galaxies come to be. We’ve got all kinds of observations on how life evolves and changes.
I’m not dishonest at all. And saying I am is lying on your part. Another guy “defending” Christianity with lies.
I’m familiar with the word and its definitions.
“principles of behaviour in accordance with standards of right and wrong”
Here, try Webster’s 1828’s version:
“According to the rules of the divine law. An action is not in strictness morally good, which does not proceed from good motives, or a principle of love and obedience to the divine law and to the lawgiver. Charity bestowed to gratify pride, or justice done by compulsion, cannot be morally good in the sight of God.”
If you’re familiar then you understand that there’s nothing about religion or God in the definition of morality. We, as intelligent being, can figure it out on our own. We can decide what’s right and wrong as a society, coming up with our own Social Contracts without religion. So sure, atheists can behave morally, which does not mean they aren’t atheists.
Gotta link? Doesn’t really matter though, we’ve changed. We’ve figured out we can figure out right and wrong without the threat of hell.
Basic right and wrong never changes.
Exactly. With or without a concept of God basic right and wrong don’t change. You just explained exactly why atheists can be atheists and moral.
Absolutely it is appropriate to point out that when you registered to post on this site you agreed to abide by certain standards.
Revisit the Free Republic front page.
It says outright that this is a pro God site.
You are not abiding by the agreement you made when you registered here. The word for that is liar.
Whine all you want about being called on it, but you are what you are.
Again, your mere acceptance that there is right and wrong is, whether you will admit it or not, an acceptance of a "religious" premise. Because your precious science cannot prove the existence of right and wrong. It cannot establish the moral basis of anything, because that basis is intangible.
You're simply accepting morality on faith. Because deep down, you know what is right, and what is wrong. You were born with that intrinsic understanding, which we call conscience.
Nope. I’m not breaking any rules. FR is a pro-God site. It does not say it is restricted only to pro-God people. I am most certainly abiding by the agreement. Nothing in that agreement says you can’t be an atheist. It says you can’t be for government enforced atheism, which I’m not, I think all the whining about nativity scenes and such is silly. I’m not for government enforced much really, it’s all part of that pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-limited government stuff further down in that sentence.
So nope. No lies from me.
Sorry but it isn’t. Right and wrong can and do exist without religion. Most of our rules of right and wrong are followed by every other pack animal on the planet, they are necessary rules for creatures that work in groups, they keep the group functional. Now if animals that don’t even have language skill, much less a concept of God, can figure them out...
I’m not accepting morality on faith. I understand it’s purpose to strengthen the group.
You really should spend less time trying to tell other people what they think. Not only is it rude, you’re wrong every single time.
“No one laughs at God in a hospital
No one laughs at God in a war
No one’s laughing at God
When they’re starving or freezing or so very poor
No one laughs at God
When the doctor calls after some routine tests
No one’s laughing at God
When it’s gotten real late
And their kid’s not back from the party yet
No one laughs at God
When their airplane start to uncontrollably shake
No one’s laughing at God
When they see the one they love, hand in hand with someone else
And they hope that they’re mistaken
No one laughs at God
When the cops knock on their door
And they say we got some bad news, sir
No one’s laughing at God
When there’s a famine or fire or flood
But God can be funny
At a cocktail party when listening to a good God-themed joke, or
Or when the crazies say He hates us
And they get so red in the head you think they’re ‘bout to choke
God can be funny,
When told he’ll give you money if you just pray the right way
And when presented like a genie who does magic like Houdini
Or grants wishes like Jiminy Cricket and Santa Claus
God can be so hilarious
Ha ha
Ha ha
snip
From the very talented
Regina Spektor - “Laughing With” [Official Music Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxRXP3w-sQ&feature=kp
I’m not telling you what you think. You’re telling us what you think. I’m simply commenting on your comments in the context of the article. That’s generally what we do at FR, right?
Frankly, you couldn’t have done a better job of proving the author to be correct. Thanks.
This argument reminds me of Dostoevsky’s position on religion. It’s not clear whether he actually believed in God (he did not as a young man) but later in life came to the conclusion that religious belief was necessary for order because of people’s capacity to rationalize just about any sort of behavior on their own: ‘without God everything is permissible’. It’s a famous line.
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.