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.
Not at all, there’s nothing about a soul, of mystical rewards in what I said. It’s simple understandable science. Barring birth defects and genetic oddities people come out with a range of highly predictable physical and mental attributes. AKA “equal”. Among those attributes are the ability (need actually, because physically we’re a pretty pathetic species and our survival relies heavily and clustering) to organize ourselves. And part of that ability to organize is the ability to see that the current organization sucks, time to try again. Don’t need any kind of God for that, every social animal on the planet has some form of ability to change how they’re organized.
Nope. Stands up fine. Because it’s built on self evident truths, and they remain self evident without mysticism. We can see that humans (and other animals) seek happiness and security. We can see that they form governments. We can see that they overthrow those governments when the government fails them. All self evident without any concept of God.
Oh, what a happy accident.
The writers of the Declaration were not talking about equality of physical and mental attributes. They were asserting as self-evident truth equality of God-given, and therefore unalienable, rights.
Don’t you just love it when others tell you they know what you believe better than you do?
If the only counter argument you have is an insult you don’t actually have a counter argument. You really just admitted you’re wrong, that the facts and logic don’t support you.
Does this offend your sense of justice?
Why do you care?
Where did you acquire that sense?
From the article:
"...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."
Your argument has no basis except self reference.
I’m surprised that someone who inherently claims intellectual superiority can’t see the baselessness of a self-referencing argument.
That’s pretty much the one thing they do that bugs me. Don’t really care if people have religion, just don’t try to tell me what I think. I don’t say “well you’re Christian therefore...”, it would be rude even though I spent some time on that side of the fence and have a pretty good grip on it.
Not at all. I’ve pointed the fact that we can CHANGE how the brain works. That’s not self referential, that’s proof of concept. If I say “well if things work the way I think when I do X and Y then Z will happen” and I do X and Y and sure enough there goes Z that’s proof.
I never claimed intellectual superiority. So far all your arguments against me are based in serious misreads and misunderstanding of basic logic and language. Now we know why you went for the insult.
They were religious, so their writing was bent that way. But the concept holds just fine without religion. As I pointed out, there is self evident SCIENCE of our basic equality, and our basic actions and reactions.
Science can describe similarities of physical qualities between human beings. But it cannot explain the existence of human beings, or any moral basis for equality of rights between those human beings.
We can explain the existence of humans just fine. And we don’t need a moral basis for equality of rights, we have a practical basis. Equal rights maximizes your society’s output, because you have more people in a position to contribute to the full extent of their ability. The more of your society that gets deliberately held back the less of your society that is producing and inventing and just generally supporting it. There was a great article about a decade ago talking about how Islamic treatment of women holds their society back, by telling over half their society no when it comes to pretty much everything they’ve turned half their society into deadweight, they have specifically outlawed Madame Curie and Lady Ada.
Equal rights is just plain good business.
We all worship something. For many it is the god in their belly.
So, you don’t really care about the rights of others, as any sort of moral imperative, but only because you believe it will serve your own utilitarian self-interest.
I mean, why else would you care about “society”?
How about the rights of those who aren’t “in a position to contribute to the full extent of their ability”?
How about the rights of those who cannot contribute anything at all?
Are they disposable?
Why not?
For most, I think.
“In the last days men will be lovers of themselves...”
What if it becomes "bad business," ie, like Malthus, you think we have too many people, which is therefore a detriment to what you call "society"?
This is very interesting and if I may say is something I’ve been saying for a while. Every man is hard wired for God because he is created by God to love and serve him.
In this way it can be said that the human heart is an objective reality that is either suppressed or reduced into some form or degree of atheism or is acknowledged and embraced in its true unfettered nature. Thus it’s not the heart that is subjective but rather our approach and response to its needs.
Even atheists can now apparently see this. At least some of them. Maybe there’s hope yet.
Maybe but that is not biblical.
Luke 12
From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
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.