Posted on 03/28/2025 12:38:37 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
New research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that atheists in some of the world's most secular countries show an intuitive preference for religious belief over atheism.
The study, by academics at Brunel University of London, Royal Holloway, University of London, and other institutions, was conducted across eight countries with low levels of religion, Canada, China, Czechia, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the U.K., and Vietnam. It provides compelling cross-cultural experimental evidence that pro-religious intuitions happen even in societies that have become largely secular.
Using a simple task based on the "Knobe effect," the researchers examined how people infer intentionality in circumstances where a person's actions knowingly caused individuals to either become religious believers or atheists.
The Knobe effect is a well-established psychological phenomenon demonstrating that people are more likely to attribute intentionality to an action with harmful (versus helpful) consequences.
Across all countries, participants were more likely to judge that an action knowingly causing a shift toward atheism was intentional, suggesting people intuitively see religious belief as preferable.
Notably, even self-identified atheists exhibited this.
Dr. Will Gervais, from Brunel University of London, who led the study, said, "Even in societies where explicit religious belief has rapidly declined, the idea that belief, in itself is good, appears to persist at an intuitive level.
"Belief might be on the decline in many places, but belief in the goodness of belief lives on."
Professor Ryan McKay from the Department of Psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London, who contributed to the study, added, "This research suggests that the legacy of religious influence endures in ways we might not expect.
"Even in highly secular environments, people—including nonbelievers—seem to harbor a preference for belief over atheism."
The study offers new insights into the evolving landscape of religious and secular belief, challenging the assumption that cultural shifts away from religion necessarily erase pro-religious intuitions.
They all want the trappings of religion but none of the actual commitment imo.
I go the other way. The more a candidate talks about his religious beliefs, the less likely I am to vote for him. I want him to talk about his political positions and keep his religious positions to himself. I’ve voted for a Democrat in MA when we had one religious extremist on the Republican side and I NEVER, otherwise, vote for a Democrat. Religion is everyone’s personal business. I expect it to influence political positions but I’ll vote on the political positions alone.
IMO Christianity is,by far,the single most effective “civilizing” influence ever seen since we first began to walk upright.
I read that Jesse Jackson once said that “I’d rather *watch* a sermon than listen to one”. A very astute comment IMO.
ALWAYS!
Atheists know better, but they have some sort personal anger that prevents them from accepting any kind of faith.
They’re lost.
Even atheists don’t want to live in a Godless world.
What they really know intuitively is how evil that world would be.
Putin knows this, which is why he pretends to be religious and supports the church.
He knows it’s Russia’s only chance to improve.population and otherwise.
Putin knows this, which is why he pretends to be religious and supports the church.
Even Stalin brought back the Church during WWII, to strengthen Russian Nationalist feelings.
In that case they can just join the Universalist Unitarian Church. Its church for atheists
Ask an atheist if given the choice of an all atheist society or an all Christian society, which they would choose.
Dawkins admitted the same.
No.
He compared Christian to Islamic societies.
Deep down, everyone knows there is a God. God puts it in their heart. It’s up to them to find him.
I thought he said he’d rather live in a Christian society.
Will have to find the clip.
I know Jesse. He took over our apartment in Chicago Theological Seminary (not in it ourselves, but they had some empty apartments). We had a 2 bed room with no kids and he had a 1 bedroom with at least 2 kids, maybe 3. He used to post Operation Breadbasket signs in the laundry room and I’d write nasty notes on them. We watched the signs going up on the cafeteria door letting everyone know where the Selma marchers had gotten to and that they were safe.
I liked Jesse personally but he was one of my early shocks. I really believed in everyone’s truths but hadn’t encountered anyone before whose truth stepped on mine. He believed that our society was so rich that anyone who chose not to work should be supported by those who did work. I didn’t believe that and it was eye-opening. We used to nod at each other in restaurants for years.
Later, a friend who lived in my mother’s apartment building told me he had a mistress in that building she used to see him visit. A shame.
Agreed. I usually vote for neither when the Republican is vaguely annoying. Religious zealots go to the bottom of my list, though.
We’ve lived in MA for over 50 years in a tiny Republican town in the sticks. Like something out of a storybook with a town square surrounded by churches and a creche in the bandshell at Christmas. The same hardware store with the daughter raised in a crib in the store and her nephew now mowing our lawn. MA isn’t all crazy.
Which is absurd and sheer ignorance. Like as every choice you make is based upon what you truly belief, at least at the moment, all government laws historically flowed from religion, not atheism, which lacks any substantive moral standard on morality (which "do unto others.." actually requires to be sensible)
A politician who supports something that is morally contrary to his beliefs actually does not believe what he/she professes.
But if you want to exclude candidates that did not keep their religious positions to himself, then you should move to a socialist or communist country, rather than having to reject the Founders of American government, none of whom were atheists, and many were quite clear about their faith-basis:
Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, New York, 3 October 1789 — By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation:
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html) Washington's Farewell Addre
Washington's Farewell Address, 1797 — Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. (Farewell Address, 1797; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp)Congressional Thanksgiving Proclamation
, 1782 — It being the indispensable duty of all nations, not only to offer up their supplications to Almighty God, the giver of all good, for His gracious assistance in a time of distress, but also in a solemn and public manner, to give Him praise for His goodness in general, and especially for great and signal interpositions of His Providence in their behalf;
John Adams (1735—July 4, 1826. Second President and one of the Founding Fathers. Assisted Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence) — "No simple form of government can possible secure men against the violence of power...Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." (An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, August 29, 1763)
• ...we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (From a letter Adams wrote on 11 October 1798 to the officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, of the Massachusetts Militia).ion of the Militia of Massachusetts,” October 11, 1798)John Quincy Adams
(1767—1848: Sixth President of the United States and one of the Founding Fathers. Proficient in five languages before he was 18) — In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. (John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6) Much moreAnd this testimony:
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859. French political thinker and historian; best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) — In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...
The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...
Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest.
They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free." (Democracy in America, [New York: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1851), pp. 331, 332, 335, 336-7, 337; https://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm)
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.