Religion is irrational, but so is atheism

[nebula]

Religion is irrational, but so is atheism

* 28 March 2011 by Jonathan Lanman

* Magazine issue 2805.

Why are some people religious and others atheists? Do we really know what we mean by atheism? Here is a very paradoxical clue

IN THIS space a year ago, Lois Lee and Stephen Bullivant called for a science of "non-religion". They provided evidence against the idea that more education leads to less religious belief, which they call the "Enlightenment assumption", and argued that we know little about why we have the beliefs we do (6 March 2010, p 26).

I agree. The origins of our beliefs are more mysterious than the Enlightenment assumption holds. Besides specific studies of education and religiosity, we also have a wealth of evidence showing the impact of unconscious biases on our thinking, which demonstrate the human mind is less rational than many of us would wish. The implication is that explaining religion or atheism is less a matter of explaining what goes wrong in otherwise rational minds and more a matter of explaining how different environments affect universal cognitive mechanisms.

<snip>

I call the lack of belief in the existence of supernatural agents "non-theism" and the moral opposition to religious beliefs and values "strong atheism".

<snip>

I believe the distributions we see in levels of non-theism and strong atheism can be explained by the effects of threatening stimuli. Let's take non-theism first. We have compelling evidence from Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart in Sacred and Secular that nations with high existential security, that is the perception that one's life, well-being and society are secure, exhibit less religious belief and behaviour. But we also have good reasons to doubt the common explanation of this pattern, that religion provides comfort and becomes more convincing in trying times.

Anthropologically, societies in existentially insecure environments actually believe in very non-comforting supernatural agents. In contrast, the most comforting religious ideas, such as New Age spirituality or hell-less Christianity, flourish in the affluent west. Psychologically, we have little to no evidence that our minds will believe in something just because it would be comforting to do so.

So how do we explain the link between existential security and non-theism? Rather than a "comfort" theory, evidence supports a "threat and action" theory. We have an abundance of evidence from psychology and anthropology that feeling under threat increases commitment to in-group ideologies, whether they are religious ideologies or not.

<snip>

Work by Joseph Henrich from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, myself, and others suggests that humans believe the statements of others to the extent that they back those statements with actions. That is, rather than believing everything authority figures say, we believe to the extent that they "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk". The implication is that if parents and others believe in supernatural agents but do not show these beliefs through attendance, self-sacrifice, rule obedience and/or emotional displays, they will find their children sceptical of these beliefs and their society less theistic.

<snip>

But what of strong atheism? Counter-intuitively, while I think that a lack of social and economic threat produces non-theism, I believe that higher levels of threat to a particular vision of society help produce strong atheism. Strong atheism is not the absence of an in-group ideology but the defence of one: modern secularism.

<snip>

My account is based on both qualitative and quantitative evidence, but it requires further research. An overall point can be made, however. Our beliefs, behaviours and moral sentiments are not simply the result of dispassionate reason. As psychologists and anthropologists have argued for some time, to understand them involves considering something we might call "human nature" as well as the particular socio-cultural contexts in which people live. This is as true for explaining atheism as it is for religion.

Full article here

[Fez]

I even suspect that hard-core Christians would rather live in an Islamic ruled world than in a completely

secular society: they never attack openly Islam but have no problem to attack the evils of a secular world.

Go look up some posts here on Islam, they might change your perspective

As to Islam versus a completely secular society? Both are not of God, and as such there is no choice to be made in favor of either...

[nebula]

I even suspect that hard-core Christians would rather live in an Islamic ruled world than in a completely

secular society: they never attack openly Islam but have no problem to attack the evils of a secular world.

Let's see, in the Islamic ruled world (Sudan, Iran, etc.), Christians are raped, burned alive, limbs cut off, beheaded,....

In the completely secular society (USSR, China), Christians were thrown in jail.

Hmmm.....

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I even suspect that hard-core Christians would rather live in an Islamic ruled world than in a completely

secular society: they never attack openly Islam but have no problem to attack the evils of a secular world.

Let's see, in the Islamic ruled world (Sudan, Iran, etc.), Christians are raped, burned alive, limbs cut off, beheaded,....

In the completely secular society (USSR, China), Christians were thrown in jail.

Hmmm.....

They're often murdered in secular society as well, and the French Revolution wasn't a good spot for a Christian either.

Moral relativity can slide in any direction, in time.

[Fez]

Mat 5:10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.

Mat 5:12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

nuff said.....

[Guest]

I even suspect that hard-core Christians would rather live in an Islamic ruled world than in a completely secular society: they never attack openly Islam but have no problem to attack the evils of a secular world.

Let's see, in the Islamic ruled world (Sudan, Iran, etc.), Christians are raped, burned alive, limbs cut off, beheaded,....

In the completely secular society (USSR, China), Christians were thrown in jail.

Hmmm.....

I know this is absurd. But this what I hear everyday from European bishops. Not a clear condemnation of Islam but a constant attack on secularism. Better a believer in the wrong God than a nonbeliever.

The reason is clear. They are losing flock because of secularism and not because of Islam. Actually, Islam might help to repopulate their churches as a reaction.

Ask the average European (atheist or not) whether she prefers Islam or Christianity, and almost everybody will answer "Christianity". Ask the same set of people whether they prefer a religious or a secular society and the answers will be completely different.

Actually, What I Hear From Jesus

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Luke 11:23

Is There Are Only Two Choices

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

And The Wise Choose Truth

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

And Are Blessed

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Be Wise, Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[nebula]

I know this is absurd. But this what I hear everyday from European bishops.

The same bishops that cannot explain the Bible to you?

Not a clear condemnation of Islam but a constant attack on secularism. Better a believer in the wrong God than a nonbeliever. The reason is clear. They are losing flock because of secularism and not because of Islam. Actually,

Islam might help to repopulate their churches as a reaction.

I don't think your bishops understand Islam very well.

Ask the average European (atheist or not) whether she prefers Islam or Christianity, and almost

everybody will answer "Christianity". Ask the same set of people whether they prefer a religious

or a secular society and the answers will be completely different.

Of course Christianity is preferred - now that the Roman Catholic Church isn't ruling Christianity, there is a lot more freedom in Christianity than Islam.

And of course secularism is preferred by anyone who is not a Christian. Why would they prefer a religion over their ability to determine right and wrong for themselves?

[nebula]

Why would they prefer a religion over their ability to determine right and wrong for themselves?

I might be wrong but you make it sound as if there was something bad in deciding what is

right and wrong without external influences and supervision.

I had a friend who decided it was right to "bend the truth" when it suited her convenience. Ever have a friend "bend the truth" to you? It really hurt.

If I didn't follow Jesus, who taught that you need to lay down your rights for the sake of love, she'd have lost my friendship at a time when she really needed me.

Would you consider her determining right and wrong without an external influence to have been a good thing?

Would you conciser it to have been better for me to decide my own right and wrong in obeying not the command to forgive?

I live in a little town with a preponderant percentage of atheists and the police has almost

nothing to do.

What is the income level there? Crime tends to be higher in lower income areas than mid-higher income areas. Belief or non-belief have nothing to do with it.

[asimpleman]

Religion is irrational, but so is atheism

* 28 March 2011 by Jonathan Lanman

* Magazine issue 2805.

Why are some people religious and others atheists? Do we really know what we mean by atheism? Here is a very paradoxical clue

IN THIS space a year ago, Lois Lee and Stephen Bullivant called for a science of "non-religion". They provided evidence against the idea that more education leads to less religious belief, which they call the "Enlightenment assumption", and argued that we know little about why we have the beliefs we do (6 March 2010, p 26).

I agree. The origins of our beliefs are more mysterious than the Enlightenment assumption holds. Besides specific studies of education and religiosity, we also have a wealth of evidence showing the impact of unconscious biases on our thinking, which demonstrate the human mind is less rational than many of us would wish. The implication is that explaining religion or atheism is less a matter of explaining what goes wrong in otherwise rational minds and more a matter of explaining how different environments affect universal cognitive mechanisms.

<snip>

I call the lack of belief in the existence of supernatural agents "non-theism" and the moral opposition to religious beliefs and values "strong atheism".

<snip>

I believe the distributions we see in levels of non-theism and strong atheism can be explained by the effects of threatening stimuli. Let's take non-theism first. We have compelling evidence from Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart in Sacred and Secular that nations with high existential security, that is the perception that one's life, well-being and society are secure, exhibit less religious belief and behaviour. But we also have good reasons to doubt the common explanation of this pattern, that religion provides comfort and becomes more convincing in trying times.

Anthropologically, societies in existentially insecure environments actually believe in very non-comforting supernatural agents. In contrast, the most comforting religious ideas, such as New Age spirituality or hell-less Christianity, flourish in the affluent west. Psychologically, we have little to no evidence that our minds will believe in something just because it would be comforting to do so.

So how do we explain the link between existential security and non-theism? Rather than a "comfort" theory, evidence supports a "threat and action" theory. We have an abundance of evidence from psychology and anthropology that feeling under threat increases commitment to in-group ideologies, whether they are religious ideologies or not.

<snip>

Work by Joseph Henrich from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, myself, and others suggests that humans believe the statements of others to the extent that they back those statements with actions. That is, rather than believing everything authority figures say, we believe to the extent that they "walk the walk" and not just "talk the talk". The implication is that if parents and others believe in supernatural agents but do not show these beliefs through attendance, self-sacrifice, rule obedience and/or emotional displays, they will find their children sceptical of these beliefs and their society less theistic.

<snip>

But what of strong atheism? Counter-intuitively, while I think that a lack of social and economic threat produces non-theism, I believe that higher levels of threat to a particular vision of society help produce strong atheism. Strong atheism is not the absence of an in-group ideology but the defence of one: modern secularism.

<snip>

My account is based on both qualitative and quantitative evidence, but it requires further research. An overall point can be made, however. Our beliefs, behaviours and moral sentiments are not simply the result of dispassionate reason. As psychologists and anthropologists have argued for some time, to understand them involves considering something we might call "human nature" as well as the particular socio-cultural contexts in which people live. This is as true for explaining atheism as it is for religion.

Full article here

[asimpleman]

God is ALL TRUTH ! Why do we reject the truth when we choose to sin?

IF we the children of God choose to reject His truth when we sin how can we expect those children who are lost come to know Him ?

We are called to live our lives according to His words of Truth and Love so others may know Him through our examples.

We are called to be Christ to them. In other words live out our faith.

Make your life and everything you choose to do today and everyday a PRAYER to God. Smile and mean it.

Take up our crosses as our lord did and God will give us the strength and will to carry on as He did for His Son.

We are to share His love with everyone and even more so with our enemies.

This may not be with direct contact in certain situations where we are in danger,but it can be done by simply praying for those who do us harm (again as our Lord did).

Be merciful and God will judge us with His Mercy not ours.

Through these examples of Love we can convert the world !