Getting the facts right on “unbelief”

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 17, 2019

Atheism, Intelligent Design, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This item somehow missed the post last night. A study of atheists and agnostics, funded by Templeton, came up with some illuminating facts:

2. In all six of our countries, majorities of unbelievers identify as having ‘no religion’. Nevertheless, in Denmark fully 28% of atheists and agnostics identify as Christians; in Brazil the figure is 18%. 8% of Japan’s unbelievers say they are Buddhists. Conversely, in Brazil (79%), the USA (63%), Denmark (60%), and the UK (52%), a majority of unbelievers were brought up as Christians. (1.1, 1.2)
3. Relatively few unbelievers select ‘Atheist’ or ‘Agnostic’ as their preferred (non)religious or secular identity. 38% of American atheists opt for ‘Atheist’, compared to just 19% of Danish atheists. Other well-known labels – ‘humanist’, ‘free thinker’, ‘sceptic’, ‘secular’ – are the go-to identity for only small proportions in each country. (1.3)
Unbelief in God doesn’t necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena. Atheists and (less so) agnostics exhibit lower levels of supernatural belief than do the wider populations. However, only minorities of atheists or agnostics in each of our countries appear to be thoroughgoing naturalists. (2.2, 2.3 More. –

Stephen Sullivant, Miguel Farias, Jonathan Lanman, Lois Lee, Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world – Interim findings from 2019 research in Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States

It would appear to explain a lot. Read the rest; it’s free.

See also: Why is the New York Times into witchcraft now? The good news is, we have far less to fear from hexes than from anti-free speech legislation and crackdowns on academic freedom at the universities. We really must encourage them all to spend more time, much more time, on hexes.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

ET, Are you defending American Atheist nonsense? Why? Andrewasauber_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

“Get to work as you are not entitled and make yourself happy in what you do”, could be useful. “Stop being self-righteous and make yourself useful”, could be useful. “Fend for yourself and take responsibility for your actions”, is definitely useful. “You have one go at this so make it count”, could be useful. ET, Anybody could say this stuff. What does it have to do with Atheism? Andrewasauber_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

"Get to work as you are not entitled and make yourself happy in what you do", could be useful. "Stop being self-righteous and make yourself useful", could be useful. "Fend for yourself and take responsibility for your actions", is definitely useful. "You have one go at this so make it count", could be useful.ET_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

ET, Thank you for the quote from American Atheists. Its only point of clarity is this: "nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes". Proving my point that Atheists are about the posture of Atheism, not providing useful information to anyone. Andrewasauber_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

From the American Atheists:
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
So if ID isn't about God or the supernatural then what is the problem?ET_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

"All I am saying is that the definition of an atheist and of ID does not prevent one from being both." ET, I think that virtually all atheists would disagree with you. But then, like I said back when I started commenting, Atheists are about posturing for each other, not about being honest about anything. So God knows what they really think. They aren't going to inform the rest of us. Andrewasauber_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Could be anywhere. All I am saying is that the definition of an atheist and of ID does not prevent one from being both.ET_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

"An atheist who is an IDist" ET, Where is one of those? Andrewasauber_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

asauber:
What kind of mental framework has to be in place prior to a person professing to believe there is no God?
The Missouri mental framework
Is denial of design in nature something that occurs before that conclusion is made or afterwards?
That is a strawman. An atheist who is an IDist clearly does not deny design in nature.ET_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

asauber, see 32, 34, and 36, and then be more specific about what I said at 32.hazel_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Maybe I can help by asking some questions: What kind of mental framework has to be in place prior to a person professing to believe there is no God? Is denial of design in nature something that occurs before that conclusion is made or afterwards? What is the logical progression of these ideas? Andrewasauber_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

LoL! I never said, implied nor ever thought such a thingET_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

So you are claiming that Dembski and Gonzalez are against ID advocates following the evidence where it leads? :)bornagain77_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Oh my. What Gonzalez said has NOTHING to do with the evidence and EVERYTHING to do with ID in general. What Dembski said has NOTHING to do with any evidence and EVERYTHING to do with ID in general. Personal God? Then why doesn't God just re-create Eden for us? I will tell you why- because we messed it all up.ET_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Well sure, there is no mandate to follow the evidence where it leads in science. People who are interested in finding the truth find it desirable to do so though. But as I said, "regardless of what some may prefer to believe beforehand, empirical science has a way of breaking through any artificial limits we try to artificially place on it beforehand." And as I laid out, via empirical evidence from our most powerful theories in science, science now leads us to a direct implication for a personal God, and even when including the recent closing of the free will loop-hole in quantum mechanics, and when the Agent Causality of God is rightly let BACK into physics (as originally envisioned by the Christian founders of modern science), then that leads to a direct implication for Christianity. I note that neither ET nor Hazel challenged the evidence. ET quoted Gonzalez, as if personal opinion can out weigh empirical evidence in science, and Hazel, predictably, disparagingly attacked my laying out the evidence for a personal God as "proselytizing for Christianity." Well call it what you will. The scientific evidence is what it is. To disparage my motives instead of addressing the scientific evidence that I laid out does nothing to overturn the evidence that I laid out. Good luck overturning it. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are confirmed to almost absurd levels of precision. Again, the evidence is what it is, whether you personally like it or not, and it leads to a direct inference for a personal God who created us. Even, (when including evidence for our unique ability to create information) leading us to a direct inference for God creating us in His image. (i.e. "Kingdom of Speech"; T. Wolfe). If you don't like the direct inferences that are to be drawn from these powerful lines of evidence, for what ever ill conceived personal reason you may have, at least have the honesty to forthrightly address the scientific evidence I've presented instead of arguing from authority and/or attacking my personal motives as Hazel has done,,, (as if Hazel has no personal motives that can't be attacked if I so chose to do so)bornagain77_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

ba is not interested in ID. He is interested in proselytizing for Christianity. Suggesting that ID might not require Christianity set him off.hazel_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Wow, all I said was that ID does not require God nor the belief in God. Guillermo Gonzalez tells AP that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.” Let's take a look-in "The Design Revolution", page 25, Dembski writes:
Intelligent Design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own intelligent design. Intelligent design is not a evangelical Christian thing, or a generally Christian thing or even a generally theistic thing. Anyone willing to set aside naturalistic prejudices and consider the possibility of evidence for intelligence in the natural world is a friend of intelligent design.
He goes on to say:
Intelligent design requires neither a meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesn't even require there be a God.
REQUIRES is the operative word. ID is NOT falsified by a personal God. ID is NOT falsified by the existence of salvation. So I am not sure what set off bornagain77 as there wasn't anything bizarre with what I posted. It all comes from the ID leaders.ET_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

per posts 34-35,,,
34 Hazel June 20, 2019 at 6:36 pm I agree with ET that one can be an atheist and accept ID. For instance, one can believe that some cosmic intelligence is the cause of the design in the world, but also believe that cosmic intelligence is not a God in the sense of taking an active role in the lives of humans, or even of being “personlike” as Gods are usually conceived. 35 ET June 20, 2019 at 6:42 pm hazel, I don’t know how well versed you are with the pro-ID literature. But I have plenty that backs up everything that I have said. So you got it. And those guys extend the design inference to the universe. To them it’s ID all the way down and God isn’t required (even though their money is on God). Meaning it very well could be that there is a purpose but salvation and heaven isn’t part of it.
Well that is a bizarre conversation. I wonder exactly how one proposes to artificially put limits on where the scientific evidence is allowed to lead us in our investigations???. Instead of methodological naturalism, I guess ET and Hazel propose some new type of 'methodological anti-personal God in our lives'??? :) Well, regardless of what some may prefer to believe beforehand, empirical science has a way of breaking through any artificial limits we try to artificially place on it beforehand. For instance, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics themselves, (our two most accurately tested theories ever in the history of science), overturn the Copernican principle and restore humanity back to centrality in this universe.
- Overturning of the Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-nye-should-check-wikipedia/#comment-671672
How one proposes to avoid the direct inference to a personal God in our lives I have no idea. Personally myself, I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Moreover, the following interactive graphs, one of which was recently constructed by William Dembski and company, point out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. As far as the exponential graph itself is concerned’ 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly at the exponential middle and/or geometric mean;
Magnifying the Universe – William Dembski’s graph https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/ The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
Moreover, there are now found to be anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that strangely line up with the earth and solar system. Here is an excellent clip from "The Principle" that explains these strange ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR in an easy to understand manner.
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
Moreover, Robin Collins established that the light coming from the CMBR is fine tuned for discovery for intelligent life such as ourselves. As well, Michael Denton, in similar fashion, has shown that Chemistry itself is of maximum benefit for intelligent life such as ourselves. And again, how one proposes to go about avoiding the clear implications for a personal God in our lives from all this powerful scientific evidence I have no idea. It is tragedy that one would even be predisposed to even try to deny the clear implications for us personally. Moreover, as if all of the preceding lines of the evidence were not bad enough for those who wish to deny a personal God in their lives, advances in quantum information theory, now strongly indicate that God is forming each of our immaterial souls individually in our mother's womb.
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
Moreover, towards the end of the following video,
How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas
, it is now shown that, with the closing of the 'free-will loop-hole' in quantum mechanics, that the Agent Causality of God, and even the agent causality on man himself, are brought into the laws of physics at their most foundational level. And as is also touched upon in the video, this has some very profound implications for us personally. Allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Moreover, besides the empirical verification of ‘free will’ and/or Agent causality within quantum theory bringing that rather startling solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, there is, to put it mildly, also another fairly drastic implication for individual people being “brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” as well. In order to support the physical reality of heaven and hell, I can appeal directly to two of our most powerful and precisely tested theories ever in the history of science. Special Relativity and General Relativity respectfully. As the following video shows, with General Relativity we find an ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with it. And with Special Relativity we find an extremely orderly eternity associated with it:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
To put the drastic implications for us even more clearly, we, with either our 'free will' acceptance or rejection of God and what He has done for us through Jesus Christ on the cross, are choosing between eternal life with God or eternal death separated from God: Verse:
Deuteronomy 30:19-20 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Because of such dire consequences for our eternal souls (which are now verified to be physically real entities via our advances in quantum biology), I plead with any atheists who may be reading this to seriously reconsider their refusal to accept God, and to now choose God, even eternal life with God, instead of choosing eternal death separated from God. Not to sound cliche, but that decision is, by far, the single most important decision that you will ever make in your entire life.
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
bornagain77_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

OLV @17: I wouldn’t use Wikipedia to explain Christianity. The Christian scriptures are sufficient.PaoloV_{June 21, 2019
June
06
Jun
21
21
2019
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Pre-natural is good.hazel_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Why does it have to be that only a supernatural entity can produce this universe? Do tell. If prefixes bother you then use PRE-natural.ET_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

I'm just using "cosmic intelligence" for a very generic term for the source of design. You're pointing out that it doesn't have to be a God of some sort, even though many believe it is. You also say it doesn't have to be supernatural, although I don't see how a non-supernatural "something" could be the source of the design of the cosmos in respect to fine-tuning.hazel_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

The evidence that the universe was designed for (scientific) discovery is pretty strong. Whenever there is intelligence involved intent is sure to follow. And I don't know about any "cosmic intelligence"- what is that?ET_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

ET writes, "Meaning it very well could be that there is a purpose but salvation and heaven isn’t part of it." I agree with that. However, I also think it could be "ID all the way down" and yet not for any purpose that has anything to do with human beings: in fact the idea of "purpose" might not even be a quality that could be ascribed to the cosmic intelligence.hazel_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

hazel, I don't know how well versed you are with the pro-ID literature. But I have plenty that backs up everything that I have said. So you got it. And those guys extend the design inference to the universe. To them it's ID all the way down and God isn't required (even though their money is on God). Meaning it very well could be that there is a purpose but salvation and heaven isn't part of it.ET_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

I agree with ET that one can be an atheist and accept ID. For instance, one can believe that some cosmic intelligence is the cause of the design in the world, but also believe that cosmic intelligence is not a God in the sense of taking an active role in the lives of humans, or even of being "personlike" as Gods are usually conceived.hazel_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Yes, Axel, I saw that. Just because he can say it doesn't make it so. What I posted in 25 and 29 are facts. And those facts say that you can be an atheist and accept ID. That means that atheism doesn't equate with materialism and why the use of "amats" is used to specify.ET_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

re 24 and 30. There is a difference between not believing there is any God in the sense of some cosmic intelligence at some level of reality, which I think one should be agnostic about as there is no way we can know, and not believing in any of the Gods described by human beings as part of some religion, which is quite reasonable, and my own personal position. (And remember, IANAM*) So when one says "an atheist is one who doesn't believe in God", I think one needs to be more specific about what one means.hazel_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Maybe the derivation of the term, 'religion', from the Latin, 'religere', to bind, indicates the soundest definition.Axel_{June 20, 2019
June
06
Jun
20
20
2019
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply