New Scientist: Why atheists think harder than other folk. Huh?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 25, 2017

Atheism, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Religion

1}_{Categories
Atheism
Intelligent Design
Naturalism
Religion}

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

Image result for witchcraft symbols public domain They’re more humble too. From Graham Lawton at New Scientist:

Almost everybody who has ever lived has believed in some kind of deity. Even in today’s enlightened and materialistic times, atheism remains a minority pursuit requiring hard intellectual graft. Even committed atheists easily fall prey to supernatural ideas. Religious… More.

After you’ve picked yourself up off the floor from laughing, you might want to note the post-modern rise in superstition and bunkum, generally.

See also: If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?

and

Lay off Graham Lawton (more on the New Scientist “Darwin was wrong” article) (2009)

A New Scientist editor acknowledges that the riddle of free will is unsolved (2011)

Collectively, New Scientist wonders whether God exists (2016)

Comments

rvb8 @ 2: Wrong again. Your a/mat faith is actually the easier path... like most simplistic ideas.Truth Will Set You Free_{December 26, 2017
December
12
Dec
26
26
2017
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

For any type of belief, religious or otherwise, sticking with what you learned in childhood is easier than departing from your ambient.
Then why am I a non-theist? My parents and sister, along with her family, are all theists. I reluctantly go to church with them on the Sunday before Christmas. I hold hands with them when they bless their food. And, if questioned about a the topic of a sermon, I'll point out where I disagree and present arguments as to why. This is not easy. In fact, it's rather hard. Example? Supposedly, Yahweh, decided to give land to the Israelites. However part of that land was already occupied. So, we have a problem to solve. But Yahweh is supposedly omniscient, one true God, not the tribal god of the Israelites. Surely, out of all possible options, Yahweh could come up with a good solution to this problem, right? What what Yahweh's solution? Command the Israelites to to kill women, children and even pregnant women using a sword. But this is problematic as, apparently, God would have less moral knowledge than we do. Today, we know this causes solders to become desensitized to committing violence against other women and children, including those in their own country and even there own families. It results in PTSD, etc. Solders leave their family due to fear of harming them. Or they turn to drugs because they cannot handle what they did, etc. God, also being omnipotent, could have just waved his hand and destroyed them as they arrived. Or destroyed them from afar and projected their deaths in the minds of the Israelites as a lesson of God's greatness. Or just made them disappear in a painless death, etc. That's just what I came up with off the top of my head. Even I, a finite being, can come up with better solutions, then what does that say about Yahweh? IOW, do you honestly expect me to believe that is the best solution that a perfectly good, all knowing and all powerful being could come up with?critical rationalist_{December 26, 2017
December
12
Dec
26
26
2017
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

polistra @ 5: Excellent comment. The following is well worth repeating: "I grew up in a secular house in college towns, so my initial easy pattern was atheism. It’s taken me 50 years of “hard thought”, based on scientific learning, to pull away from atheism. I still haven’t made it all the way, and probably won’t ever get there." I love to hear stories like that. By the way, it sounds like you are a lot closer to "there" than you may realize.Truth Will Set You Free_{December 26, 2017
December
12
Dec
26
26
2017
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

News, the self-congratulatory tin-ear implied in the remarks that had to pass New Scientist's editorial board, is astonishing. They really do believe they are the "brights," and the rest of us are dimwits by contrast. Even while they have manifestly failed major worldviews tests, as Mark aptly pointed out in a nutshell: "Perhaps Atheists are so tied to an internal self-rejection of a supernatural being, that they spend too much of their time trying to buttress this hope with ‘scientific’ conclusions that lack evidence (cosmology); are self-refuting logically (philosophical materialism) and are ignorant of scientific discoveries of the last 50 years that has torn away the foundation of Neo-Darwinism and its naturalistic base." A real clanger. I would say Dunning-Kreuger, but that over-rated term has in it no advance over Solomon's 3000 year old observation, wise in their own eyes. KFkairosfocus_{December 26, 2017
December
12
Dec
26
26
2017
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

For any type of belief, religious or otherwise, sticking with what you learned in childhood is easier than departing from your ambient. If you started in a solid Catholic town and home, atheism requires more thought. If you started in a secular town and home, religious belief takes hard thought. I grew up in a secular house in college towns, so my initial easy pattern was atheism. It's taken me 50 years of "hard thought", based on scientific learning, to pull away from atheism. I still haven't made it all the way, and probably won't ever get there.polistra_{December 26, 2017
December
12
Dec
26
26
2017
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

It's amazing how atheists (including NS) think they are smarter than other people; when all along we Christians are the most intelligent.aarceng_{December 25, 2017
December
12
Dec
25
25
2017
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

I'm not as learned as many of the commenters that respond to articles on this website. But I have been reading many things, atheist and Christian produced. My observation is that more Christians know why they believe what they do than their atheist counterparts. Perhaps it is because Christians are forced to know why they believe by the prevailing secular ethos. Too many atheists seem oblivious to the philosophical proofs and the increasing scientific evidence that raise serious questions about Darwinism and naturalism. I do not intend to point fingers, but RVB8's post seems to follow this pattern. Perhaps Atheists are so tied to an internal self-rejection of a supernatural being, that they spend too much of their time trying to buttress this hope with 'scientific' conclusions that lack evidence (cosmology); are self-refuting logically (philosophical materialism) and are ignorant of scientific discoveries of the last 50 years that has torn away the foundation of Neo-Darwinism and its naturalistic base. Mark from COMark from CO_{December 25, 2017
December
12
Dec
25
25
2017
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

News, "the post modern rise in superstition, and bunkum generally." Correct! Religion like all superstitions tends to grow and flourish in times of uncertainty. 'Bunkum', and 'superstition', are exactly what religion is to me, and fellow atheists, we make absolutely zero distinction. Are you suggesting smarter people today are trapped by these follies? My answer is simple; they are not 'smarter' people. Religion is an easy way to view the world and rest your troubles at the feet of a Deity. Atheists don't have this easy option, and they certainly don't resort to Tarrow, Star Gazing, or Entrail readings, or organised religion for that matter.rvb8_{December 25, 2017
December
12
Dec
25
25
2017
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

If God designed the human brain, he (or she) did a lousy job. Dogged by glitches and biases, requiring routine shutdown for maintenance for 8 hours a day, and highly susceptible to serious malfunction, a product recall would seem to be in order. But in one respect at least, God played a blinder: our brains are almost perfectly designed to believe in him/her.
Always like to hear how we can build something we have no means to build even better. Even better is the complete obliviousness to cognitive/process/methodological limits, necessary compromises that describe an optimal process, or even just giving entropy its due. Because if it's not an invincible, zero latency perpetual motion machine, it's trash. Keep thinking harder, Graham.LocalMinimum_{December 25, 2017
December
12
Dec
25
25
2017
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply