... that belief in some supernatural phenomenon (that over centuries of cultural living we have started calling 'god') is evolutionary byproduct of our species' cognitive faculties.
This evolutionary basis for tending to believe in some supernatural force is result of our brain's ability to seek patterns in nature for survival (food, avoiding predators living Savanah by recognizing lion paws etc) and Theory of mind, which is the ability to see something from others' point of view or empathy. This further gives us the ability to see intent in things or natural phenomenon.
So when I see some atheists wavering and in self-doubt even they seem to get it rationally speaking, it makes perfect sense to me. Part of their cognition continues to ebb them towards feeling somewhat superstitious. It's more psychological than anything.
Thoughts?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Humemystic
Interesting post and set of claims, and rational. You may even be right. However what you have not provided is proof for your claims
So far, in recorded history claims about the existence of god(s) have been unfalsifiable. IE nobody has proved either God's existence or non existence. That means so far, nobody has been able to argue god into or out of existence.
I call myself an agnostic atheist. From the Greek. a= not/without theos= god. And again a=not/without . gnosis= knowledge.
I do not believe because of a total lack of proof.= atheist . However, I make no claims, I simply don't know if a gods exists, there fore, agnostic atheist
Consequently, I demand proof from anyone making any claims about the existence of gods and about any qualities they might ascribe to such a being claims .
Just to be clear. by 'proof' I mean empirical evidence, derived by the use of scientific method.
PS I'm also interested in the evidence you used to form an opinion about what many atheist don't know. The claims contained in your posts are in no way original or unfamiliar to we here .Hopefully you will be the first to provide proof..
Here is an article which further has links of multiple studies alluding to the primary point I made in the original post. Just to be clear, I'm not making the claim that god exists, but rather, as human brain and subsequent cognition evolved, as by-product, belief in supernatural appeared.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-human-brain-evolved-to...
As far as being agnostic is concerned, I feel that as far as "an intelligent being" pre-big bang is concerned we can certainly chalk that out. But if agnosticism in terms of "we don't know what was there before big bang" is concerned, I'd certainly agree with that.
@Hume: "I think you are preaching to the choir." Jumping to assertions is what we do. It is a basic survival instinct. Better to assume there is danger in the unknown than to jump in with both feet and die. In the first case we live under the paranoia of uncertainty. In the second, we end up dead if the threat was real. In the first we can appease the gods with prayer and sacrifice. In the second we must admit that which we can not control. Human beings have been playing it safe for 10,000 years. It's amazing how far we have dragged religion and religious beliefs from the darkness in which they dwell.
@ Op
"Many atheists don't realize
... that belief in some supernatural phenomenon (that over centuries of cultural living we have started calling 'god') is evolutionary byproduct of our species' cognitive faculties."
How many? Have you the stats from your obviously extensive study of this group? Who did you use as control?
Without them your claims are as empty as a theist's.
When I say “many”, I merely basing it on my personal observation which not scientific but rather anecdotal—however I am not making that the core premise—my core premise is the evolutionary basis for belief in supernatural for which I have provided the link.
The “many” could be one, two, or zero—either way the research included in link stands—to refute that research you’d need a counter study of same nature that makes the counter argument.
@ Humemystic
No, to refute the "research" (which is purely anecdotal personal belief and therefore not evidence of anything) I merely have to state "I do not believe you"
And I don't.
If you wish to be taken seriously then produce some actual evidence, or at least a peer reviewed published hypothesis, not flavored with "personal opinion" or a magazine article.
(Edit added last paragraph)
I am referring to research that’s linked in the article itself. There are two phased hypotheses linked in there which further have many references based on which those hypotheses have been formed, as well as link to an associated fMRI study.
Still don’t find it compelling? Well, ok then.
@ HumeMystic
I am referring to research that’s linked in the article itself.
I was referring to your erroneous claim in the first para of the OP. Making claims like that destroy your credibility before you start.
The magazine article you refer to (as is usual with shallow journalism) inflates the actual research into a conclusion that has no statistical basis.
Good luck with pushing that boat to nowhere.
And trust me when I say I was gentle in my criticism. There are grumpier old sods in here who would have impaled you on a metaphorical blunt walking stick and grilled you over hot coals for such inaccuracy.
RE: OLD MAN - And if he didn't say it..... someone else on the site would have. Believe it or not... Atheists in this DAMN PLACE are held to the same standards as the THEISTS. You wanna start making assertions, you are going to be challenged without the citation to back up what you say. No one is picking on you. Just take it for what it is worth. OM would have turned on me and stabbed me square in the back as well. IMO: It helps us to avoid "Group Think" and it keeps us honest in our evaluations.
RE: OLD MAN - And if he didn't say it..... someone else on the site would have. Believe it or not... Atheists in this DAMN PLACE are held to the same standards as the THEISTS. You wanna start making assertions, you are going to be challenged without the citation to back up what you say. No one is picking on you. Just take it for what it is worth. OM would have turned on me and stabbed me square in the back as well. IMO: It helps us to avoid "Group Think" and it keeps us honest in our evaluations.
Sure. I don’t mind. However I do want to make a point about difference between typical religious beliefs (say flying horse to heaven) vs hypotheses that based on some evidence and analytical study of a phenomenon—both are not same.
There is MORE likelihood of one to be true compared to the other—while evolutionary psychology or related research is not as solid as physics where you can be as accurate as to know charge of electron, it still is a line of study that deals with data and evidence following scientific method and hypotheses in that field can’t simply be chalked up as baseless as religious beliefs.
@Humemystic
What you have presented is an opinion from a magazine which is unsupported by evidence.
The model used is called''psychological reductionism' which anthropologist dismiss out of hand and is one of many models .
The modelI like is called;'structural functionalism' . This model is based on the concept that all human behaviour has a function. That same form of religious belief is universal among humans strongly suggests (but does not prove) that religious beliefs meet [probably] important human needs. If they did not, religion would not exist as widely as it doe.s
The needs religious beliefs meet may include: Confronting the fear of death, providing the illusion of meaning to life, and the illusion of control through the notion of being able to effect the gods through ritual and sacrifice. Also a sense of community which has been a matter of life and death in may societies. Still is in some Muslim countries and in some African tribal societies.
This model makes sense to me and to many academics ,yet I'm unable to make a truth claim because I can't conclusively prove my opinion.
I also agree that 'an urge to the divine' may indeed be hard wired in human beings through evolution. . That is also a rational idea, .However, it has not yet been proved as far as I'm aware.
I return to a basic position: so far, nobody has been able to argue god into or out of existence . I still demand proof.
@cranky,
"This model makes sense to me and to many academics ,yet I'm unable to make a truth claim because I can't conclusively prove my opinion."
And that's exactly what I am saying. I'm not presenting a peer reviewed paper here or claim to be a scientist. I'm a layman interested in science, and as the laymen go my understanding is never going to be as concrete as the actual experts in the field. I've an opinion and it's going to be quite subjective on times, and very objective on others. The field of psychology itself is not hard core science like Physics and degree of inaccuracy increases as you move away from Physics.
@HumeMystic Original post:
I been on these forums for a while, and for most of the regulars, I never seen them waver on their current atheist position in really any meaningful way. We might discuss word definitions, hard/soft atheist, and so on. But I have to see a regular go "oh I believe in god x now."
I've know couple of people personally who at some point identified themselves as atheists but later in life reverted believing in a god. There have also been quite many cases claimed in media as well. There is even a whole wikipedia page on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics
" later in life reverted believing in a god. "
One doesn't "revert" to believing in fiction and fictitious characters. We're born without believing.
Someone has to teach us something as irrational as that.
Which does happen, obviously. But, nobody reverts to believing in God.
Tom
Well, let say there are total 3 stages:
1- Born without any belief
2- Indoctrinated into believing
3- Started identifying as atheist and then went back to being a believer from this 3rd stage. Jumping from stage 3 to 2 is logically reversion.
I don't find your language particularly logical.
But, whatever.
People believe lots of things I don't find reasonable.
Tom
The fact that human beings have a propensity for superstition is not lost on any atheists here I'd be prepared to bet. I now species evolution is an objective fact, underpinned by an overwhelming amount of objective evidence. The claim superstition and the cognitive functions that cause it have their origins in evolution is rationally consistent, but I think the claim requires more evidence. Though anyone suggested it has origins outside of natural phenomena is going to have Occam's razor thrown at them.
In the mean time I am content to disbelieve superstitious claims like theism, as they are not supported by any objective evidence.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Totally agree.
I had these monkeys and old men do the same to me...didn’t go far though - I hate echo chambers and expose myself to the uncomfortable “others” to see their POV, opinion or evidence.
Your opening is very “definite” ...you may need to rethink it and watch your words (be specific) ...oh, and don’t use “all” and “always” (really?!?!?). And ensure you know the differences between an opinion, hypothesis, peer reviewed and theory - many posters here know the differences and won’t tolerate mis-use.
I’m here to learn, so when the buggers clamp down on me, I just have a drink, cry, call them “stupid”... oh, and then look up what ever the fuck it is they’re talking about (mostly to see if I can poke holes in it)
"all" and "always" are figures of speech. If people here are such nitpicker that they lose the holistic picture over semantics, see words instead of content then I'm certainly an outcast.
But I totally agree with looking up and learning parts.
@ Hume
All and always are figures of speech
No they are fucking not, they are words with definite meanings and when used in a sentence have the meaning defined.
Don't back off, you should just apologise for using generalizations.
Instead you add insult to injury. Nobody is "losing the holistic picture over semantics". Go and learn to write clearly and avoid the use of fallacies.
Oh, and also learn to fucking apologise. Muppet.
@HumeMystic
If you use "all" or "always" and you don't mean every case, then you are certainly going to receive a ration of shit from many of the posters here; myself included.
@priestcollar(who’s freaking me out everytime look at the pic)
Here’s my take. Trying to “get into the minds” of our ancestors is a fun exercise BUT there is much at play. For instance, how do “mushrooms and natural drug experiences” or “mental illnesses” fit in?
@priestcollar(who’s freaking me out everytime look at the pic)
You must be a chick to be such a snowflake.
He's not the only guy to wear a collared shirt under a sweater.
Tom
@Columbus
I am a chick. I’m not a snowflake. I’m an exJW who’s getting triggered by “priests” (emotional response to the devil’s agents)... it’s taking all my strength not to rush out of my house, screaming and flaying my arms around...
"
@Columbus
I am a chick. I’m not a snowflake. I’m an exJW who’s getting triggered by “priests” (emotional response to the devil’s agents)... it’s taking all my strength not to rush out of my house, screaming and flaying my arms around..."
Oh, honey, you poor thing!
C'mere. Let me give you a hug.
Don't worry, I'm not wearing a collared shirt. I'm not actually wearing anything at all.
It's a quiet Saturday morning and I'm just sitting here nude listening to NPR.
Tom
@Columbus... *talk to Cog to see if you can “handle” it first*
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
This forum really needs a "rolling eyes" emoticon. ;)
I'm a really out gay guy in America. I've hugged dudes who looked like that.
Or....
Are you surreptitiously signaling me something about Cog? Internet conversation without emoticons can be very confusing.
:)
Tom
Pages