Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[iceaura]

The title alone, let alone the research makes sense, which is the reason why I posted it. Obviously something about the article rings a bell with you, why you are in denial mode.

You posted a falsehood as the title of this thread. What am I denying?

So what is the the true result of the research?

That people in general harbor metaphysical beliefs, including some that theists often associate with their belief in various deities.

If you say "my God" or "your God", or some "religious institutes God" then you have personalised God

No. I have observed the nature of other people's Gods, as established by them - not me.

What about subconsciously accepting God, but consciously denying, and rejecting God. Do you think that is possible?

Sure.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Thanks for that James. I will look at it, and try to respond.

Okay. We'll see.

Of course I have to keep in mind that the author is an avowed atheist, meaning that, like you, he sees it from an atheist perspective.

What makes you think he's an avowed atheist?

I checked his profile on the article, and did a brief search, but didn't find anything that identifies him as an avowed atheist. Do you know something about him that I don't?

My impression is that he is most probably a believer. He says "I work in China, and am surrounded by different ways of thinking. (My mother is Buddhist, my father Muslim, my wife Christian, and my country is atheist by law)." You're not assuming that because he works in China he must be atheist, are you?

Putting all that aside, I don't really see the relevance of his personal perspective to the content of his article, which I have tried to examine on its merits. In the article, he cites some research, but he also makes a number of expansive claims of his own, for which he cites no supporting evidence other than his own personal experience and anecdotal evidence. If his perspective is relevant to his content, then from my analysis of the article it appears that all the bias that is visible in the article suggests that the author thinks there might actually be a "higher power" (God, for instance).

Somebody on another site pointed out a further interesting fact. As evidence for his thesis that atheists don't exist, he cites a statistic that claims that 38% of self-identified atheists believe in a higher power. But that means that 62% of self-identified atheists don't believe in a higher power, which tends to suggest that there really are atheists, after all. The author defeats his own thesis.

 

[Yazata]

What makes you think he's an avowed atheist?

Christianity Today seems to think that he's a Christian.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/julaug/nury-vittachi.html

My impression is that he is most probably a believer. He says "I work in China, and am surrounded by different ways of thinking. (My mother is Buddhist, my father Muslim, my wife Christian, and my country is atheist by law)." You're not assuming that because he works in China he must be atheist, are you?

Christianity Today quotes him as saying:

"Christianity triggers hostility in many parts of Asia, so I avoid being serious or preachy and instead go for a goofy loser stance," said Vittachi. "When people express puzzlement that a religious person can have such a wicked sense of humor, I say, 'I belong to a sinners-only faith, and I'm top of the league table' ".

What I'm curious about is whether he has any education or training in cognitive science, philosophy or the study of religion. While his Science 2.0 blurb says that he works in a 'lab' at some unnamed university in Hong Kong, he looks to me to be entirely a literary figure, a "journalist" and a "writer".

Putting all that aside, I don't really see the relevance of his personal perspective to the content of his article, which I have tried to examine on its merits. In the article, he cites some research, but he also makes a number of expansive claims of his own, for which he cites no supporting evidence other than his own personal experience and anecdotal evidence.

The opinion piece in the O.P. seems to me to make some basic errors, such as confusing 'metaphysical' with 'religious' (and 'religious' with 'theist'... which is a very odd mistake for somebody born in Sri Lanka). Hence the essay can suggest that atheists all hold a particular kind of view on the mind-body problem and hence that they must be unacknowledged theists (too bad for Daniel Dennett, I guess):

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

Graham Lawton's another journalist, one of the editors of New Scientist. While he seems to have an interest in the philosophy of religion and writes about it occasionally, I don't know what his background in the subject is either.

So we have the mysterious Nuri Vittachi citing Graham Lawton, the self-avowed atheist who reportedly thinks that atheism is "psychologically impossible" (how is that consistent?) who in turn cites "some scientists".

[irony]Wonderful[/irony].

This is why I'm increasingly convinced that when laypeople read the phrase "scientists say..." in popular reporting, they need to have increased awareness of the possibility that they are about to be bullshitted. 'Science' has gradually turned into an 'authority word' expected to produce instant credulity (like 'the Bible says...' back in the day).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Caveat: A "metaphysical outlook" does not equate with theism.

Nobody, including myself, is saying it does.

The scientists who supposedly make the claim that "atheism is psychologically impossible" are not named. This is commentary, not a finding of research.

Admittedly, that is a bummer.
He may have wanted to protect their careers. We know atheists can get cranky when you don't follow their script.

Caveat: It is not necessarily true that all people who claim to be atheists hold religious beliefs, though certainly some do

Depends what you mean by "religious beliefs.

Result 4: human pattern-seeking predisposes people to believe in gods or other religious ideas

Again, the term "religious" or "religion" , is too broad a term, as they can apply to anything. I find that what lies at the heart of religious belief, is the religion itself.

Caveat: a general predisposition does not imply that belief is inevitable in all people.

One doesn't believe "I am, therefore I exist. One knows that" I am, therefore I exist".

It is a natural progression to enquire how "I am", and how "I" came to be.
If "I am" is conscious, and aware, it stands to reason that the source of "I" is conscious, and aware. We apply this thinking, as easy as we conclude that the physical body we operate through, comes via a processes of other physical bodies.

Believing "I am" is the physical body, requires faith, as nothing, apart from a temporary connection with it, shows that to be the case.

Belief is inevitable for humans, but in the case of atheists, they require faith to maintain theirs, whereas theists do not have to maintain theirs, leading to natural progression of knowledge.

This is not a research finding, but is the writer's interpretation. No mention has been made of any "other consciousness" at this point in the article. The author is injecting this idea at this point.

To his credit, he did say "it might be...".
It's natural for us to draw conclusion., after all, we are pattern-seekers. I dare say if his conclusion was in your favour, your position regarding it would be different.

Result 8: Most people hold a dualist view of what a human being is, and believe humans are not "purely material".

Caveat: there is zero evidence that this view is correct.

It's not a quiz. There can never be "evidence" to say this correct. You have to accept something right out of the starting gate of becoming conscously aware. Every single moment, you are piling more conclusions on top of conclusions. I think the units (moments), are too large an epoch of time to measure, the rate of input. But it is the shortest unit of time we can experience in our conscious state.

Result 9: Lots of people have participated in pseudoscientific sessions at one time or another, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Let's assume they are pseudoscientific sessions. Why do they participate?

This is author's commentary. This is not implied by any of the quoted research results, but is injected by the author.

Fine. But it is a reasonable point.
What, if any, are your objections?

This is quite a stretch by the author, but in for a penny, in for a pound, after the last claim.

Why do you think it is quite a stretch?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is not a research finding, but a belief that "social scientists" have, apparently. It is speculation.

I agree.
That part sounds atheist-ty.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

" Caveat: A "metaphysical outlook" does not equate with theism."
Nobody, including myself, is saying it does.

You posted a falsehood as the title of this thread.
Your only possible justification was having confused a discovery of metaphysical belief for a discovery of theistic belief. You deny the confusion. So you are left with the falsehood.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You posted a falsehood as the title of this thread.
Your only possible justification was having confused a discovery of metaphysical belief for a discovery of theistic belief. You deny the confusion. So you are left with the falsehood.

Where exactly have I confused a discovery of metaphysical belief for a discovery of theistic belief, in this thread?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Again, not research, but a generalisation. Probably a fair one, apart from the tacked-on bit about prayer at the end. (Did you see what the author tried to do there?)

Yes I did.
He is beginning to understand. I hope this article helps him come to his senses.

Unverified anecdote. At this point, the author's bias is really starting to shine through.

What is he bias about? He is an atheist, hopefully in the way to breaking the spell of atheism.

Just as you come to the conclusion that he is bias, he has come to whatever conclusion he has. So stop being a dictator.

The assumption is that everybody has already started to believe in God, and that you have to stop believing to become an atheist. Author is correct that the research results do not prove this.

Nobody "starts" to believe in God.
People start to not believe in God.
It is a difficult concept for an atheist to wrap his/her head round.

No particular research is cited for the claim that religious communities grow faster. (Faster than what? Communities populated entirely by atheists? Where are those communities?)

I suppose he means those communities where people tend not to socialise with each other. When I lived in London, I experienced that.
Communities where people have a common goal, will obviously prosper faster, because they are more likely to help, share, trust, and socialize with each other.

Speculation: Societies populated by people who believe in supernatural surveillance are most successful than ones that lack such people. (This has not been tested, as far as I can tell.

How would you test, and what would be the purpose of such a test?

If the test results showed that he was correct, would you accept it as fact?

Author backtracks on previous claim that God exists in all fictional worlds. Now he says it's not really God, but some kind of karmic idea. Maybe. Further speculation follows:

Maybe.
Are your opinions on the author, speculation?

This is rather a poor summary of the quoted research results, and it "suggests" lots of stuff that the author would like to be true but which the research doesn't really address.

I happen to disagree.
I think it is an accurate summary.

I like how the author tries to import his desire for churches or temples into what is otherwise a reasonable statement. Don't you?

No.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

One could make the presumption that he is also a journalist who writes to please a wide readership.

I will apply Occams Razor, and not complicate matters by adding baseless assumptions. I have no reason to suspect an alterior motives for him writing this article. Backed up by the fact that he is an avowed atheist, with nothing to gain by writing it.

And some of the readers will cite his article as science when all he is doing is reporting ...his reporting of science is not science.

Good reporting though.

Now is a good time to observe how you are trying desperately, reject and deny, something, purely because it goes against your worldview.

You have no legitimate reason to reject, deny, or ignore his reporting, especially without understanding it.

Journalists often distort the research they report upon and sensationalise so that
people will read their article and tell their friends.

When you say "often" it means, not all the time. So this could be one of those times when he is not. But you will never know that if you're in denial, rejection, and ig-norant mode.

ironically the research probably does little to support the view you formed reading the article.

Or... it goes along way to supporting it.

Many readers are taken in this way and if one wishes to know about science it is best to read the research after you read an article to determine what the research determined.

We have what we have, and in my experience, and opinion, it is worth looking in to.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I have no reason to suspect an alterior motives for him writing this article. Backed up by the fact that he is an avowed atheist, with nothing to gain by writing it.

You've been asked before, but no answer so far, and you repeat the claim again...
So let me ask again: what evidence do you have that he is "an avowed atheist"?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You've been asked before, but no answer so far, and you repeat the claim again...
So let me ask again: what evidence do you have that he is "an avowed atheist"?

From the article... says GrahamLawton,anavowed atheist himself,writing in the New Scientist.

This is the section of the article, I find most compelling. It is why I started the thread?

Does that answer your question Baldeee?

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I have no reason to suspect an alterior motives for him writing this article.

He seems to have made up stuff to me Jan but you can believe what you wish.

When you say "often" it means, not all the time.

I said often but I sincerely believe I have made a reasonable assessment given it is clear he seems not to report the findings correctly.

But you will never know that if you're in denial, rejection, and ig-norant mode.

You are grasping at straws.
I suggested what may be going on...if you dont see it that is your problem.

We have what we have, and in my experience, and opinion, it is worth looking in to.

I agree so look at the research and what it says and what it doesnt say, then determine if you think he was reporting accurately.

Is he a journalist or not is the question and did he report correctly if not why not.

However if you want to believe his article supports what you would like to hear go ahead.

Alex

 

[Baldeee]

From the article... says GrahamLawton,anavowed atheist himself,writing in the New Scientist.

This is the section of the article, I find most compelling. It is why I started the thread?

Does that answer your question Baldeee?

Graham Lawton isn't the author of the article, Jan.
You have constantly alluded to the author of the piece, Nury Vittachi, as being an avowed atheist.
To wit:
In response to Alex:

I have no reason to suspect an alterior motives for him writing this article. Backed up by the fact that he is an avowed atheist, with nothing to gain by writing it.

In response to JamesR parsing the article:

Thanks for that James. I will look at it, and try to respond.

Of course I have to keep in mind that the author is an avowed atheist, meaning that, like you, he sees it from an atheist perspective.

...and specifically in response to a section not quoting Lawton but written by Vittachi:

What is he bias about? He is an atheist, hopefully in the way to breaking the spell of atheism.

So, I ask again: on what basis do you claim the author, Nury Vittachi, to be an avowed atheist?

 

[Jan Ardena]

He seems to have made up stuff to me Jan but you can believe what you wish.

We all know that you accuse things of being made-up, if they don't agree with your worldview.

I said often but I sincerely believe I have made a reasonable assessment given it is clear he seems not to report the findings correctly.

I think he did a good job of reporting the findings. I think you're in denial and rejection mode, because of your belief that theism is make-believe.

You are grasping at straws.
I suggested what may be going on...if you dont see it that is your problem.

You suggest a lot of things, most of which is supported by your irrational belief. Which, to date, you have not given a sound reason for. You're the one grasping at straw, not me.

I agree so look at the research and what it says and what it doesnt say, then determine if you think he was reporting accurately.

We don't need to. We can work it out for ourselves, by analysing what he says. This is a discussion forum. Is it not?

Is he a journalist or not is the question and did he report correctly if not why not.

It is irrelevant to having a discussion about the points he raised.
Do you feel uncomfortable that an atheist can reach the observational understanding, that his worldview is merely an illusion?

Don't worry, no one is judging you. We're only trying to help you see a little clearer.

However if you want to believe his article supports what you would like to hear go ahead.

Let's say you were right, and this stuff that I want to hear, does that make it any less valid?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Graham Lawton isn't the author of the article, Jan.
You have constantly alluded to the author of the piece, Nury Vittachi, as being an avowed atheist.
To wit:
In response to Alex:

I explained, that it is the section I was referring to, and which I quoted earlier.
This is why I used the term "avowed" .

Apologies if I gave the impression I was referring to Vittachi.

...and specifically in response to a section not quoting Lawton but written by Vittachi:

To be honest, I got it stuck in my head that Lawton was the author. My bad.

So, I ask again: on what basis do you claim the author, Nury Vittachi, to be an avowed atheist?

On no basis, as I wasn't referring to Vittachi.

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

Where exactly have I confused a discovery of metaphysical belief for a discovery of theistic belief, in this thread?

The thread title is: "Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that's not a joke."

Then the quote (from somebody I'd never heard of named Nuri Vittachi) in the OP begins:

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

So Vittachi seems to be equating "a metaphysical outlook" with religious belief with theistic belief. And that looks like an obvious error to me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can you specify this error, within the three paragraphs you posted? I assume it is in there, why you posted it.

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

Part of the confusion might be due to the fact that the word 'metaphysics' has popular and academic usages.

In popular usage, 'metaphysics' often means something like 'cosmic beliefs about higher realities'. That's what you will probably encounter if you enter a 'metaphysical bookstore', books about magic and the occult and various religious traditions. Vittachi seems to be using the word this vague way. (Then he slippy-slides from 'higher realities' to 'religious realities' to the one and only religious reality that many monotheists' accept: God.)

The more academic usage derives from Aristotle. A later Hellenistic compiler arranged Aristotle's surviving books in a canonical order, where the unnamed book that came after the Physics gradually became known as the Metaphysics ('after physics'). But many people in later centuries imagined it to mean 'beyond physics', which led to the popular usage.

What a philosophy student encounters if he or she takes a class in metaphysics is a class that addresses the most basic and fundamental concepts and categories that we use to try to make sense of reality.

That includes a consideration of being and non-being and the question of what ultimately exists (ontology). This involves students in thinking about what kind of things can be reduced to other kinds of things (and conversely, what can emerge from what). (Biology reduced to chemistry reduced to physics...) That enmeshes us in questions about the relationship between wholes and their parts (mereology). (The mind-body problem probably belongs here.)

Metaphysicians wonder about the identities of particular things and about what justifies us in talking about 'this x' and 'that one' as if they are two rather than one. And that raises problem when we factor change into the mix. (How can X change and still be the same X it was before?) These questions have obvious relevance to quantum mechanics and to things like entanglement.

Metaphysicians think about causality and how it is that event A brings about event B. With Hume, they wonder how we know about this. They think about the nature of time. (Arguments about determinism might belong here.)

They think about necessity and possibility and about what kind of reality an unactualized possibility might have. (Do we see them having physical effects in some of the quantum weirdness, like the double slit experiment?)

And what's up with abstract objects like numbers, mathematical relationships and (perhaps) word meanings? What kind of reality do they have? What kind of reality does a fictional character like Sherlock Holmes have? (He seems to exist in one sense but not in another.) What is information? Some ontologies want to make information the final and ultimate existent and hope to reduce everything to it. (Write4U seems to like that idea and he isn't alone.)

People wonder about the order that we seem to observe in reality, about the status (and origin) of the so-called 'laws of nature'. To say nothing of how beings like ourselves know of such things and how much our rather mysterious (and inherently limited) sources of knowledge really justify our saying about them.

Having said all that, I don't think that it's an earth shaking observation to note that all human beings have ideas, assumptions and intuitions about this stuff, however unconscious and implicit they might be. We couldn't survive if we didn't. My dog does too. She seems to have some innate concept of causality (she does things in order to make other things happen) and she doesn't try to walk through walls. (But I doubt that she has much idea of the more technical stuff.)

It's also fundamental to whatever it is that science is doing.

But... it doesn't commit us to being religious theists.

 

[Yazata]

Can you specify this error, within the three paragraphs you posted? I assume it is in there, why you posted it.

How is the middle sentence (which seems to contain your desired conclusion) related to the sentences that come before it and after it? Is there some logical or rhetorical connection?

How does the idea that "metaphysical thought processes" are "deeply wired" and that a "metaphysical outlook" is "deeply ingrained" support or justify the conclusion that "atheists might not exist"?

There doesn't seem to be much connection that I can see, so it looks like a non-sequitur. (Why don't you try to explain the missing argument in more detail?)

The error, as I see it, is in thinking that "metaphysical thought processes" (whatever that means) is somehow synonymous with "religious thought processes" and in turn that "religious thought process" means "theist". So that if it can be shown that everyone has "metaphysical thought processes", then for some as-yet unexplained reason they must all be closet-theists, hence atheism is impossible.

Each of those moves looks exceedingly implausible to me, but the conclusion seems to ride on them.

 

[iceaura]

Where exactly have I confused a discovery of metaphysical belief for a discovery of theistic belief, in this thread?

For the fifth time, as explained and quoted and described in detail above: In the title.

You have claimed it is not a falsehood - thus, you are confused as described.