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

[Musika]

Doesn't matter what anyone "thinks": Atheistic metaphysical traditions have existed, worldwide, for thousands of years. Some regard these - even today, in the West - as the most profound of metaphysical traditions extant.

There exist atheistic metaphysical traditions that incorporate the self, and theistic metaphysical traditions that deny it.
The basic existence of them is their only relevant feature here. You've seen them named dozens of times.

I'll bite.

What are these atheistic metaphysical traditions?

 

[iceaura]

What are these atheistic metaphysical traditions?

Select from various Taoist and Buddhist and Confucian in China, for the better known ones. Shamanistic and animist approaches in non-agricultural regions sometimes have fairly sophisticated approaches - although limited by illiteracy to oral transmission, making an accumulation of metaphysical insight more difficult. Some of these - Confucian ones, say - incorporate the self as not fundamentally an illusion.
For theistic vanishing self, some Hindu and related in India, the occasional theistic branches of Buddhism, even Taoist sects can conjure up a sort of deity sometimes, while insisting the self is illusion.

It is a shame parents tell their kids there is a Santa and even though its nice making stuff up that is not true is just a lie really.

My parent's take was that Santa was very real, just like the people and characters in books were real, only better because you could be part of the story - when you got old enough you could play Santa yourself.
A guy once told me - dunno if he was in authority - that among his folks in Australia a bullroarer swung at a distance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullroarer) was used to substantiate stories told to children, systematically deceiving them, until their initiation when they were shown how it was done: and then they got to swing it themselves, at the same time beginning their education in the adult meaning and spiritual significance of the sound and its production.
The techniques of the throat singing of Tuva and nearby regions was - according to its traveling performers - used to establish the presence of spirits and the like in ritual and story. Children were deceived, in this manner, while adults were beneficiaries of adult awareness - respectful of the skill of the shaman's invocation as well as the presence of the spirit.

 

[Musika]

Select from various Taoist and Buddhist and Confucian in China, for the better known ones. Shamanistic and animist approaches in non-agricultural regions sometimes have fairly sophisticated approaches - although limited by illiteracy to oral transmission, making an accumulation of metaphysical insight more difficult. Some of these - Confucian ones, say - incorporate the self as not fundamentally an illusion.
For theistic vanishing self, some Hindu and related in India, the occasional theistic branches of Buddhism, even Taoist sects can conjure up a sort of deity sometimes, while insisting the self is illusion.

I'm not sure you can say advocating the self as an illusory construct is the same as saying it's a metaphysical claim. Metaphysics alludes to a reality beyond the physical. Illusion alludes to something that is not real.

 

[iceaura]

I'm not sure you can say advocating the self as an illusory construct is the same as saying it's a metaphysical claim

?
Not sure what you are talking about.

Metaphysics alludes to a reality beyond the physical. Illusion alludes to something that is not real.

So the claim that a reality beyond the physical 1) exists and 2) does not include a "self" regardless of what it seems like, would be a metaphysical claim.

 

[Musika]

?
Not sure what you are talking about.

So the claim that a reality beyond the physical 1) exists and 2) does not include a "self" regardless of what it seems like, would be a metaphysical claim.

Its this part of yours that draws the questions :

There exist atheistic metaphysical traditions that incorporate the self, and theistic metaphysical traditions that deny it.

If, by incorporate the self (as a metaphysical construct) you mean relegate it to the field of illusion, that would strike most people as a means to deny it.

 

[iceaura]

If, by incorporate the self (as a metaphysical construct) you mean relegate it to the field of illusion, that would strike most people as a means to deny it.

Of course. That is my assessment as well, regarding (for example) many branches or sects of Buddhism and Taoism and the like. See posts above, in the examples requested.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

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.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

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.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.
www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

Interesting article. What are your thoughts?.

Jan.

///
I am coming to this late & am responding to only the OP at this time.

Jan and/or the article referred to is contradictory. I suspect Jan thinks the article supports her silly notion that there are no atheists.
Not only my thoughts are but the fact is it is ignorant nonsense.
1st, any article referring to militant atheists & supposedly looking into whether atheists exist is very suspicious.
I doubt Richard Dawkins is absolutely convinced there are no gods.
For all practical purposes (we cannot read each others minds), there obviously are atheists as well as there are theists. No matter what anyone claims about thought processes, the only way we know there are theists is that people claim to believe in god(s) & the only way we know there are atheists is that people claim to not believe in god(s).
Except for each individual knowing about oneself. Hopefully, Jim knows he is a theist & Sam knows he is not a theist.
I definitely know I am not a theist, I certainly know that I do not believe there are any gods no matter what anyone claims about thought processes.
What is hardwired to a great degree is whether a person can believe something they do not have proper evidence for, which nonsense they may fall for & which they may not & how much influence from friends, family & society it takes. It is not hardwired the same way for every person tho. Some are hardwired to require proper evidence to believe.
It can seem easy to believe in god(s) but that is mainly because children are relentlessly intently influenced to believe stupid ignorant nonsense at a time when they are not capable of making good judgements then once they believe it, they will think, say & do any thing to support or seem to support their belief.
It is not easy for me to believe in gods. I cannot do it. I absolutely cannot believe such nonsense.
It is clear that the main factor in which religious belief a person has is which religious belief the parents have. The 2nd factor is the country and/or area where the person grew up.
The vast majority of children with theist parents end up theists & the vast majority of children with atheist parents end up atheists.
We are not born believers & I do not believe scientists claim such. Babies cannot have any belief of whether there is or is not a god or gods. Just as they cannot believe there is or is not life on other planets or any other belief which requires mental capabilities they do not have & decisions they cannot make.
There are not many studies, as claimed above, which show that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.
Tho most atheists do not believe in a soul, the existence or nonexistence of souls has nothing at all to do with being atheist.
While I can see some cognitive scientists possibly having a dim view of most humans, I expect them to know humans are not all exactly alike.
The theory expressed has not been new for a very long time & it seems like stupid hype to indicate otherwise.

The only way any validity could be shown for the ridiculous claims is having a huge group of children grow to adulthood without the insidious mindwarping influence of religion & see how they turn out.

<>

 

[river]

///
I am coming to this late & am responding to only the OP at this time.

Jan and/or the article referred to is contradictory. I suspect Jan thinks the article supports her silly notion that there are no atheists.
Not only my thoughts are but the fact is it is ignorant nonsense.
1st, any article referring to militant atheists & supposedly looking into whether atheists exist is very suspicious.
I doubt Richard Dawkins is absolutely convinced there are no gods.
For all practical purposes (we cannot read each others minds), there obviously are atheists as well as there are theists. No matter what anyone claims about thought processes, the only way we know there are theists is that people claim to believe in god(s) & the only way we know there are atheists is that people claim to not believe in god(s).
Except for each individual knowing about oneself. Hopefully, Jim knows he is a theist & Sam knows he is not a theist.
I definitely know I am not a theist, I certainly know that I do not believe there are any gods no matter what anyone claims about thought processes.
What is hardwired to a great degree is whether a person can believe something they do not have proper evidence for, which nonsense they may fall for & which they may not & how much influence from friends, family & society it takes. It is not hardwired the same way for every person tho. Some are hardwired to require proper evidence to believe.
It can seem easy to believe in god(s) but that is mainly because children are relentlessly intently influenced to believe stupid ignorant nonsense at a time when they are not capable of making good judgements then once they believe it, they will think, say & do any thing to support or seem to support their belief.
It is not easy for me to believe in gods. I cannot do it. I absolutely cannot believe such nonsense.
It is clear that the main factor in which religious belief a person has is which religious belief the parents have. The 2nd factor is the country and/or area where the person grew up.
The vast majority of children with theist parents end up theists & the vast majority of children with atheist parents end up atheists.
We are not born believers & I do not believe scientists claim such. Babies cannot have any belief of whether there is or is not a god or gods. Just as they cannot believe there is or is not life on other planets or any other belief which requires mental capabilities they do not have & decisions they cannot make.
There are not many studies, as claimed above, which show that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.
Tho most atheists do not believe in a soul, the existence or nonexistence of souls has nothing at all to do with being atheist.
While I can see some cognitive scientists possibly having a dim view of most humans, I expect them to know humans are not all exactly alike.
The theory expressed has not been new for a very long time & it seems like stupid hype to indicate otherwise.

The only way any validity could be shown for the ridiculous claims is having a huge group of children grow to adulthood without the insidious mindwarping influence of religion & see how they turn out.

<>

Agreed

But the problem is about duration or time .

It takes time to show your theory is valid , we don't have the time .

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The only way any validity could be shown for the ridiculous claims is having a huge group of children grow to adulthood without the insidious mindwarping influence of religion & see how they turn out.

AND ...we certainly could find some data to assess the results where children have grown up in religious cults...the benefits verses down side.
Alex

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Returning to our discussion of the article cited in the opening post...

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.

Or maybe the claim that atheism is scientifically impossible is not a claim that "scientists" make, but rather one that Nuri Vittachi wants to make.

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.

No. That's a logical fallacy. Like doesn't have to come from like. It does not follow that the source of a lego person is another lego person, for example. The lego person is made of plastic, but it doesn't follow therefore that the maker of the lego person must be made of plastic.

We apply this thinking, as easy as we conclude that the physical body we operate through, comes via a processes of other physical bodies.

Perhaps you are inclined to think that way, but that doesn't make it any more likely to be true.

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

Wrong again. Damage the brain, for example, and that "I am" of yours also visibly suffers damage. It is logical to infer that the "I" is therefore a product of the brain.

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.

What are you talking about? Your belief is grounded entirely in faith. If it wasn't, you would be able to present clear evidence that your God exists. But you yourself admit that unequivocal evidence of that is nowhere to be found.

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.

I try to approach all new ideas - including ones that I find attractive - with a healthy skepticism. After all, the easiest person to fool is yourself. When you don't apply the bullshit filter to ideas that seem to support your own biases, you can be led down all kinds of blind alleys. Your wide-eyed enthusiasm for the article your posted in this thread is a good example of that.

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.

That sounds a bit like mystical mumbo jumbo to me. Wouldn't it be better to keep an open mind and not accept dualism until there is some evidence in favour of it? Or course, the same thing could be said about your jumping in to enthusiastically embrace your God belief. If you're willing to jump into that, then no doubt you're equally willing to accept just about any number of related unevidenced claims.

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

Oh, lots of reasons. Peer pressure. Sometimes just to suck it and see. That's actually the scientific method. Does Reiki "work"? There's only one way to find out - try it! Test it. (A lot of atheists have tried theism, in a similar way.)

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

I thought I'd made that clear. If I attend a Reiki session, it doesn't imply that I believe in the same "tangible and intangible realities" that New Age enthusiasts for Reiki believe. Same thing if I attend a religious service.

Why do you think it is quite a stretch?

The author states that to go from a belief in some kind of "spiritual" reality (such as might power Reiki practices, for example) to a full-blown belief in an all-powerful God is an unimportant "minor detail". Maybe it's not a stretch for you, but it certainly is for me. Having said that, however, I recognise that once you open the door to belief in supernatural forces, sliding down the slippery slope to the bottom is by no means an unforeseeable consequence. In opening the door in the first place, you're giving up on critical thinking in favour of adopting the kind of faith-based stance that is common to theists.

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

I don't think you did notice the relevant point. The author tried to equate any ritual surrounding death with prayer to a deity.

Tell me: do you consider all ritual to be a kind of prayer? (Birthday party? New Year's celebrations?)

What is he bias about?

Here? The old "no atheists in foxholes" myth. It's fairly blatant. But perhaps you believe it (?)

He is an atheist, hopefully in the way to breaking the spell of atheism.

You have yet to post your evidence that he is an atheist. In fact, this point has been discussed above, and it seems you have admitted that Nuri Vittachi, the author, is not an atheist. I will assume you're now retracting this claim, unless you say otherwise.

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

He is welcome to believe what he likes, just as you are. The question of his bias in the article, however, is one that can be discussed on the basis of the available evidence in the article itself, and that's what I have tried to do.

Nobody "starts" to believe in God.

Sure they do. Babies don't believe in God. Nobody believes in God until they are introduced to the idea and old enough to understand it.

I suppose he means those communities where people tend not to socialise with each other. When I lived in London, I experienced that.

If his (or your) assertion is that atheists are less social than theists, that needs to be supported by appropriate evidence. On the other hand, the evidence is in that religious people, on average, procreate more. But that has to do, at least in part, with lack of contraception, and lack of education.

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.

I have no particular argument with that. Is it your assertion that theists are more likely to be altruistic towards their fellow citizens than atheists, then? And if that is true, what would be the reason? The theism? The threat of punishment that so often goes with theocracy? Or something else? This needs a lot of unpacking, even if it's true.

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

Well, I'd start by testing cases of non-supernatural surveillance to see if there's an effect. Some kind of Big Brother house could be a good testing ground, in principle. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly confident that some work has already been done in this area. And, IIRC, yes, people do act more in line with presumed moral expectations when they think they are being watched by other people.

Now, if that is in fact the case, the next question is: what happens to people who believe in an omni-present, supernatural watcher who might punish them in the afterlife for their transgressions? I have a hypothesis...

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

Sure. The test would show that what people believe affects what they do. It brings us no closer to establishing that there actually is any kind of supernatural spy, though.

Maybe.
Are your opinions on the author, speculation?

I think that people have a sense of justice. They like to see good people and acts rewarded, and evil ones punished. So, stories tend to reflect that. I can't see any need to inject the supernatural (e.g. karma) into this description.

What are your thoughts on this?

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

Then it's a pity you haven't posted anything substantive to address my criticisms of the article. Probably the best thing you could do is find appropriate scientific evidence that supports the author's claim (that scientists have found that atheists don't exist), because the author hasn't really pointed to any such evidence in the article. Good luck with that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

HOW does it "make sense"?

What does the rather uncontroversial observation that "Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected" have to do with "atheists might not exist"? What's the connection?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.

God Is the totality, the resting place of everything. In Hinduism this aspect of God is called Parham-Brahman.

From the atheist perspective, this world is, as they perceive it to be. As far as they are aware, there is no evidence of God. There is no evidence of a spirit-soul, pervading the material body.
There is no evidence of anything that could be called supernatural.
They generally don't accept the paranormal, or accounts of aliens, or astrology. They (as we all do) tend to accept, that there are mysteries, and, the awesomeness of nature.
Everything the atheist perceives, and comprehends, is, as far as they are concerned, within the limits of nature/physics.
How does the atheist, if he, or she, should truly be atheist, how do they have any metaphysical beliefs?

The article says... Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected...

So if we are seemingly, deeply, metaphysically wired (subconsciously), where does atheism fit? Why go against their natural, metaphysical inclinations?

So you're admitting that the whole thing is bullshit?

Nope.
Sorry.!

We don't even know what that those conclusions were. Something about "metaphysical thought processes" apparently.

Apparently!

The connection between "metaphysical thought processes" and "atheists might not exist" seems to be the contribution of Nuri Vittachi, apparently based on nothing at all as far as I can see.

It does seem to be Vittachi's contribution. But I wouldn't say it is based on nothing.

If "a metaphysical outlook" is common to all human beings, then atheists must share it as much as anyone.

If you replaced the word "atheist" with “Zrichars", it wouldn't make a difference as far as metaphysics is concerned, and we're deeply wired to a metaphysical thought process.

Everyone has ideas about what does and doesn't exist. (Ontology) They have ideas about what kinds of things can be reduced to other kinds of things, and conversely, what kind of things can emerge from other kinds of things. They have ideas about how wholes are composed of their parts. (Mereology) They have ideas about causation, about time, about their own and other minds, about the nature and function of mathematics, about possibility and necessity and many more issues typically addressed by metaphysics. Most people just naturally employ natural logic.

Okay.

Not only do all human beings possess ideas and intuitions about those kind of issues, my dog does too. She has some implicit concept of causality when she does one thing to make another thing happen. It's probably impossible for beings like us to successfully live in a universe like this without having some metaphysical intuitions.

According to scientists, it goes further than "some metaphysical intuitions“. They say metaphysical thought processes are deeply wired, and ingrained in us.
Where, and how does atheism fit into that?

None of that makes it impossible for them to be atheists.

Or "Zrichars"

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

From the atheist perspective, this world is, as they perceive it to be. As far as they are aware, there is no evidence of God. There is no evidence of a spirit-soul, pervading the material body.
There is no evidence of anything that could be called supernatural.
They generally don't accept the paranormal, or accounts of aliens, or astrology. They (as we all do) tend to accept, that there are mysteries, and, the awesomeness of nature.
Everything the atheist perceives, and comprehends, is, as far as they are concerned, within the limits of nature/physics.

Not necessarily, but let's run with this for the time being.

How does the atheist, if he, or she, should truly be atheist, how do they have any metaphysical beliefs?

You seem to be equating metaphysical with supernatural.
Metaphysical, as you seem to have copied and pasted previously, is merely that which deals with first principles, and suchabstract things as what is time, space, identity, that sort of thing.
For some reason you think only theism has views on these things?
Is that really your position?
Or do you accept that perhaps some metaphysical positions are not thematically based?
I ask as you once claimed you knew what metaphysics meant, and even copied from a web search as if to prove your point.
Yet by seeming to equate metaphysics only with with (certain aspects of) theistic belief, you demonstrate that in fact you do not understand what metaphysics is.

The article says... Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected...

So if we are seemingly, deeply, metaphysically wired (subconsciously), where does atheism fit? Why go against their natural, metaphysical inclinations?

Metaphysics does not equate to theistic belief.
That is the error you are making.
If in doubt as to the point I'm making, look up philosophical naturalism in wiki, as an example.

 

[Sarkus]

Or do you accept that perhaps some metaphysical positions are not thematically based?

"thematically" based? I presume you mean "theistically" based? Go ahead, blame auto-correct.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.

That is what everyone has been telling you since I can remember.
I hope in future you use this approach rather than your assertion that an athiest is without God.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

You seem to be equating metaphysical with supernatural.

Where?

For some reason you think only theism has views on these things?

Theism describes a person who believes in God. Nothing more, nothing less.

You seem to be equating metaphysical with supernatural.

In a metaphysical sense what is supernatural?

Metaphysical, as you seem to have copied and pasted previously, is merely that which deals with first principles, and suchabstract things as what is time, space, identity, that sort of thing.

And...

For some reason you think only theism has views on these things?

I'm talking about atheism, not theism.
Anything outside of that is your imaginings.

Or do you accept that perhaps some metaphysical positions are

I'm interested in the relationship between atheism and metahysics.

Yet by seeming to equate metaphysics only with with (certain aspects of) theistic belief, you demonstrate that in fact you do not understand what metaphysics is.

If you're going to hold up this thread by putting words in my mouth, please refrain from further response. Thanks.

Metaphysics does not equate to theistic belief.
That is the error you are making.
If in doubt as to the point I'm making, look up philosophical naturalism in wiki, as an example.

Just out of curiosity, where in that quote to did I mention theism?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Agreed

But the problem is about duration or time .

It takes time to show your theory is valid , we don't have the time .

Did you really with all of that rant?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is what everyone has been telling you since I can remember.
I hope in future you use this approach rather than your assertion that an athiest is without God.
Alex

What are you talking about?
I know an atheist is a person who does not believe in God (most probably due to denial, rejection, both, or just ignorance).

Jan.

 

[James R]

I know an atheist is a person who does not believe in God (most probably due to denial, rejection, both, or just ignorance).

Or maybe because there is no God.
Or maybe because it's silly to believe in things that are unevidenced.
Or maybe because religions are so implausible.
Or...

Thanks for the insight into your own thinking, though. It's refreshing to know what you really believe.

 

[Capracus]

Theism describes a person who believes in God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Theism describes someone who believes in deities. A deity can essentially amount to any conception of a supernatural entity. If someone believes that toenail fungus has supernatural qualities, they are practicing theism.

 

[Michael 345]

Theism describes someone who believes in deities. A deity can essentially amount to any conception of a supernatural entity. If someone believes that toenail fungus has supernatural qualities, they are practicing theism.

Love the imaginary of a tiny bearded, robed, sandal wearing jc poking out from toes yelling " Salvation is down here"