Are Atheists America's Most Distrusted Minority?

Magritte said in 1943 in reference to the occupying Nazis: "I am not very inclined to show "the pipe", which might be used as a pretext for shutting me up in a lunatic asylum." The painting represents his idea that "everything tends to suggest that there is little connection between an object and what it represents". The writing translated: "This is not a pipe"
"The Treachery of Images" by René Magritte 1929, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

 

I came across this strange study, which is due to come out in the April issue of the American Sociological review. It explores Americans' increasing acceptance of religious diversity as long as it does not extend to those who don’t believe in a God, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

It made me think of a subject we have not discussed here often - the subject of Atheists. We have of course had various religious and spiritual discussions, and have touched on it at various times, within those realms, but rarely as a subject on it's own.

"Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") is said to have come up with the most famous defense of the atheist belief that life was created by chance, not God. In a debate at Oxford, he is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge."

I tackle a similar idiot by the name of Richard Dawkins on this subject, in my post entitled "The Virus Of Faith", well actually together with my readers who let it rip on the the world's most famous out-of-the-closet living atheist.

But I digress, "not all atheists use the abovementioned argument, but it accurately represents the atheist belief that with enough time and enough solar systems, you'll get you, me, and Bach's cello suites.

This belief has always struck me as implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.

I fully acknowledge the great challenge to theism -- the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life. But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism -- the existence of design and intelligence. The belief that Bach's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare. The finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone Psalm 23 or a Shakespeare play.

But a just reported English University experiment has convinced me that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant. Psalm 23, let alone Hamlet, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing.

According to news reports, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and with the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and defecated on it.

The instructors hastened to note the study was not scientific, given the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, but some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of our view of the "enough monkeys for enough time" argument for random creation.

According to the science correspondent of Britain's Guardian newspaper, "assuming each monkey typed a steady 120 characters a minute (itself a preposterous assumption), mathematicians have calculated it would take 10 to the 813th power (10 followed by 813 zeros) monkeys about five years to knock out a decent version of Shakespeare's Sonnet 3 . . . "

To put 10 to the 813th power into perspective, remember that a billion is 10 to the ninth power.

There are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in God.

Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator/Designer.

Sadly, many people come to doubt God's existence because so many intellectuals are atheists. But it was a major scientist, Professor Robert Jastrow, one of the greatest living astronomers, head of the Mount Wilson Observatory, formerly head of NASA's Goddard Space Center, and an agnostic, who best explained the atheism of many scientists.

In his book "God and the Astronomers," Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. In fact, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it. Why? Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.

This led Jastrow to the sobering conclusion that many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs, especially the non-existence of God. For some psychological or emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, one will type out a psalm.

But neither math nor science argues that all came about randomly, without a Creator. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief, a belief that should be laid to rest beneath a large pile of monkey pooh at Plymouth University, England."

Comments

[Liquid]

Today I read these words over at Bob's blog and thought I would share...

---
The ego is puffed up with vanity. It enjoys being king. Under the spell of self-sufficiency, it begins to ignore the promptings that emanate from the father shore of our being. The vespers become muffled, and pretty soon you are Master of Your illusory Domain. I think therefore I am. Period. Reality is a form of my sensibility. Truth is relative. Perception is reality. Without me, it's nothing.

You have devoured the apple.

This is the primordial calamity, the Sickness That Has No Name. Now you are on the run. Immersed in its own immediate gratification, the ego lives a life of perpetual distraction. Anything to avoid turning around and seeing the hellhound that is on your trail. Worse yet, the hound of heaven.

------

READ THE REST AT ONE COSMOS

[Alexandra]

Raimondo,

I don't know. I read all these blogs, some smarter and more eloquent than others, but nobody really seems to be having a theological or spiritual discussion.

There are a lot of bloggs out there who write about these subjects. Not so many with lively threads, but one which I like very much, and you should visit is World Mag Blog. We have had quite a few theological and spiritual discussions on ATB, and they can be found in the Religion and Spirituality index here

The one to pay the most attention to most probably would be the discussion 'Is The Holy Trinity A Doctrine Of Monotheism?' if you would like to read a theological debate, pure spirituality you will find on perhaps the other threads that deal exclusively with prayer. But the moment you have a discussion about atheism as for example here on this thread or in The Virus Of Faith, which discusses Dawson, you will have the thread veer off toward either science (as in how did we evolve) politics (separation of church and state) or it will center around the arguments of atheists who simply question the very existence of God - the "show me the money" argument.

You will certainly not find a discussion on spirituality in a thread like this, because readers don't feel comfortable to talk about something as personal as that in a hostile environment, for fear of either being ridiculed or simply knowing this is not the thread which lends itself to a spiritual discussion.

[DavidByron]

Christians take a whopping 33% of that world-wide pie

And now what proportion of those christians believe in God? How many bother to turn up to church once a week? What proportion beleive in the virgin birth? What proportion in fact would you regard as actually born again? 10%? Same question applies to Islam and Hinduism of course.

Or as Kenny put it,

A Christian or Muslim who genuinely believes the doctrines of the Bible or the Koran, but who has no interest in his neighbor's conversion, is like a man who sees his neighbor's house in flames and knows that his neighbor is asleep inside that house, and just continues placidly to play his engrossing game of Minesweeper.

Since that is what the vast majority of Christians and Muslims do in fact do, what conclusions can we draw about the strength of their so-called faith?

How many of the following groups are considered saved by evangelicals? Jehoveh's Witnesses? Mormons? Quakers? Christian Scientists? Catholics?

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

Great post, Alexandra-- and as usual with your lively readership, the volume of comment looks overwhelming to me. But I've posted my own few thoughts on the subject here, at the Paragraph Farm.

[Liquid]

Some individuals are spiritually lazy and it's just easier for them to give up and say that they would put out the effort 'ONLY IF God proves himself to them' --so, whenever I hear this, I can tell that person has no respect inside themselves for what God has planted within them. No, this type of soul wants their maker to jump through hoops for them; like a "dog" in some circus act, but the fact is, God put eternity on all of our hearts and the biggest mistake one can do is to ignore it!

[Stefan]

At the risk of quoting extended segments I would love to share one of my favorite GK Chesterton passages here:

“For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion. In one sense, of course, all intelligent ideas are narrow. They cannot be broader than themselves. A Christian is only restricted in the same sense that an atheist is restricted. He cannot think Christianity to be false and continue to be a Christian; and the atheist cannot think atheism false and continue to be an atheist. But, as it happens, there is a very special sense in which materialism had more restrictions than spiritualism. Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the slightest imp, though it might be hidden in a pimpernel. The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as the sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. Nay, the really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist’s world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure that he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person before mentioned is sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have any doubts.”

Hear, Hear!!! Christians are not offended when they are told that their beliefs cannot be “proven” scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt but atheists are up in arms if they are “accused” (in their minds) of being believers. They have a great arrogance about their rugged and no-nonsense approach to reality. They are not taken in by charlatans and wives tales they imagine themselves to be the essence to the hard-nosed, scientific modern man. They don’t go “clinging to the skirts” of a God because they would rather be alone than to admit there is anything that is superior to themselves and to which they are responsible. As Chesterton noted, Christians have no problem with science (only if it is ideology masquerading as “science”) but atheists are forced into believing even the most outrageous, and improbable things in order to evict every single trace of God that may slip into their minds. The mental contortions are often quite amusing (and sad) as evidenced by Mr. Dawkins and others. If there is even one teeny-tiny speck of miracle then the atheist’s world will come crumbling down.

[Kenny Pierce]

Raimondo,

There are a number of basic factual assumptions that underlie your attitude. Among them is a fundamental conviction that if God exists, His nature is not such that a person could spend a lifetime being more as less as good as everybody else and still condemn himself to an eternity of torment.

If, on the other hand, you are convinced (for whatever reason) that such a God does exist, and if you are convinced that it is true that your friends' and neighbors' eternal fates hang in the balance of their religious opinions, then to have no concern for their prosyletization is a callousness compared to which "let them eat cake" pales in comparison. A Christian or Muslim who genuinely believes the doctrines of the Bible or the Koran, but who has no interest in his neighbor's conversion, is like a man who sees his neighbor's house in flames and knows that his neighbor is asleep inside that house, and just continues placidly to play his engrossing game of Minesweeper. ("Hey, my neighbor isn't doing anything to hurt me, after all; so what business is it of mine to interfere?")

Put it this way: I imagine that you see your attitude as live-and-let-live. From the Christian/Muslim perspective, your attitude is live-and-let-worse-than-die.

You don't understand the urge to prosyletization because you don't understand either what Christianity and Islam teach, or else that Christians and Muslims by and large actually believe that their religions are true, or else that many Christians and Muslims genuinely and deeply care about their friends and neighbors. Of course I'm not saying that you should start proselytizing for your own religious view, from the standpoint of which proselytization makes no sense. It's just that you said you don't understand why people want to proselytize; so I'm explaining it to you.

[Kenny Pierce]

David,

Now that I know you're English it's going to be practically impossible to avoid addressing you as "Lord Byron." Or, if you've just said something particularly endearing, as, "My sweet Lord."

Heavens, Alexandra, I'm in an even sillier mood today than I was yesterday.

Ahem.

In an attempt to be serious: David, your perception that most people are losing their faith is I think reasonably valid for Europe as a whole, though not for, say, Africa or America (especially those parts of America which you hold in low esteem due to their holding in low esteem the opinions you hold dear). Europe suffers from a great many social pathologies; whether this mass loss of faith is to be included on that list is of course a matter of opinion.

[Kenny Pierce]

Okay, Alexandra, I KNOW I promised to play for real, but how can I be expected to pass up an opportunity like the one Lord Byron provides me with his rhetorical question, "If I call my dog "god" does that prove god exists?"

I am irresistibly reminded of that pitable gentleman, the neurotic dyslexic insomniac agnostic, who used to lie awake all night every night torturing himself with doubts over whether or not there really was a dog.

[Raimondo]

MCart...

Can it be that religion too is a tool for better understanding the world? At least the inner world? The world of feelings, emotions, inner visions, dreams, etc...

Can it be that both religion and science can completely coexist? I.e. Psychology.

Can people posess more than one belief structure? Just like owning different sets of tools for different chores.

Is praying to Vision of the Lady of Fatima the most effective way to perform neurosurgery, or performing neurosurgery the most effective way to make a person's feelings of inadequacy and emptiness disappear?

I think the two are inertwined. Difficult to separate. Even the staunchest Atheist Communist is responding on some level to the notion of right and wrong, that comes from somewhere, traceable to a dogma rooted in some form of collective behavior somewhere down the line.

Nothing is born out of nothing at lest on the human plane. If we want to get metaphysical, then I agree God is beyond even the mere concept of infinity, God is beyond the mere idea of a vacuum. God is that which we will never comprehend. So let God be...because our peanut little brains and hearts are never going to fully comprehend the full mystery.

Problems arise when people think they are in posession of absolutes. For example pious people who think the know God better than me. Or atheists who think they have the answer to everything. Or B.F. Skinner who thinks he can construct a box that can replicate the world in all its complexity. Or the Taliban who chop heads off of someone who looks the wrong way. Or the Politically Correct Crew that is ready to lash out with a barrage of accusations and law suits at every turn.

I don't think its a matter of either or, instead a matter of degrees of faith, that can turn into dogma, then evolve into psychosis and eventually hysteria.

[MCart]

I don't think there is a doubt about the existence of God even for athiest though, I think they have chosen to deny God and the actual doubt they wrestle with after the fact of choosing to deny comes a 'serious doubt' of if they will ever get to "know" God and then it turns into a total need of "knowing" oneself. See the hunger turns inward instead of upward!

---------------------

Well, you would be wrong about this one at least. I simply don't believe. Never really have. I was at one time curious about Christianity, if for no other reason than it's pervasiveness, but it just doesn't do anything for me. I simply have no ...faith at all. It's not an active thought, it's a void or a null.

Also missed the mark on 'knowing yourself'. I don't have any need to 'know myself" at all. There's no part of my mind 'hidden' from me. Why would there be? Is there some part of yourself that you do not 'know'? I suppose the back of my head is kind of hard to see, but a mirror will work nicely even for that.

As far as Atheists as a 'group' or 'religion of it's own', some people identify themselves as Atheist's that are really Agnostic, and they don't really know the difference. There are also some people that consider identifying as an Atheist to be 'trendy' or somesuch. They don't really concern me, because they don't speak for me. To my knowledge, there is no secret Atheist Library Card, or Recipe Club. We don't really have a spokesman or faith structure of any kind. It's not like we get together and hold hands and pray to the nothingness. If we do 'believe' in anything, i'd have to say it is Humanity.

A lot of people seem to misidentify SCIENCE as FAITH for Atheists. It is not. Science is not a faith at all or even a reliable ideology. It is a TOOL for understanding the world around us. Anyone who tries to use Science as a belief structure all on it's own, is missing the point and setting themselves up for a huge letdown.

[Raimondo]

I don't know. I read all these blogs, some smarter and more eloquent than others, but nobody really seems to be having a theological or spiritual discussion. The discussion seems to centered around wether it's better to be an atheist or a theist.

I think there's a huge spiritual crisis in the West. Churches are empty in countries like Italy (Formerly Catholic). People, me included have searched elsewhere for answers. New cults spring up like mushrooms. The rites of our forefathers have been questioned, scorned and ridiculed into non existence. Traditional churches cannot compete with the media and survive in the market place. Instead we have these monstrous dis ingenuous tele evangelist mixes of pop psychology and watered down spiritualism.

I feel uncomfortable jumping up and down with hallelujas, or putting up with second rate Christian rock bands, just so I can flaunt my connection with God with a bunch of other people who just so happened to need to fill a convention center in a downtown shopping mall just to hear the word of the Lord. It's very weird to me. Just like it's very strange for me to go to Catholic mass with people I know are not pious in the least every other day of the week, just to listen to a priest tell me to be good, over and over and over again. I don't understand this collective need to flaunt and exert one's spirituality.

I also don't understand the need to prosletize. I could not give a damn if my next door neighbor practices Voo Doo on a regular basis, as long as there is no health code violation. If he or she is not as in tune with God as I am so be it, as long as they don't harm me or my family. I know myself pretty well. I emulate God in my life. My life is fairly clean and just. I don't kill, cheat or steal, and besides occasionally harming a few feelings I don't harm anyone in particular, unless it's on the Jiu Jitsu mat or in the ring but then they are prepared.

So I really don't get this "my belief is better than yours" business. In my mind the equation is fairly simple. If you contribute positively to society you are doing God's, Buddha, Vishnu, the Ju Ju man, Allah, the Non Essence, Ron Hubbard's and whom ever or whatever else's work. Or just simply being a good person, that on some level is as good as all other good persons out there.

If on the other hand you cause chaos, kill, and cause suffering...Then you are a pain in society's collective rear and we have to isolate you, and if the need be destroy you. I don't care who told you to do so. God himself can show up at my doorstep and tell me to sacrifice one of my children and I would fight him to the death. I never got the Abraham thing, the guy was nuts!

My faith is natural. I believe in natural rights and wrongs. If you follow your true nature and get angry, sad or happy when you are supposed to then you're doing o.k.

If on the other hand if you let your ideology, belief etc..turn you into a moron..then you deserve to have a miserable life. I will cite the example of the Christian Peace workers who were saved in Iraq. Their ideology got so in the way of ther genuine human feelings that they could not even admit that the Army did a good job at saving them. Instead of being genuinely happy and showing feelings of gratitude their consciousness was so layered with ideological drivel that they did the exact opposite and condemned their saviors. In essence they don't differ an iota from their captors. Both allow the mind to take over the heart, thus making them rigid, unnatural and ultimately stupid. I mean come on! Are they that brainwashed that they can't even relax for a second and be happy to be alive?!!!

Examples of unnatural practices abound, in all religions, from the invention of the burqua, to vegetarianism , to CCD Group Confession, to circumcision both male and female, to refusing medical intervention, to home schooling, to hands on healing, to snake handling, to believing that the stain on a window is an apparrition, to believing in Kofi Annan's integrity...etc...The list is endless

Perhaps Michael Jackson's Neverland can be turned into a place to hoard fools of all stripes. Tom Cruise can be their Commander in Chief, while we can go on living a natural healthy life.

[Washington]

Bravo Alexandra. A most effective comment that all at once points out that fact is the enemy of people like DB.

[Liquid]

Ghost--There is no faith without doubt. Only fundamentalists labor under the delusion and denial that they have no doubt, and they actually "know" something.

----------------------

I don't think there is a doubt about the existence of God even for athiest though, I think they have chosen to deny God and the actual doubt they wrestle with after the fact of choosing to deny comes a 'serious doubt' of if they will ever get to "know" God and then it turns into a total need of "knowing" oneself. See the hunger turns inward instead of upward!

[Alexandra]

DB,

Well I don't know about America but in the UK about 2% of the population are Christians. Now I am not counting as christian all the people whose definition of being a christian is that's what they put on their passport, never go to church for example, not even at christmas.

You have been counting David, I am impressed. Anyway out here in the real world we use charts, like this one. And yes I was giving you a world-wide figure off the top of my head, and as it turns out I was 2% out, as half of the 16% world-wide non believers are theistic but non religious.

It would be good for you to have a look at some facts on that chart, which will remind you that Christians take a whopping 33% of that world-wide pie. But I know what you mean, the atheists simply know how to calculate better, which is why you all live in this majority dream land.

As for Royalty, coming from England you must be real pissed QEII is the head of the executive branch of the government, an integral part of the legislature, head of the judiciary, the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the Crown AND Supreme Governor of the Church of England, huh?

Days gone by, I know what you mean David, however I would not hold my breath for socialism to come to your homeland any time soon, Wills may still be good to go, and if you are not run over by Muslims, Christianity looks like it's there to stay.

[DavidByron]

Well I don't know about America but in the UK about 2% of the population are Christians. Now I am not counting as christian all the people whose definition of being a christian is that's what they put on their passport, never go to church for example, not even at christmas.

It seems to me that the bulk of people in the west these days, the folks who really don't think much about it at all, well they are atheists in the sense I outlined above. Not a philosophical sense but just because these days it's all about me isn't it? And that attitude just isn't compatable with belief in a deity.

People just don't believe that anything's worth worshiping these days. Sure most of them wouldn't call themselves atheists but that doesn't mean they don't reject the concept of a god.

[Fausta]

Science should be atheist.
I'll leave to others what it should/shouldn't be.

By definition, true science doesn't discard any possibilites, however remote.

[Ghost Dansing]

There is no faith without doubt. Only fundamentalists labor under the delusion and denial that they have no doubt, and they actually "know" something.

I'll bet if you ask ANY atheist...there is some "thing" they have in mind, because in almost all religions God, Gods, Goddess and Goddesses are "thingified", because religion seeks to end the questioning with its "answers".

I've said before, that is probably why the mystics typically end up with something like the idea that silence is the best thing humans can say about God, and is closest to God's essence.

I was reflecting on Jesus...and the debate about the nature of Jesus. See, he had to be "man...Human"...yet he had to be God or Divine...that in itself caused all kinds of schism...in the end, it would appear that in Christianity, God felt, one way or another, that he had to give mankind a teddy bear to cling to comfort their misunderstanding...in the end, of course, we misunderstood the teddy bear as well...but that's only human.

[Liquid]

David---"Pretty much everyone these days is becoming an atheist IMO"
------------------------

Ha Ha David, I think you need to get a new crowd and some new friends if you think this.

Ok everyone ...raise your hand or I mean ummm type
I AM NOT AN ATHIEST

so David can SEEEEEEEEE that NOT EVERYONE IS DENYING THEIR MAKER!

I AM NOT AN ATHIEST DAVID....SEEEEEEEEEE??????

[Washington]

Alexandra,

That's a good point. Only he (DBAS) would construe himself, and 10%, to be everyone. More faulty logic not backed up by any facts - he just states something and pretends it's true. Sophist to the core.

[Alexandra]

DB,

And that is why people are really all atheists these days. We've had it with kings.

You mean all 10% of you?

[DavidByron]

What about sleep blogging?

Well if you think about the sort of tasks that you sometimes spend doing and then "come to" and realise you can't precisely remember the experience of what you did as such those would be the sort of activities prone to unconscious processing would think.

So if after you've blogged or commented you find an hours gone by and you can't really remember what you did then, yeah, i'd say you were sleep-blogging.

Or else drunk maybe.

[DavidByron]

Oh I don't think so Alexandra. Pretty much everyone these days is becoming an atheist IMO. As I said before everyone is an atheist when it comes to Zeus and Thor. So in the end it's just terminology. If I call my dog "god" does that prove god exists? The fact is that in scientific terms your god would be classified as an alien being of some kind. Atheists don't necessarily deny the existence of alien beings, even extraordinarily advanced ones who might have the powers of a "god".

But they wouldn't bow down and worship such a being. People just don't go in for that sort of boot liking any more. Kings and Queens are out and Democracy is in. So what place does an extraterrestrial King got? a big King in the sky? Well even if one or perhaps several did exist would it make me feel I had to worship them? Nope. And that is why people are really all atheists these days. We've had it with kings.

[Alexandra]

Atheism, as commonly defined by atheists, is expressing a lack of belief, or disbelief, in deities. It is not a positive belief in anything, but much more a negative concept. That's why atheists are not a coherent or concerted group. Their organizations, if any, merely serve a role of broadcasting information more than anything else, for there cannot be any concerted action when nobody agrees on what to do (except of course on immediate concerns like their right to be an atheists or separation of church and state). Most atheists can't even agree on whether atheism should be propagated, or whether it should be promoted, let alone on the way of doing so. It’s essentially an unifying agreement to disagree on any religious views, period.

There are good reasons for this. An important premise is that we have to examine the problem in the light of the non-acceptance of atheism in our modern society.

From this fact, we must conclude that being atheist requires a lot of intellectual independence. "To be open-minded is to be misanthropic : to most people, reasonable disagreement is hatred". At any rate, the independence of reason entails a strong possibility of non-cohesion. And when there are no strong, popularized positive systems of belief that appeal to this peculiar population, it is perfectly normal to find a total lack of cohesion.

In contrast, the role of faith has mostly been to give cohesion and focus to a group. Religion in particular steals the place of valid worldviews because its mimetic complex of positive beliefs gives this sense of belonging to a group that supports one's views. Strong-atheism, being a positive belief, can fulfill part of this role. However, it is only a positive belief about one, inconsequential point, the existence of Gods.

Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, ontological belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of metaphysical and epistemological deductions. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavor. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.

One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no God !" is not a very motivating call for most people. It's not that there are no reasons to fight the influence of religion in our daily lives. It's just that it's not a very inspiring call to arms. Besides, atheists, as a general rule, tend to be more intelligent, independent and productive people, and therefore have other things to do (unless they frequent this blog in which case they are a constant proof that there indeed are exceptions to the rule). The problem is that by doing so, they let society undermine their efforts through wasteful laws, customs and regulations.

These problems are reflected in reality. Awareness of atheism has not really changed since the beginning of the Enlightment. Indeed, it could be said with much evidence that the Golden Age of atheism is behind us, thank God.

[Raimondo]

David..

What about sleep blogging?...Have you ever experienced it?..Not quite an enlightened state, still falls in the cathegory of"Maya" or "Illusion".

Sages have also referred to it as Kneejerkism.

There's a very effective Yoga Asana that one can practice to overcome this stage of semi-consciousness. If involves putting one's foot in one's mouth repetitively 108 times a day, until the veil of Maya is lifted and one's pure consciousness is allowed to shine fourth.

[Ed]

Our language is underutilized.
Nearly all of those claiming the name "Atheist" are not. They are Antitheist. "... implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject."
Science should be atheist. Truly Atheist. As open to the possibility that evidence proves, that evidence disproves or that evidence is inconclusive regarding, existence of God.
Knowing what conclusion they must find the data to prove is religion. Theist or Antitheist religion.

[North by Northwest]

I should add, that there are of course those blessed souls who have found complete peace within their faith. Who deal with every day struggles and heartaches (I am afraid faith never shelters us from those - sigh) without redirecting their frustration towards God. Who do not expect explanations or to be given reasons, but rather view life as a journey where obstacles and tribulations are 'necessary opportunities' for once spiritual growth.

Reneybeany

Quite right. We have a long long way to go until we grasp even the most trivial phenomena, such as understanding where our thoughts are 'pulled' from; where they are 'created'. And I am not talking about recalling memories, prompted by our senses, but those that 'suddenly' enter our minds.

[Reneybeany]

Suppose a monkey did type a line of scripture -- what would that prove? There is more to a line of scripture than the mere pressing of buttons. Pressing buttons is the easy part. What the line of scripture represents is the key achievement. No one, Darwinists included, has ever said that a monkey, reproducing a line of scripture by randomly hitting keys, created the line with understanding of its poetry and meaning.

[North by Northwest]

Ghost,

Most so called "atheists" are so because they were turned off by some brand of religion, and some definition of God.

I take your word for it, although, I have often found in conversations about this subject, that 'doubt' seems to be the most common denominator.

And that is in itself an intensely personal experience/struggle. So, if a 'negative experience(s)' were the cause for doubt, I suppose your point is right on the money. If however doubt is brought on by personal issues more to do with self-worth, self-esteem, self-confidence, or the lack of it etc etc, than that takes us full circle to the age old struggle of making sense of our existence and the purpose of our life.

Frankly, being an atheist whilst battling with such questions must be gut-wrenching but is in no way exclusive to atheists. Marting Luther for instance, was well known for his continuous fits of deepest doubts and screaming matches directed against 'God'. In many ways, 'aggressive' questioning leads quite often to renewed faith and spiritual growth.

Personally, I think that settling in with ones convictions is the least desirable option, for it locks in a status quo, and irrespective of any conviction, that surely can't be a good thing.

[Ghost Dansing]

Oops.. I actually fell into the language trap myself.."humanity perceives something that transcends itself"..

Actually God is typically described in such abstract trancendent terms that God would be no-thing at all.

It is an interesting intellectual excercise to reflect on the characteristics of our concept of infinity, and our concepts of God...how much they parallel and how well it suits to say "God is infinit"... We speak of infinity, have a concept of infinity, yet it is impossible to experience infinity within the context of our human existence.

[brian]

Alexandra has become quite fiesty! She has the spine to defend herself, at least. Bravo!

[Ghost Dansing]

Most so called "atheists" are so because they were turned off by some brand of religion, and some definition of God. Most people have an idea of God that is some form of anthropomorphization, learned from their religion, or from general secular ideas that are circulated about God.

Ironically, the typical defining adjectives for God are simple negations of existential parameters.

For example...God is perfect, whereas no human is perfect. God is infinite, whereas humans are existentially finite. God is omniscient, where as humans are trapped in perspective and always have imperfect and incomplete knowledge.

God is always a transcendent concept...something beyond...that has engendered nearly infinite speculation...and spawned quite a few religions "about" God, claiming of course in each instance some divine revelation or another.

There are apparently over 2000 denominations/confessions/sects of Christianity alone!

That fact in itself demonstrates that humanity perceives something that transcends itself, of which we trully know little.

If one questions an individual atheist or a religious believer, one will find that it is a particular concept, or idea, or description of God that he/she embraces or rejects.

[brian]

Maybe I should credit Ronald W. Reagan with the original version of my little joke. Yes I will.

[rorschach]

Have no problem with believing in God. Have BIG problems with believing in his representatives on earth.

Just as an example: previous bishop of my diocese (former Catholic here) not only was accused of sheltering pedophiles for years, but lost his bishopric after being involved in hit-and-run accident and thus convicted of manslaughter. Current bishop not great improvement; refuses to allow autistic kid to take Eucharist because kid won't receive it properly. Forgets that Jesus didn't say "SOME OF YOU, take and eat" but "ALL of you, etc."

You see why I can go back to God, but not to Church. I have problems with God's supposed representatives on earth being, by and large, either perverts or assholes.

[Washington]

Having skipped the comments by DB I was left wondering who Brian was talking about but I glanced up and saw. Nice one Brian.

Richard Dawkins is a powerful intellectual force. He has written a great deal and Alexandra referenced him earlier. I read all of his books up until 2003 and can't say that he made a case that moved me. Atheists are not godless. They either believe in science, music, art, or even themselves. They have a godhead...

[brian]

He has a sense of humor after all! I never would have guessed:')

[DavidByron]

LOL, funny one Brian. Congress still think they have something to do with passing a law, eh?

[brian]

The Congress just outlawed Byronism. Bombing begins in five minutes.

[Kenny Pierce]

Steve,

Personally, I go with the late G. K. Chesterton, who said of people like the late Joseph Campbell, "They always seem to be saying that Buddhism and Christianity are really very much alike, especially Buddhism." ;-)

There's a serious point behind that but I'm not feeling particularly seriously inclined to defend it...oy, Alexandra, tomorrow I will try to play for real.

After I've introduced those three fine young men to Anya, of course.

[Liquid]

The question of consciousness vs mind is coming up because of Ambien and similar drugs. Millions of Americans are taking sleep drugs and there's a lot of non-conscious complex behaviour going on now. Not just sleep walking but sleep cooking and sleep driving the car.
----------------

You know, ambien is a hypnotic drug and just like any other drug, one has to be very careful at how sensitive one's own body is to any drug.
For example, I think all these "ambien" stories should have a further study done on them, and add not only tolerance levels, age, trauma, liver function, etc and also a deeper study into how maybe the drug was not being taken as directed by the physician for some. I have actually heard people say, well if it says take one then two will do even better!

I just think there is more involved in these cases, because for example, many will take an ambien or sleep aid much later into the wee hours of morning like 1 am or past that because they continue to wrestle in trying to go to sleep, so the actual 8 to 10 hours that needs to be applied to the action or results of this drug are pushed and still active in the body on into possibly lunch time. If you have a good physician that prescribes ambien, they will tell you to allow a certain length of time and not to think you can jump up at 8 in the morning and get behind the wheel of a car! Also the physician will tell you NOT to drink any alcohol! Now some people's liver and metabolism handles alcohol differently so it would be interesting to know how many of these that are suffering from "side effects" have had alcohol in their system or any over the counter meds that might still have left traces in their blood system or body tissue that might be reacting with the ambien.

Another thought on this, is trauma, because trauma to anyone after surgery or if they are in acute pain is more vulnerable or sometimes not so vulnerable to certain medication. I would think the actual woman in this article was recieving pain meds or anti-inflammatories or who knows what other drugs since she had just undergone back surgery. Drugs have a tendency to react differently for different people.

One last thing to ponder on this issue is the responsibility factor. For example, how many times have you been woken up by noise or the tv left on or heck...your bladder decides you need to make a trip to the lady's room? How many times have you gotten up and while up something else distracted you and before you know it...you were awake and two hours passed? Ok..now take that same scenerio and add the fact that you have chosen to take some ambien. Even though you seem wide awake and functionable you are still under the influence so if you get behind the car or get online and do porn or decide to cook or pay your taxes....YOU are still under the influence of drugs! That is why there is suppose to a certain amount of allowed time to sleep! But ambien doesn't come with restraints that tie you down! The time release version doesn't even have that! Ha Ha

I just think there should be much more in depth study on those that seem to be over sensitive and perhaps over prescribed without good medical information on the drug itself!

[Liquid]

Sorry Alexandra for the typo on your name! I am having lunch at the computer! *finger flopping*

[Michael (van der) Galien]

To see and understand the difference between subconscious and conscious.

[Liquid]

Kenny, I loved that interview you shared! Ha Ha
---------------------

Michael (van der) Galien, I think you are spot on when you say that athiesm is a religion to the atheist. They will not call it so, because it sure is a tactic for those "athiest" lawyers you know, "the useful idiots" when they are filing suits and clogging up our courts against our constitution at every turn! By not claiming it as a "religion per se" they feel they are intellectually on the fence and that it keeps them from persecution of any "religious type" How many times have you heard an athiest use the "that doesn't apply to me because I am neither Christian or Jew or Muslim...I am an athiest"

Great article Alexander...thanks for sharing the study!

[DavidByron]

Out of the millions of cells and billions of connections in our brain, nervous system and body, arises our mind. Few of us would deny its existence.

There's something like 10-100 trillion cells in the human body depending on how you count the cells (for example do you only count the 10% of your cells that have human DNA?)

The question of consciousness vs mind is coming up because of Ambien and similar drugs. Millions of Americans are taking sleep drugs and there's a lot of non-conscious complex behaviour going on now. Not just sleep walking but sleep cooking and sleep driving the car. Here's a quote from an article that was in the NYT recently:

"One woman in the Minneapolis area whom Dr. Schenck treated, Judie Evans, said she began taking Ambien while recovering from back surgery. At the time, she was in a full body cast and needed assistance to get out of bed. ....
Ms. Evans, who is 59 and lives alone, began to notice that food was missing
from her refrigerator. She accused two nursing aides who were caring for her
of stealing food. .... The first night her son was there, he found her standing in the kitchen, body cast and all, frying bacon and eggs"

So the question arises, if you can jump out of bed go down to the kitchen and cook a fry up, presumbaly eat it and then tidy up before you go back to bed --- all subconsciously --- then why do people need a conscious mind?

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Byron,

You're not making sense whatsoever. You defy all logic right now.

... do you hear that sound somewhere far, far away?

what is it?

g oo ke nn y, goo oo kenn y...
Ahh Cheerleaders!
Go Kenny ;)

[Steve M]

Beautiful Thingers, if you don't want to read a very personal account by someone who was, until this morning, a complete stranger here, then please skip this post now.

For those that are still here, thanks for listening...

I was brought up Jewish in England and when I was 7 years old my parents sent me to Sunday School to learn about our religion.

As a child I had been obsessed with questions like "If God created the universe, then who created God?" and "What was there before?". I had just discovered the concept of a vacuum and I was curious. So I asked my teacher (who to me was a very wise, very old man): "Before God created the universe, was there a vacuum?" To my surprise he simply said "No, there wasn't even a vacuum."

Wow!

In that moment I had a Zen-like realisation that not only was this stuff beyond my understanding but it was also beyond all human understanding - a position I hold to this day.

In the meantime, I've explored many religions and philosophies, both Eastern and Western and I go with the late Joseph Campbell when he quotes from the Vedas: "Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names."

Out of the millions of cells and billions of connections in our brain, nervous system and body, arises our mind. Few of us would deny its existence.

Our universe is so many billions of times more complex than the individual human. I wonder whether God might in some way be 'the mind of the universe'.

[Kenny Pierce]

David,

Just to save time, while you're in Wikipedia's logic section, go ahead and look up the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division, both of which you will find useful in future discussions, whether of politics or of religion.

I don't mean to be slamming you, you know; the American educational system stopped teaching logic a long time ago and it's hardly your fault if nobody has ever explained to you why "The X -- as a group -- do such and such," is not the same thing as, "Every single X does such and such."

Also, a person who is willing to represent the Christian position as, "that a hugely complex thing like a god just turned up from nothing," needs to exercise restraint in accusing other people of utilizing straw men.

All for now, I think.

Respectfully as ever (except when I'm teasing you, of course)...

[Kenny Pierce]

You for example claim that no Palestinians deserve human rights because of your characterisation of Palestines as a whole.

David, most of what you're seeing in the Palestinian discussion isn't really there; you aren't reading carefully what other people are saying. You're hearing what you expect us to say based on your own preconceived notions, rather than really listening to what we actually say. It is hardly possible, for example, for you to have misunderstood my position more completely than you have or for you to have made a statement more (no doubt unintentionally) slanderous, and your characterization of my position makes it clear that you do not understand at all the concerns I expressed at the very beginning about the fallacy of applying language appropriate at the individual level to whole groups. Indeed, the very way you phrase the sentence I quote, not to mention a couple of "translations" of my position that you've offered on the other thread, makes it clear that you do not know what the fallacy of hypostasization is, nor how to avoid committing it. (A quick trip to Wikipedia is now in order, I think; I'll wait until you're back...okay, now we can keep going.)

I'll respond to you in a while more fully over on the Palestinian thread. Could I suggest that from here on we confine the Israeli/Palestinian comments to the Israeli/Palestinian thread?

[DavidByron]

Alexandra, I have to say not only do you misrepresent evolutionary theory with a strawman but you misrepresent the Christian view too.

If indeed the world was created by monkeys then I'd sooner believe they could knock out Paslm 23 on a typewriter than create a God. Your whole "argument" seems to be that things couldn't just "happen" so a God is required. But where did God come from? Who made God? Something as complex as God surely didn't evolve or get created bymonkeys on a typewriter.... wait! Did another God make God? Is it Gods all the way instead or tortoises all the way?

Fundamnetally you've answered nothing by this. If I were to say that I beleive there's no God because the whole world was created by a big machine wouldn't you ask, "Well where did that machine come from? That doesn't answer anything!"

Well that's exactly what you've done, except your machine is called "God".

The question isn't "Who can beleive bugs and apes and humans just derived from almost nothing", it is, "Which would you sooner believe? That simple things like humans came from nothing, or that a hugely complex thing like a god just turned up from nothing?"

[Michael (van der) Galien]

"Christianity contains anti-rational elements by design. Don't be embarassed by that. Don't pretend that all other religions do or that atheism does. By using this argument that atheism is a religion too, the Christian is saying they are ashamed of the anti-rationalism (faith) in their own belief system"

Dude, seriously... This is one of the worst 'reasonings' I have ever read.