Look at religion the way a sociologist might. More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists. I think the reason for this is related to what Marx said about religion: that it's like opium. At first glance, this sounds bad, as if believers are like junkies, deluded and wasting away in a back alley somewhere. In fact, opium is also medicine. Anesthesia can debilitate, but it can also return function to a person who would be curled up in a ball on the floor otherwise.

The reason educated people are freed from the need for this anesthesia is that they're more like to be insulated from the things in life that cause pain. They have health care. Their children have access to antibiotics. They don't live where drive-by shootings happen regularly. They don't fear that attention from the police will lead to a catastrophe. They believe they can contribute meaningfully to their communities.

Uneducated people are more likely to be poor and disenfranchised. I'm not saying rich educated people don't feel pain, I'm just saying they receive it at a lower dose. So if you consider the options for a poor person who becomes overwhelmed by death and disease: which would you choose for them? Real opium? Or religion, which comes with a supportive community?

I think if you look at it this way, you'll see that rational argumentation is going to be fairly impotent in regard to refuting religion. Spend your free time working to help poor families with sickness, community disintegration, and economic instability. That will actually advance atheism.

↪intrapersona

Look at religion the way a sociologist might. More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists. I think the reason for this is related to what Marx said about religion: that it's like opium. At first glance, this sounds bad, as if believers are like junkies, deluded and wasting away in a back alley somewhere. In fact, opium is also medicine. Anesthesia can debilitate, but it can also return function to a person who would be curled up in a ball on the floor otherwise.

The reason educated people are freed from the need for this anesthesia is that they're more like to be insulated from the things in life that cause pain. They have health care. Their children have access to antibiotics. They don't live where drive-by shootings happen regularly. They don't fear that attention from the police will lead to a catastrophe. They believe they can contribute meaningfully to their community.

Uneducated people are more likely to be poor and disenfranchised. I'm not saying rich educated people don't feel pain, I'm just saying they receive it at a lower dose. So if you consider the options for a poor person who becomes overwhelmed by death and disease: which would you choose for them? Real opium? Or religion, which comes with a supportive community?

I think if you look at it this way, you'll see that rational argumentation is going to be fairly impotent in regard to refuting religion. Spend your free time working to help poor families with sickness, community disintegration, and economic instability. That will actually advance atheism. — frank

"Atheism" is an almost useless word. One must give an explanation of what one means when using it. Some people intend to mean " a lack of belief in any deities." Some intend it to mean "a belief that no gods exist."

What do you mean when you use "atheism?"

I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."

One Frank to another...where does that come from?

Well, er, where to begin!?

This is a viciously complex problem given that many fall into the trap of working from the premise that “emotions” are distinct from “logic”. What is more no human being acts wittingly - meaning our appreciation of our very selves is limited and logic itself is confined in use to set limits.

On the neurological side of things I would say that Damasio’s ideas do help combat the straneg dichotomy of the “rational” as opposed to the “emotional”.

For further thought you’d have to lay out exactly what it is you’re trying to “refute” more clearly. To refute religion meaning what exactly woudl be my initial question. If you cannot answer that with moe depth and breadth then we’re going nowhere fast.

This looks like it could develop into an interesting topic very quickly! Don’t disappoint me :D

What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa

My intention was to be on the same page as the OP. If I failed, that can be worked out in conversation.

I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."

One Frank to another...where does that come from? — Frank Apisa

This is the article Psychology Today used to justify the claim. Is it wrong?

Rationality isn't even everything in terms of rationality.

There is a lot of disagreement on many aspects of rationality, with that often being fundamentally irreconcilable.

If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have tons of longstanding academic disputes, we wouldn't have academic developments outside of empirical discoveries, etc.

I shouldn't put rationality and logic on such a pedestal. For example, we don't need rationality to love. — intrapersona

Ugh. False dichotomy. As though emotions and logic were somehow unrelated.

So religious people often make this their axis for their religious inclination. — intrapersona

So they admit it's irrational? Good. Discussion over.

So they admit it's irrational? Good. Discussion over. — NKBJ

They'd probably say arational, not irrational.

What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa


My intention was to be on the same page as the OP. If I failed, that can be worked out in conversation. — frank

I don't see the word "atheist" or "atheism" in the OP...so I am still not sure what YOU mean when you use those words.

As you say, though, we can clear that up in conversation.

I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."

One Frank to another...where does that come from? — Frank Apisa


This is the article Psychology Today used to justify the claim. Is it wrong?

Not necessarily "wrong"...but dubious. I have a distrust of articles like that one. It contains "studies" and "statistics." I took "statistics" in college three times...once for a math requirement; once for an economics requirement; and once for a psychology requirement...

...and my professors all said (or alluded to) the notion that any of us pursuing polling or statistical analysis careers should ALWAYS attempt to divine the ends an employer or client is looking for BEFORE doing the research! A clever statistician can come up with "most seas are colored pink" if required.

Anyway...I suspect that as many intelligent people would gravitate toward "agnostic"...as would choose "atheist."

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson all described themselves as agnostic.

Can you guys clear up in more detail why exactly rationality isn't everything in relation to judgements like that of religion. Why is there room for the irrational? Especially when it isn't necessary to live with meaning and purpose or even enjoy life. — intrapersona

I agree with your professor in one respect and disagree in another. There's clearly more to life than just reason. There's pleasure, affection, hope, faith, love, etc. However, I don't think that these should be considered to be opposed to reason. Ideally, your hope, faith and love should be ordered and directed by the use of reason.

so I am still not sure what YOU mean when you use those words. — Frank Apisa

I think there are some areas of philosophy where we do act as though we're on the autistic spectrum and we don't quite know what to do with words, and there is value in that. I'm also a big fan of clarification.

But there are other domains in which there is no merit in acting like there is some unsolvable mystery bound up in a word so that it's practically useless, when all you have to do is look at how it's being used.

I believe there's rationale in everything.

For example, we don't need rationality to love. — intrapersona

To your professor I'd say there is a lot of priority and preference in falling in love. For example, which character or persona you prefer to the others, what factor you consider to be more vital than others, etc. All these and much more come into play when we're falling in love and they are a part of our rationale even if we don't take the time to deliberate on them.

— Frank Apisa


I think there are some areas of philosophy where we do act as though we're on the autistic spectrum and we don't quite know what to do with words, and there is value in that. I'm also a big fan of clarification.

But there are other domains in which there is no merit in acting like there is some unsolvable mystery bound up in a word so that it's practically useless, when all you have to do is look at how it's being used. — frank

You seem reluctant to give a direct answer...and if you are not willing to do so for some reason...just tell me and I will drop it.

As of the moment, when you use the word "atheist"...I do not know if you are denoting someone who asserts "there are no gods"...or if you are denoting someone who asserts, "I do not have a 'belief' in any gods."

That difference is significant...and matters to someone trying to understand what you are saying.

I have no problem, however, if you don't care whether I understand what you are saying or not.

That happens.

They'd probably say arational, not irrational. — Terrapin Station

This is an important point. Our choices are not between rational and irrational. Many things, I could make the case for most things, I could even make the case for almost all things, involved with human interactions with the world are non-rational. Certain neurological disorders involving damage to areas of the brain that involve emotion make it so that the afflicted person is unable to make decisions of any sort.

They probably would. Same dif.

They probably would. Same dif. — NKBJ

Not.

As of the moment, when you use the word "atheist"...I do not know if you are denoting someone who asserts "there are no gods"...or if you are denoting someone who asserts, "I do not have a 'belief' in any gods."

. — Frank Apisa

The former is called positive atheism. Never argue with a positive atheist because they're usually emotionally unstable. This is a famous little blerb that should help you to put the matter to rest.

If the OP asks me to clarify what I meant by "atheist," I will.

The former is called positive atheism. Never argue with a positive atheist because they're usually emotionally unstable. This is a famous little blerb that should help you to put the matter to rest.

If the OP asks me to clarify what I meant by "atheist," I will. — frank

This response is an example of what is called "passive aggressiveness." Not generally considered a legitimate form of argument. I don't know if it would be considered non-rational or irrational.

Yup

I'm a bit confused. What do you mean by ''rationality''? If you mean the traditional notion of disallowing contradictions then it's my hunch that one only has to do a cursory reading of quantum weirdness to dispel the belief that everything is rational.

I may be wrong but I read somewhere that there was a conversation between Niels Bohr and Einstein and the former replied to the latter's ''our theories are too poor for reality'' with ''no, reality is too rich for our theories''.

Just saying...

i believe rationality is everything if you are forced at your job to be as productive as possible in a given time.
if your boss is nice i would be less concerned about being completely being rational.
That being said i believe if you can honestly say you are fairly certain that there is little to no evidence that there is no god than you should not believe in god.
In my opinion though it is dangerous to apply mathematics and reasoning to all subjects. I believe some subjects are better left to be in a hazy semi drunkenous.

So I thought i could use some help on this from you guys. I had a chat with my professor about this in relation to refuting religion and his view is that it is through the encompassing range of the inexpressible that we are moved by to do things and that I shouldn't put rationality and logic on such a pedestal. For example, we don't need rationality to love. My point to him was that while that is true, you still need rationality and in his example you would need it to fall in love with the right woman/man lest you make some mistake and live in regret/sorrow. So religious people often make this their axis for their religious inclination.

Can you guys clear up in more detail why exactly rationality isn't everything in relation to judgements like that of religion. Why is there room for the irrational? Especially when it isn't necessary to live with meaning and purpose or even enjoy life. — intrapersona

As I may have mentioned once or twice in other threads, rationality and logic is about definition, measurement and evaluation and is a method for interacting with the world. Through its own method, it has gained top priority in modern human thinking, but it is only one of at least four methods by which humans can interact with the world: the others being sense data, memory and feeling.

We tend to apply rationality to love, but we certainly don’t need it to love. We may, however, need it to make the ‘best’ choice in life partner - but that’s not love.

The problem with putting rationality and logic on this pedestal is that its method of definition, measurement and evaluation diminishes the perceived validity and value of many interactions with the world that are part of our experience. Emotions, for example, are not direct feeling, but rationally defined and controlled aspects of sense data as it interacts with feeling. The feeling itself remains undefined and uncontrolled, but it exists nonetheless, and therefore is valid in itself.

In reference to religion, rationality and logic dismisses spiritual awareness almost entirely, because it encompasses a variety of ways we interact with the world that cannot be defined or measured. While there is much about religion itself that can and should be examined (and likely dismissed) by rationality and logic, when it comes to spiritual awareness, rationality and logic as well as sense data must defer to feeling as a rule.

This will take some practice before we learn how to trust feeling as a valid and useful method of interacting with the world, but I think if we’re going to get past our current level of understanding in science, it will be necessary.

It comes down to values and what you happen to find convincing, and psychology.

I value rationality over irrationality, and I value seeking the truth. Other people do not value them as highly as me. They might value irrationality over rationality, or at least in special cases, like belief in God. They might not value seeking the truth, or they might value what they find comforting to believe over seeking the truth. Or, alternatively, they might have the same values as me, or convince themselves that they do, or they might be convinced by that which is false or inconclusive, but it is most likely their psychology over and above anything else which drives them down this path.

Look at religion the way a sociologist might. More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists. I think the reason for this is related to what Marx said about religion: that it's like opium. At first glance, this sounds bad, as if believers are like junkies, deluded and wasting away in a back alley somewhere. — frank

It sounds bad because it is. It's not the opium of the masses because it is used as a medicine in a way that a doctor would recommend. It's abused like addiction to a powerful drug. It is excessive escapism and unqualified self-medication. You shouldn't treat a grazed knee with a daily shot of heroin. If you struggle to cope with reality, then see a psychiatrist.

And your comments about rich people and poor people and helping the community and so on are irrelevant. You don't need to be rich to cope with reality. You don't need to be religious to engage with your community.

"Atheism" is an almost useless word. One must give an explanation of what one means when using it. Some people intend to mean " a lack of belief in any deities." Some intend it to mean "a belief that no gods exist."

What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa

The term covers both. And we generally understand the gist of it. You don't always need to get into specifics, and this seems like a case in point. Atheism is a broad position which covers both strong and weak versions.

I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa

I recall seeing this statistic before.

Anyway...I suspect that as many intelligent people would gravitate toward "agnostic"...as would choose "atheist."

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson all described themselves as agnostic. — Frank Apisa

If the meaning of "agnosticism" is basically the same as that of "weak atheism", which is obviously a type of atheism, then that specific distinction is a distinction without a difference. It is trivial. So in such cases, it wouldn't matter whether they described themselves as "agnostic" or "atheist". And if there's a distinction in any of those cases, then the question would be: what is it, and how is agnosticism supposedly justified over atheism of this sort?

"Atheism" is an almost useless word. One must give an explanation of what one means when using it. Some people intend to mean " a lack of belief in any deities." Some intend it to mean "a belief that no gods exist."

What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa


The term covers both. And we generally understand the gist of it. You don't always need to get into specifics, and this seems like a case in point. Atheism is a broad position which covers both strong and weak versions. — S

Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary.

I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism.

I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa


I recall seeing this statistic before.

I don't.

People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.

Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists.

This is an important point. Our choices are not between rational and irrational. Many things, I could make the case for most things, I could even make the case for almost all things, involved with human interactions with the world are non-rational. Certain neurological disorders involving damage to areas of the brain that involve emotion make it so that the afflicted person is unable to make decisions of any sort. — T Clark

And what's more important than that is to condemn the setting aside of such an important matter to indulge unrestrained psychological or emotional drives. Understanding this world is of higher value than escaping it. Both Socrates and Nietzsche understood that.

S
8.7k

Anyway...I suspect that as many intelligent people would gravitate toward "agnostic"...as would choose "atheist."

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson all described themselves as agnostic. — Frank Apisa


If the meaning of "agnosticism" is basically the same as that of "weak atheism", which is obviously a type of atheism, then that specific distinction is a distinction without a difference. It is trivial. So in such cases, it wouldn't matter whether they used "agnostic" or "atheist". — S

Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.

There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as unintellectual as THEIST.

Anyone using "atheist" as a discriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."

That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."

I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.

IT IS NOT TRIVIAL.

Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary. — Frank Apisa

No, it's only useful if it's necessary, and it isn't in this case.

I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism. — Frank Apisa

This isn't a discussion specifically about my kind of atheism. And I did answer your question, so long as you're capable of reading between the lines. I told you what the term means, which is obviously how I use it. When I say that I'm an atheist, I'm saying that I'm an atheist of either the strong or weak variety. And I can further clarify if need be, but that's not always necessary.

I don't. — Frank Apisa

Well, have you bothered to look into it?

People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.

Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists. — Frank Apisa

That ignores my point entirely.

Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.

There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as unintellectual as THEIST.

Anyone using "atheist" as a discriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."

That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."

I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.

IT IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa

The distinction I pointed out is indeed trivial, and your angry semantic rant which misses the point doesn't change that.

I don't care if you'd rather use the terms more narrowly, less usefully, less representative of how they're actually used. You aren't dictator of language use.

S
8.7k

Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary. — Frank Apisa


No, it's only useful if it's necessary, and it isn't in this case. — S

Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is.

I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism. — Frank Apisa


This isn't a discussion specifically about my kind of atheism. And I did answer your question, so long as you're capable of reading between the lines. I told you what the term means, which is obviously how I use it. When I say that I'm an atheist, I'm saying that I'm an atheist of either the strong or weak variety. And I can further clarify if need be, but that's not always necessary. — S

You did NOT answer my question!

And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that.

I don't. — Frank Apisa


Well, have you bothered to look into it? — S

Yes.

People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.

Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists. — Frank Apisa


That ignores my point entirely. — S

I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."

What I said applies directly to that.

Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.

There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as nonintellectual as THEIST.

Anyone using "atheist" as a descriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."

That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."

I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.

IT IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa


The distinction I pointed out is indeed trivial, and your angry semantic rant which misses the point doesn't change that.

I don't care if you'd rather use the terms more narrowly, less usefully, less representative of how they're actually used. You aren't dictator of language use. — S

"Angry...rant?"

You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part.

Oh, well. You will have to live and learn about that!

In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL.

At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"...

...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT.

How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?

I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant.