Does atheism need better PR?

[harvey1]

There's an interesting study that came out a little over two months ago that suggested that atheists are basically villified in the US. My question is what do atheists need to do to improve their public image, and are atheists willing to change in order to have more in common with the religious folks? Here's the contents of the article:

American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t 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. The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It’s the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.

[harvey1]

Nowhere in the link does it state explicitly that he claims to be an atheist. You may know that he does say he is an atheist from other sources and I will happily accept your word for that if you do - but I still remain troubled by other parts of the article.

Yes, Nagel is an atheist.

...Thomas Nagel may be an atheist in his head but I suspect he is a believer in his heart, and probably always has been.

I don't think so. You seem to me to be closer to theism than he. He is thrilled that life has no meaning brought about by God, you at least seem willing to embrace God if you only had the evidence that you feel that you need to convince you otherwise. I can't imagine Nagel ever wanting to be a theist.

But what do I know! I’ve never met the man or even read one of his books. So I may be completely wrong. Probably am. But what I do know is that if Thomas Nagel is a real, to the marrow of his bones, atheist then he is of a most unusual variety.

Yeah, I think you're saying far more than you have info to say if all you know of Nagel is that quote. The purpose of the quote was just to verify to you that he in fact said it.

I can think of no reason why my authority to speak to the views of other atheists should be any less than that of Thomas Nagel; and my belief is that his views are very unusual amongst atheists. Perhaps other atheists who read this might like to comment by way of a straw poll.

Ophelia Benson agrees with Nagel:

Thomas Nagel remarked in his essay “Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion” that he wants atheism to be true. “It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.”

No, nor do I. He has a point, doesn't he.

I found a couple of atheists who agreed with Nagel on theology web:

want there to be a God, so I look for evidence that points in that direction. Now, is there an atheist or agnostic who will admit that he or she does not want there to be a God, so they look for evidence that points in that direction?

Yes. I don't want there to be a God because I want to be right. I want reality to be understandable via naturalism. However, if there were adequate evidence for God then I would change my mind to be in accordance with what seems to be the truth.

I believe that it's natural for humans, when they come to a tentative decision, to seek more evidence to justify greater certainty in their decision. That does not mean that contra-indicating evidence can't persuade them to change their opinion, but that contra-indicating evidence tends to be underweighted, so it needs to be extra strong to overcome the bias.

John Powell

Actually, I would. The idea that we are an insignificant speck in the cosmos and that the universe at large is thoroughly disinterested in humanity is a pleasant one, and one that I would not want replaced by a cosmic loving big brother watching over us. I do not want there to be a god of any kind.

VazScep

I do think that the existence of God is feasible - but given the total lack of meaningful evidence it is a possibility that should be ignored for all practical purposes by any rational person.

I don't mean that it is unlikely, but feasible, I mean that you hold to a view that a God explanation makes sense as long as there is no strong evidence against it.

Enmity towards God, however, is simply not possible for an atheist. Indeed having enmity toward God is a clear demonstration that someone is NOT an atheist.

I don't think so. There's many things that I have enmity for that I don't think exist or things that might have happened but I don't believe happened.

[QED]

...Thomas Nagel may be an atheist in his head but I suspect he is a believer in his heart, and probably always has been.

I don't think so. You seem to me to be closer to atheism than he. He is thrilled that life has no meaning brought about by God, you at least seem willing to embrace God if you only had the evidence that you feel that you need to convince you otherwise. I can't imagine Nagel ever wanting to be a theist.

Now I'm enjoying this -- it's making me think of things I haven't thought of befrore If the six o'clock news shows the proof of God's existence then what right has anyone to wish that they were not God's creation? It seems that it would be an empty gesture as presumably there would be no alternative route to existence. Sure they could wish it, but usually

[Dion]

...Thomas Nagel may be an atheist in his head but I suspect he is a believer in his heart, and probably always has been.

I don't think so. You seem to me to be closer to theism than he. He is thrilled that life has no meaning brought about by God, you at least seem willing to embrace God if you only had the evidence that you feel that you need to convince you otherwise. I can't imagine Nagel ever wanting to be a theist.

Oh dear, I obviously haven’t made myself clear. “You seem to me to be closer to theism than he. “ I’m about as close to theism as I am to sprouting wings and flying - indeed one might precipitate the other! “… you at least seem willing to embrace God if you only had the evidence “. If I had the evidence I would have no choice - just as the lack of evidence forces me to be an atheist. Short of God arriving on his chariot of fire, I do not expect this situation to change anytime soon. However much I might, in my weaker moments, wish to live in the soft, comfortable, cotton-wool, people-centric universe that theists inhabit, I know that I don’t.

Yeah, I think you're saying far more than you have info to say if all you know of Nagel is that quote. The purpose of the quote was just to verify to you that he in fact said it.

Admitted.

Ophelia Benson agrees with Nagel:.

Thomas Nagel remarked in his essay “Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion” that he wants atheism to be true. “It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.”

No, nor do I. He has a point, doesn't he.

I found a couple of atheists who agreed with Nagel on theology web:

want there to be a God, so I look for evidence that points in that direction. Now, is there an atheist or agnostic who will admit that he or she does not want there to be a God, so they look for evidence that points in that direction?

Yes. I don't want there to be a God because I want to be right. I want reality to be understandable via naturalism. However, if there were adequate evidence for God then I would change my mind to be in accordance with what seems to be the truth.

I believe that it's natural for humans, when they come to a tentative decision, to seek more evidence to justify greater certainty in their decision. That does not mean that contra-indicating evidence can't persuade them to change their opinion, but that contra-indicating evidence tends to be underweighted, so it needs to be extra strong to overcome the bias.

John Powell

Actually, I would. The idea that we are an insignificant speck in the cosmos and that the universe at large is thoroughly disinterested in humanity is a pleasant one, and one that I would not want replaced by a cosmic loving big brother watching over us. I do not want there to be a god of any kind.

VazScep

I understand what Nagel is saying but I do not feel compelled to agree with him or defend his position. Ditto Ophelia Benson. Ditto the others. The desire for order and predictability in the Universe is a common human trait. A degree of antipathy toward an idea, God, that would make the Universe whimsical is understandable. Some people might feel that the disbenefits of God existing would outweigh the benefits, I cannot say what might have led them to that opinion. One of the nice things about being an atheist (yes, there are some) is that there is no creed that everyone must sign up to and defend.

I do think that the existence of God is feasible - but given the total lack of meaningful evidence it is a possibility that should be ignored for all practical purposes by any rational person.

I don't mean that it is unlikely, but feasible, I mean that you hold to a view that a God explanation makes sense as long as there is no strong evidence against it.

But I think that there is strong evidence against it - not the least of which is the lack of evidence for it. Unless you are postulating a God who created the Universe to appear in all respects as if it wasn’t created by a God. Then you’ve got me!

Enmity towards God, however, is simply not possible for an atheist. Indeed having enmity toward God is a clear demonstration that someone is NOT an atheist.

There's many things that I have enmity for that I don't think exist or things that might have happened but I don't believe happened.

There speaks a true philosopher. What a stressful life you must lead. I have more than enough to deal with in worrying about the things that do exist and that have happened.

[harvey1]

If I had the evidence I would have no choice - just as the lack of evidence forces me to be an atheist.

Of course you have a choice to believe in God. You are a human being with freedom to believe whatever it is that you want to believe. We are not robots that are pre-programmed to believe whatever we are programmed to believe!

Short of God arriving on his chariot of fire, I do not expect this situation to change anytime soon. However much I might, in my weaker moments, wish to live in the soft, comfortable, cotton-wool, people-centric universe that theists inhabit, I know that I don’t.

In that sense, it seems that you are showing a prejudicial resistance to believe in God--evidence for a phenomena rarely presents itself like a "chariot of fire." If that were the case, then I know of no scientific finding that anyone should believe by just reading about an experiment or observation in some newspaper or journal.

I understand what Nagel is saying but I do not feel compelled to agree with him or defend his position. Ditto Ophelia Benson. Ditto the others. The desire for order and predictability in the Universe is a common human trait. A degree of antipathy toward an idea, God, that would make the Universe whimsical is understandable. Some people might feel that the disbenefits of God existing would outweigh the benefits, I cannot say what might have led them to that opinion. One of the nice things about being an atheist (yes, there are some) is that there is no creed that everyone must sign up to and defend.

Sure, but I think it is significant that some atheists are coming forward and admitting that they have no desire for there to even be a God. It's the basis of a deep enmity that I have been mentioning to QED. Even without that type of deep enmity, there's a much more subtle enmity in which the atheist possesses a conceptual scheme where God is a remote possibility because their conceptual scheme rules out God explanations a priori. I would say that this is an enmity because it prevents them from seeing the evidence of God (which is all around them) in an objective light.

But I think that there is strong evidence against it - not the least of which is the lack of evidence for it. Unless you are postulating a God who created the Universe to appear in all respects as if it wasn’t created by a God. Then you’ve got me!

I don't see why you would say that. The big bang alone shook Fred Hoyle's faith in atheism. He did not even like the concept of a beginning to the universe because of its theistic implications. Okay, a generation has passed and the new generation of atheists have become immuned to the thinking that shook Hoyle's atheism. This only demonstrates the tendencies of atheists to construct conceptual schemes to try and deny the evidence for God--not the actual doing away of the evidence. If anything, the arguments for a beginning have only increased since Hoyle uttered his comments.

[QED]

This only demonstrates the tendencies of atheists to construct conceptual schemes to try and deny the evidence for God--not the actual doing away of the evidence. If anything, the arguments for a beginning have only increased since Hoyle uttered his comments.

By "conceptual schemes that deny the evidence of God" you're probably referring to the WAP. Well, unless you have tangible evidence other than the eminent suitability of our environment to our existence, then yes, this observation is denied as evidence.

[Dion]

Of course you have a choice to believe in God. You are a human being with freedom to believe whatever it is that you want to believe. We are not robots that are pre-programmed to believe whatever we are programmed to believe!

I hardly know what to say to a statement like that. We obviously live in parallel universes. Unfortunately, in my universe things don't exist merely because I want them to.

In that sense, it seems that you are showing a prejudicial resistance to believe in God--evidence for a phenomena rarely presents itself like a "chariot of fire." If that were the case, then I know of no scientific finding that anyone should believe by just reading about an experiment or observation in some newspaper or journal.

A little poetic licence, if you please. God could make His presence known easily and unequivocally if He wanted - it's not my fault He's such a tease!

Even without that type of deep enmity, there's a much more subtle enmity in which the atheist possesses a conceptual scheme where God is a remote possibility because their conceptual scheme rules out God explanations a priori. I would say that this is an enmity because it prevents them from seeing the evidence of God (which is all around them) in an objective light.

The same conceptual scheme also rules out the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and (you'll be delighted to hear) the IPU. Any scheme that rules out these things must obviously be deeply flawed, mustn't it!

The big bang alone shook Fred Hoyle's faith in atheism. He did not even like the concept of a beginning to the universe because of its theistic implications. Okay, a generation has passed and the new generation of atheists have become immuned to the thinking that shook Hoyle's atheism. This only demonstrates the tendencies of atheists to construct conceptual schemes to try and deny the evidence for God--not the actual doing away of the evidence. If anything, the arguments for a beginning have only increased since Hoyle uttered his comments.

I wouldn't know about Fred Hoyle but I don't have faith in atheism - an absence of faith is kind of the point! As for the views of Fred Hoyle: Well, Fred Hoyle knew a lot about the things he knew a lot about, but not so much about the things that he didn't know a lot about. Perhaps, indeed, he knew no more than anyone else about those things. So I'm not really sure why I should credit his views with any special significance. After all, his grasp of evolution by natural selection seemed a little suspect.

[Rob]

Unless you are postulating a God who created the Universe to appear in all respects as if it wasn’t created by a God. Then you’ve got me!

How do you know that the inability to recognize or find the Creator in our material observations of the mechanisms of the material universe are not due to our own limitations? Perhaps there is something valuable in creatures that must struggle to find the truth or gain insight into reality, always to know less than we believe?

The uncertainties of life and the vicissitudes of existence do not in any manner contradict the concept of the universal sovereignty of God. All evolutionary creature life is beset by certain inevitabilities. Consider the following: (51: 4)

1. Is courage--strength of character--desirable? Then must man be reared in an environment which necessitates grappling with hardships and reacting to disappointments.

2. Is altruism--service of one's fellows--desirable? Then must life experience provide for encountering situations of social inequality.

3. Is hope--the grandeur of trust--desirable? Then human existence must constantly be confronted with insecurities and recurrent uncertainties.

4. Is faith--the supreme assertion of human thought--desirable? Then must the mind of man find itself in that troublesome predicament where it ever knows less than it can believe.

5. Is the love of truth and the willingness to go wherever it leads, desirable? Then must man grow up in a world where error is present and falsehood always possible.

6. Is idealism--the approaching concept of the divine--desirable? Then must man struggle in an environment of relative goodness and beauty, surroundings stimulative of the irrepressible reach for better things.

7. Is loyalty--devotion to highest duty--desirable? Then must man carry on amid the possibilities of betrayal and desertion. The valor of devotion to duty consists in the implied danger of default.

8. Is unselfishness--the spirit of self-forgetfulness--desirable? Then must mortal man live face to face with the incessant clamoring of an inescapable self for recognition and honor. Man could not dynamically choose the divine life if there were no self-life to forsake. Man could never lay saving hold on righteousness if there were no potential evil to exalt and differentiate the good by contrast.

9. Is pleasure--the satisfaction of happiness--desirable? Then must man live in a world where the alternative of pain and the likelihood of suffering are ever-present experiential possibilities.

UNIVERSE MECHANISMS

Mechanisms do not absolutely dominate the total creation; the universe of universes in toto is mind planned, mind made, and mind administered. But the divine mechanism of the universe of universes is altogether too perfect for the scientific methods of the finite mind of man to discern even a trace of the dominance of the infinite mind. For this creating, controlling, and upholding mind is neither material mind nor creature mind; it is spirit-mind functioning on and from creator levels of divine reality. (481.6)

The ability to discern and discover mind in universe mechanisms depends entirely on the ability, scope, and capacity of the investigating mind engaged in such a task of observation. Time-space minds, organized out of the energies of time and space, are subject to the mechanisms of time and space. (482.1)

Extremely complex and highly automatic-appearing cosmic mechanisms always tend to conceal the presence of the originative or creative indwelling mind from any and all intelligences very far below the universe levels of the nature and capacity of the mechanism itself. Therefore is it inevitable that the higher universe mechanisms must appear to be mindless to the lower orders of creatures. The only possible exception to such a conclusion would be the implication of mindedness in the amazing phenomenon of an apparently self-maintaining universe--but that is a matter of philosophy rather than one of actual experience. (482.4)

Since mind co-ordinates the universe, fixity of mechanisms is nonexistent. The phenomenon of progressive evolution associated with cosmic self-maintenance is universal. The evolutionary capacity of the universe is inexhaustible in the infinity of spontaneity. Progress towards harmonious unity, a growing experiential synthesis superimposed on an ever-increasing complexity of relationships, could be effected only by a purposive and dominant mind. (482.5)

The higher the universe mind associated with any universe phenomenon, the more difficult it is for the lower types of mind to discover it. And since the mind of the universe mechanism is creative spirit-mind (even the mindedness of the Infinite), it can never be discovered or discerned by the lower-level minds of the universe, much less by the lowest mind of all, the human. The evolving animal mind, while naturally God-seeking, is not alone and of itself inherently God-knowing. (482.6)

If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled. (2079.1)

The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man's conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic. (2079.2)

[Scrotum]

I don't mean that it is unlikely, but feasible, I mean that you hold to a view that a God explanation makes sense as long as there is no strong evidence against it.

I think you missed the point here. Does it not mean, using this ´logic´, that believing in Dragon is logical too? I´ve seen paintings in caves about dragons, red stories about them etcetera.

Does not everyting made up become accepted using this Logic? Just asking.

[harvey1]

This only demonstrates the tendencies of atheists to construct conceptual schemes to try and deny the evidence for God--not the actual doing away of the evidence. If anything, the arguments for a beginning have only increased since Hoyle uttered his comments.

By "conceptual schemes that deny the evidence of God" you're probably referring to the WAP. Well, unless you have tangible evidence other than the eminent suitability of our environment to our existence, then yes, this observation is denied as evidence.

The WAP doesn't explain why something exists as it does, it just explains how it is that under certain circumstances things could have been slightly different. For example, in our air the percentage of nitrogen and oxygen is approximately 78/21%, but the WAP doesn't tell us why there are people that breathe air--it just explains how it is that under certain circumstances things could have been slightly different. Perhaps there could have been people who breathe a slightly different percentage of composition of air. That's not to say that the WAP explains how there could have been people had there been no air.

So, the WAP is not sufficient reason to deny Hoyle's insight that the big bang insinuated God's existence. In my view, since Hoyle's time the big bang has been perceived differently by the atheist because the atheist has had no choice but to perceive it differently to remain an atheist. As part of that re-perceptual process they have ignored the significance of the evidence. But, who are we really kidding here? In my opinion it's not that most atheists aren't aware of the significance of a beginning, it's that they purposely choose to not be aware of this evidence. That's enmity of God, and that's why I say that most atheists have this enmity. That's okay to have enmity for a concept if it helps them get over their puppy who was run over when they were five, but I think that enmity is a motive to ignore evidence--tons and tons of evidence.

[harvey1]

I hardly know what to say to a statement like that. We obviously live in parallel universes. Unfortunately, in my universe things don't exist merely because I want them to.

Are you saying that in your universe you are an automaton? I don't think that's really the case. I hereby declar you free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. Go now, and live life without feeling like an automaton.

God could make His presence known easily and unequivocally if He wanted - it's not my fault He's such a tease!

Of course God does make the divine presence known easily and unequivocally. It's just that people choose to not see God. That choice is such that people can continue on in that choice without having to become delusional in order to maintain it. For example, if the choice to not believe in God were as difficult as believing that I walk on walls, then I would have to be delusional to maintain that belief. So, the only possible to make a spiritual life a matter of choice, the evidence of God's interaction must itself be such that someone could refuse to believe it without becoming out and out delusional. That choice exists for humans, and obviously atheists elect to live by that choice. However, the scientific accessible evidence for God is steadily increasing, and like the frog in the boiling pot of water, the atheist is having to deny more and more evidence in order to remain an evidence.

The same conceptual scheme also rules out the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and (you'll be delighted to hear) the IPU. Any scheme that rules out these things must obviously be deeply flawed, mustn't it!

And, it ruled out the big bang until it would have been delusional not to accept it. So, in order to survive, the conceptual scheme just modified itself (frog in the boiling pot) in order to maintain the basic conceptual scheme.

A little poetic licence, if you please... I wouldn't know about Fred Hoyle but I don't have faith in atheism - an absence of faith is kind of the point!

Agreed. Let's try and give each other some poetic license. In the case of faith, I wasn't referring to the religious faith of Fred Hoyle but rather the certainty that comes from having a conceptual scheme that one thinks is suitable to account for the events happening around them, or had happened in the past.

As for the views of Fred Hoyle: Well, Fred Hoyle knew a lot about the things he knew a lot about, but not so much about the things that he didn't know a lot about. Perhaps, indeed, he knew no more than anyone else about those things. So I'm not really sure why I should credit his views with any special significance. After all, his grasp of evolution by natural selection seemed a little suspect.

But, cosmology was his area of expertise.