Are Atheists More Evolved Than People of Faith ...?

[StuartJ]

Anecdotally ...

I have noticed in my decades of observation that Atheists are more capable of recognising and playing with irony, and have a more independently analytical sense of justice, and can more freely distinguish between reality and fantasy, and will more readily stand apart from a crowd than will people of faith.

I'm not saying here that we are more intelligent than people of faith, I am asking if our recognition of religious fantasy may be due to evolutionary advancements in certain areas of the brain ...?

(Please don't clutter this up with the usual dodges. Leave it for folks who will give concise, direct answers.)

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 10 by StuartJ]

I seem to recall preceding my assumptions with an 'if'. Your choice as to whether to decide either/or. Meanwhile I see no profit in pursuing this tangent to the discussion amongst those preferring ancient scriptural myth to evidence based science. Particularly if I am accused of blasphemy.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Goose]

Humans have the most highly evolved brains of all species.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. The brains of all animal species have evolved to control their bodies to enhance survival, and therefore those brains are the "best" brains for those purposes. The brains of dolphins, for example, can handle sonar while the human brain cannot. Is a "sonar-capable" brain more highly evolved than the human brain? I would say no, but neither is the dolphin brain less evolved than that of a human being. They're just different and go about their jobs differently.

I don’t think it’s a particularly controversial statement to say humans have the most highly evolved brains of all species. As highly evolved as dolphins may be we don’t see them doing calculus do we.

Humans are the only species with a belief in god(s).

As far as we know we are the only such species to believe in gods, but there are curious cases of chimps showing a kind of worship as they brandish sticks during a thunderstorm. Maybe those chimps are attempting to appease a "storm god." If they do have a god in mind, then I'd bet that god has the traits of a chimp!

I don’t see how some chimps who happened to be waving sticks during a thunderstorm demonstrates they believe in god(s). Maybe they were just waving some sticks. Like you said, we are the only species known to believe in god(s).

All species on the planet with lesser evolved brains are atheists.

LOL--I never heard that apologetic before. But it's not correct because atheists are human beings only.

Why is it the case that only human beings can be atheists? I mean you just tried arguing that some chimps seemed to hold theistic beliefs. If atheism, as it often defined around here, is simply the lack of belief in god(s) then any thing which lacks a belief in god(s) is by definition an atheist. Rocks, trees, cats, dogs, chimps, etc. are therefore all atheists under this definition.

So what are we to make of the brains of those who have no belief in god(s)?

What I've seen is that atheists vary in their thinking about as much as the religious do. It's then hard to "pin down" the unique traits of the brains of atheists.

But if belief in god(s) is associated with more highly evolved and superior brains of humans and non-belief in god(s) is more closely associated with species with less superior brains, what does that suggest about humans who are atheists? This is why StuartJ’s OP argument probably won’t go the way he intended it.

[StuartJ]

Perhaps whichever culture's version of "God" created humans, created them to imagine the idea of God.

Then perhaps some humans evolved to a higher level where they/we could discern that all versions of "God" were imagined by humans.

God may still exist beyond the versions of "God" imagined by humans ...

But NO version of "God" is EVER shown to exist outside the human imagination.

And that includes the biblical Yahweh.

The biblical version of "God" is NEVER shown to exist outside the imaginations of believers.

[2ndRateMind]

... often defined around here, is simply the lack of belief in god(s) then any thing which lacks a belief in god(s) is by definition an atheist. Rocks, trees, cats, dogs, chimps, etc. are therefore all atheists under this definition.

I think, in order to disbelieve some abstract aspect or not aspect of reality, you need both some concept of that aspect, and some sufficient degree of logical reasoning to distinguish between the true and the false.

I am not at all sure rocks, trees, cats, dogs and chimps qualify for disbelief under such criteria. They are not even agnostics, (a better construe of your definition) because they do not even consider the matter at all, and whether to believe or disbelieve or remain neutral on the matter. Whatever, I am sure God loves them all, just the same.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Goose]

... often defined around here, is simply the lack of belief in god(s) then any thing which lacks a belief in god(s) is by definition an atheist. Rocks, trees, cats, dogs, chimps, etc. are therefore all atheists under this definition.

I think, in order to disbelieve some abstract aspect or not aspect of reality, you need both some concept of that aspect, and some sufficient degree of logical reasoning to distinguish between the true and the false.

I am not at all sure rocks, trees, cats, dogs and chimps qualify for disbelief under such criteria. They are not even agnostics, (a better construe of your definition) because they do not even consider the matter at all, and whether to believe or disbelieve or remain neutral on the matter. Whatever, I am sure God loves them all, just the same.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree with what you have said assuming an atheist would define his atheism along the lines of something like holding the belief there is no god(s). However, if the atheist wishes to take the position that his atheism is merely a lack of belief in god(s) then I stand by my argument that chimps and trees are also likewise atheists by this definition.

[Jagella]

Evolutionary success does not imply 'better', only more fit to reproduce in the current and preceding environments.

So, I could not say whether atheists are more 'advanced' than theists, any more than I can say AI robots are more 'advanced' than humans.

It does seem possible that nature is now "selecting for atheism." Atheists have the advantage of being free of age-old superstitions and unlike theists can more readily embrace modern science. So in that way the brains of atheists might be better adapted to current and future human environments.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 16 by Jagella]

I would agree that losing age-old superstitions is a good idea.
I would agree that embracing the evidence based findings of science is a good idea.
But I would also conjecture that faith has it's advantages, not least social, once our religions have caught up with the rest of the world.

And then humanity might be able to deploy it's technologies in pursuit of the common good, rather than simply individual expediency. And then we might just save the world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Jagella]

I don’t think it’s a particularly controversial statement to say humans have the most highly evolved brains of all species.

Well, it would help if you defined "highly evolved." The human brain is not the largest brain, and nor is it the most recently evolved brain. So neither of these traits can mean "most highly evolved" if you wish to award the human brain with that accolade. As I understand biological evolution, there are no "highs" or "lows" in an absolute sense. There is only adaptation to the environment, and the brains of many other species adapt them to their environments as well as ours does.

As highly evolved as dolphins may be we don’t see them doing calculus do we.

I suppose not, but neither do we see the human brain "doing sonar." To use mathematical ability as a criterion for "highly evolved" is completely arbitrary. I could just as easily use the visual processing ability of the hawk's brain to proclaim it to be the most highly evolved.

But if there is a uniquely powerful trait of the human brain, then it may be our hubris. Being humans, we naturally allow our egos to place ourselves on the pedestal of evolution (or creation, depending on your worldview). We like to see ourselves as superior to other species, and therefore we spend much time trying to set ourselves apart from the "lesser-evolved" species.

I don’t see how some chimps who happened to be waving sticks during a thunderstorm demonstrates they believe in god(s). Maybe they were just waving some sticks.

Well, humans tend to wave things and engage in other kinds of movements while worshiping their gods. While you are correct that the same kind of behavior on the part of chimps does not necessarily mean they believe in gods, it is an intriguing possibility. We might be witnessing how religion and theism evolved in primates.

Like you said, we are the only species known to believe in god(s).

As far as we know we are the only species that imagines gods, but theism in other species is at least possible.

Why is it the case that only human beings can be atheists?

It's the most common understanding of "atheist." When I think of atheists, I think of people.

I mean you just tried arguing that some chimps seemed to hold theistic beliefs.

I didn't say they were atheists if they don't believe in gods.

If atheism, as it often defined around here, is simply the lack of belief in god(s) then any thing which lacks a belief in god(s) is by definition an atheist. Rocks, trees, cats, dogs, chimps, etc. are therefore all atheists under this definition.

Atheism is when people don't believe in any gods.

But if belief in god(s) is associated with more highly evolved and superior brains of humans and non-belief in god(s) is more closely associated with species with less superior brains, what does that suggest about humans who are atheists?

Many atheists can believe in gods because they are former theists. I used to believe in the Bible god, for example, and I'm still quite able to imagine the Bible god existing. I think it's safe to say that any atheist can imagine the Bible god existing.

In any case, I obviously don't think that belief in gods is necessarily a good adaptation conferred by evolution. Theism may well be an unfortunate byproduct of our normally advantageous ability to think in the abstract.

[Jagella]

But I would also conjecture that faith has it's advantages, not least social, once our religions have caught up with the rest of the world.

Religion can often be very socially divisive, and any social advantages it may confer are often offset by those people it sets at odds with each other. In other words, religion curses you with at least one enemy for each friend it blesses you with.

[Bust Nak]

I agree with what you have said assuming an atheist would define his atheism along the lines of something like holding the belief there is no god(s). However, if the atheist wishes to take the position that his atheism is merely a lack of belief in god(s) then I stand by my argument that chimps and trees are also likewise atheists by this definition.

One has to qualify as a person for the -ist suffix to be applicable. Chimps are arguably people (and debatable whether they believe in any gods or not,) but trees are right out.