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.)

[Willum]

You should be more sympathetic.

Noah's bloodline was deeply inbred.
The inbreeding resulting from Noah and his four sons was horrendous, and Judaist and Christians are a result of that inbreeding.

We know the kind of defects this kind of thing causes.

What amazes me is that this can change just by having different beliefs.
If you belief one way, you are more evolved.
If you belief another 10,000 years ago Adam's father was mud, and you have a long pedigree of inbreeding.

It really raises more questions than it answers.

[Goose]

Well, it would help if you defined "highly evolved."

I mean superior. The article I linked to explained how the human brain is superior. This isn’t controversial. I don’t understand why you are disputing this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4685590/

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.

If it’s possible chimps might believe in gods then it’s possible they might not believe in gods. Since we have no evidence that establishes chimps believe in gods, such as the formation of organised religion, we can infer chimps have no belief in gods. Chimps then, as far as we know, are atheists.

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

But what you think of when you think of atheists doesn’t overturn the argument. The definition of atheist says nothing about people. It just says a lack of belief in gods.

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

I know you didn’t say that. I said that because you argued chimps might be theists.

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

No reason to limit that to only people if chimps might be theists.

[Aetixintro]

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

I think it's a well established truth that religious people have more children and are perhaps better parents too, despite the adversity that comes with trying to improve the World (for the better, more ethical and moral World).

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 23 by Aetixintro]

I think it's a well established truth that religious people have more children and are perhaps better parents too

You seem to be correct on the first "go forth and multipy" part ...

God's little rabbits: Religious people out-reproduce secular ones by a landslide https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/be ... landslide/

Sanctimonious people of faith will - in my experience - assure themselves of the second part.

Humans are in plague proportions on God's Good Earth.

Atheists know that "God" does not decide which of our sexual encounters will result in a pregnancy.

And, we take appropriate control measures.

I like to think that jettisoning the notion of "destiny" is part of our evolutionary process.

A social evolution.

[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.

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.

I think there has been a recent move amongst (American) atheists to elide atheism with agnosticism.

For my part, I think the following:

A theist believes God exists.
An atheist believes God does not exist.
An agnostic takes no position on the matter, and neither believes God does, or does not, exist.

And these are the senses in which I will continue to deploy these words and conceptions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

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

I think it's a well established truth that religious people have more children and are perhaps better parents too, despite the adversity that comes with trying to improve the World (for the better, more ethical and moral World).

Ha Ha! That is all contentious! But I am not against a bit of contention. It makes life that much more interesting!

1) If religious folks have more children, is that necessarily 'a good thing?' People suck up resources, and we are getting to the stage where a finite world cannot keep supplying resources indefinitely.

2) Better parents? Maybe. But I think you need to be more explicit in what way better. Otherwise, what you say could mean anything to anyone.

3) And I'm all for a better, more ethical, more moral world, also. But I do think we need to nail these concepts down as to what they actually mean in practice.

So, for example, is it better to have ten children, or just three, and sponsor orphans in a third world country?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 25 by 2ndRateMind]

An atheist believes God does not exist.

How many more time do you have to be told that is false ...!?

Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS ...

And that includes your god.

[Jagella]

Well, it would help if you defined "highly evolved."

I mean superior. The article I linked to explained how the human brain is superior. This isn’t controversial. I don’t understand why you are disputing this.

It's actually very controversial for science to make subjective value judgments. To say that the human brain is "superior" to the brains of other species is purely subjective; it is an opinion and is therefore not demonstrable and not provable. Yes, the human brain might have more neurons than that of a chimp, for example, but it's really not the job of science to tell us what brain is better.

Since we have no evidence that establishes chimps believe in gods, such as the formation of organised religion, we can infer chimps have no belief in gods. Chimps then, as far as we know, are atheists.

While you are perfectly free to define chimps as atheists, such a definition is a poor definition because it results in absurdities like saying a stick is an atheist! I say let's stick with confining the idea of an atheist to people only.

The definition of atheist says nothing about people. It just says a lack of belief in gods.

Let's take a look at some dictionaries:

From Google:

atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

From Webster:

atheist - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

From Wiktionary:

atheist - A person who does not believe in deities.

I hope you get the picture. Atheists are commonly understood to be persons.

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

I know you didn’t say that. I said that because you argued chimps might be theists.

Well, I was just speculating that some chimps may have something like theistic beliefs. But until we know some chimps do believe in gods, it's rather stupid to call "unbelieving" chimps atheists! So for now I say understand "atheist" as a person.

Finally, what all this means is that no, neither the brains of atheists nor those of theists can be said to be better than the other. They're just different or possibly different. Like I said earlier, though, the atheist brain might be more able to survive and reproduce in the modern world as it more quickly adapts to science and technology than the theistic brain does.

[jeremiah1five]

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.)

There ya go. You're standing apart from a crowd of the people of faith.
All the good in the world has been performed by people of faith.
All the evil in the world has been performed by people of faith.
Jealous?

[Goose]

It's actually very controversial for science to make subjective value judgments. To say that the human brain is "superior" to the brains of other species is purely subjective; it is an opinion and is therefore not demonstrable and not provable.

It’s no more subjective to say the human brain is superior to say that of chimp than it is to say the Intel Core i7-8086K 5GHz Six-Core Processor is superior to the Intel 8086 microprocessor. It’s demonstrable. Just as the information processing capacity (IPC) is found to be the highest in humans is demonstrable.

While you are perfectly free to define chimps as atheists, such a definition is a poor definition because it results in absurdities like saying a stick is an atheist!

The absurdity of sticks being atheists is the result of defining atheism as merely a lack of belief in gods. If that’s how atheists define atheism, like StuartJ does right above your post (the timing of his post was priceless by the way), then it follows sticks and rocks are likewise atheists since they also have the property of a lack of belief in gods.

Let's take a look at some dictionaries:

From Google:

atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

From Webster:

atheist - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

From Wiktionary:

atheist - A person who does not believe in deities.

I hope you get the picture. Atheists are commonly understood to be persons.

That doesn’t undermine my argument at all. In fact what you’ve written here supports it.

You are assuming the word person or the idea of personhood must necessarily only mean human being. However, it has been argued the Great Apes should be considered a person. There is a movement in place which advocates to extend personhood to Great Apes. One of the movement’s advocates is none other than Richard Dawkins himself.

Further, in some legal contexts person has a much wider definition than merely a human being:

�[Sec. 2. ](1) The term "person" includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 of the United States Code [under title 11], or receivers.� – National Labor Relations Act

So I see no reason to restrict the term atheist to humans only on the basis that some dictionaries define an atheist as a person.

Well, I was just speculating that some chimps may have something like theistic beliefs. But until we know some chimps do believe in gods, it's rather stupid to call "unbelieving" chimps atheists! So for now I say understand "atheist" as a person.

Don’t you see how your argument here is a blatant double standard? On the one hand you tried to argue that chimps may have theistic beliefs which implies they can be theists. You even tried to argue, “We might be witnessing how religion and theism evolved in primates.� On the other hand you, then, try to argue that chimps can’t be atheists because they aren’t a person. You don’t get it both ways here.

Finally, what all this means is that no, neither the brains of atheists nor those of theists can be said to be better than the other.

I don’t disagree. I was not making a formal argument that the atheist brain is inferior. I was merely pointing out, as I said in my first post in this thread, that StuartJ needs to be careful with the argument that the atheist brain may have some evolutionary advantages. It’s an argument that could be made in either direction.

They're just different or possibly different. Like I said earlier, though, the atheist brain might be more able to survive and reproduce in the modern world as it more quickly adapts to science and technology than the theistic brain does.

Talk about making a subjective value judgment. And you just finished saying that neither the atheist’s brain nor the theist’s brain can be said to be better than the other. In the very next sentence you try to slip in the notion the atheist brain is better since it more quickly adapts to science and technology. Not only have you contradicted yourself in the span of one sentence but this argument is as unsupported with evidence as it is laughable.