The Wall Street Journal points out the log in our own eye:
From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us.
“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
The WSJ article goes on to cite another, equally distressing poll:
According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s monumental “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey” that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.
Yes, you read that right. “Atheists” who believe in god, heaven, and the power of prayer. Let’s just hope that these are the same “atheists” who in the other survey report believing in palm readings and astrology!
Ugh. Articles like these make me wonder whether my faith in human rationality is just that—faith. It just goes to show that religion is not the source of irrationality, but is rather a symptom. Many manifestations of that irrationality aren’t even religious in nature. Consider Bill Maher. While criticizing people’s unscientific religious beliefs on his HBO show and in his film Religulous, Maher himself peddles discredited anti-vaccination arguments. Famed “debunker” James Randi is also at odds with the scientific community, as he recently expressed doubts about anthropogenic global warming.
The relationship between atheism and superstition is not necessarily causal. Confounding factors abound. But if nothing else, we should take these findings as a challenge to be better skeptics and as a reminder that a more reasonable society demands more than mere secularism.
This is one reason why I’ve always been more interested in promoting critical thinking than in promoting atheism per se. Atheism doesn’t automatically eliminate irrational, faith-based thinking: just look at atheism’s contingent of followers of Ayn Rand.
Haha, Ayn Rand. Sheesh.
I think that the results of these studies are, in some ways, unsurprising. For me personally, the direct goal shouldn’t be to create more “atheists”. It should be to increase the number of “skeptical rationalists” or “critical thinkers” or whatever. New-age crystal-wearing UFO conspiracy theorists are just as irrational. And those attached to medical issues like homeopaths or anti-vaxers have beliefs that are demonstrably harmful. And don’t get me started on the climate denialists.
Religion is a facet of a much larger irrationality, and it seems that these sorts of things will always be with us in one way or another.
John, but twelve step programs work for Atheists. Bill W was one by the end of his life, which makes the entire “higher power” dynamic more interesting.
Actually, twelve step programs haven’t been shown to work for anyone. You’re just as likely to be able to quit on your own.
Breaking news! — atheists are human and so are not perfectly rational beings! Shocking!
In all seriousness, I applaud Jon’s intellectual honesty here. It would be easy to let these unwelcome studies – which, as Jon points out, undercut the most overheated neo-atheist rhetoric about the blame owed to religion – fly under the radar.
More to the point, this points in an important way to the limits of science. WHY is reason a value? Why ought we be reasonable? Since we are not perfectly rational beings, how ought we order the rational and irrational aspects of ourselves? These are personal, existential, ethical, and philosophical questions on which science (neuroscience, neuropsych, etc) are largely mute. This points, once again, to the need to develop an account of the human person if you are to have anything resembling an adequate humanism. What is human nature, how ought we order ourselves and our society and why? That an irrational element is basic to human nature should not be a surprise, and if it is a surprise to you then you have a lot of work to do in sorting out an honest and accurate account of man as a propaedeutic to developing a humanism. I might point out that the humanism to which I subscribe – Christian humanism – has done this.
Here is a bit of unwelcome advice, that I have shared with many of you before: Homer, Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Thomas, and all of the Biblical writers knew far more about human nature and the delicate tension between the rational and irrational aspects of man than the most sophisticated geneticist ever could through his science. Read them. Know thyself.
The difficulty with our innate irrationality is that it is combined with the illusion of objectivity. We all think that we have perfectly rational reasons for taking the positions that we take. Like Benjamin Franklin said, “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for every thing one has a mind to do.” One consequence of this tendency is that we see those who take a different position on an issue as being irrational. And this, I think, can cause us to be less compassionate. Part of being an empathetic and compassionate humanist is to be aware, at all times, of the log in our own eye.
Wait a minute, now. If we can say that “traditional Christian religion” requires believing in a supernatural being, doesn’t the whole lot of them believe in the paranormal? The only reason Christianity has avoided being labeled “superstition” is because of its social and political might. Joining the religious club might suppress beliefs about other paranormal claims, but the statistics above show the majority of atheists don’t believe in the paranormal. I think 21% compares pretty well with 100%
I would totally “like” this article if this was facebook ha ha.
I was sitting in Econ last semester, listening to all this junk about humans being rational and that thought always makes me laugh. People just aren’t rational 90% of the time. I think i’m okay with that ha ha
“Rationally self-interested.” Despite knowing that it is what we (humans) are supposed to be I have no idea what it means. However, I do believe that there is a “what if” element to rational behavior. Is it more rational to purchase a 30 or 10 year term life policy? The 10 year policy is only rational if you know you will die in 10 years or less. I ride motorcycles, all kinds, and statistics show that I will likely have an accident and die, however I believe that I am a good rider and purchased the 30 year term policy. Is my belief that I will survive more than 10 years (I am not going to stop riding motorcycles) despite the overwhelming odds, more or less rational than a belief in an afterlife or a higher power? Was my decision to purchase the 30 year term policy rational regardless of statistics and my belief in my abilities?
Other than my belief (faith) in my abilities I have no reason to believe that I will survive, never the less my decision to purchase the 30 year policy is rational based on my belief, but it is also rational based on the all elusive “what if”. Despite a higher overall cost, it is more cost effective to purchase the 30 year policy now than purchase three 10 year policies later, therefore, it is rational to purchase the 30 year term as long as I do not know how long I will live, because what if I live for 30 years. The 10 year policy is only rational if I know I will die in the next ten years. Therefore, the question is not whether it is rational to follow religious norms, because if you believe in a god then yes it is rational and if you do not it is irrational. The question is whether it is rational to believe in a god. Disbelief is only rational if you KNOW there is not a god.
Now we get to the self interested part. I had this discussion in my intro philosophy class at USU with, I believe Dr. Huenemann, it has been a while, but it left a mark. There are really only two options, there is a god, or there is not a god. Therefore, if there is not a god and I do not believe in one, I loose nothing. If there is not a god and I believe in one, I may forgo some activities during this life based on fear of punishment, which will never come. The other option is there is a god. If there is a god and I do not believe in one, I do what I want in this life and get punished in the next. If there is a god and I do believe in one, I again forgo some activities in this life but get rewarded in the next. Therefore, if there is a god it is rational to believe, and if there might be a god it is also rational to believe, the only time it is irrational is if there is no god. As I have no absolute proof one way or the other, the rationally self interested option is to believe in a god, and buy a 30 year term life policy.
Then again, there is the possibility that I am wrong, and rational behavior is always tied to an individuals beliefs and therefore, irrational.
What you’re espousing, James, is essentially Pascal’s wager. This post explains why it’s a lousy wager: http://usu-shaft.com/2010/why-pascals-wager-is-a-bad-one/
In short, you are wrong to submit that there are only two choices: “There is a god, or there is not a god.” I see at least a third option: There are multiple gods.
You also assume a lot in your arguments (Pascal did as well). Why assume that, if there is a god, that it would care whether you believed in it? The deistic Creator wouldn’t care. And why assume, too, that you’d be punished for disbelieving in this god? You seem to be envisioning the God of the Bible, when of course any number of gods could exist.
And then there’s the issue of which god to believe in, if there is a god. If Allah exists, but you instead pray to the Christian God, you’d still share the same fate as the atheist—eternal punishment. In fact, a case could be made that you’d be even worse off than the atheist! I can imagine a god getting more upset at someone believing in the wrong god than no god at all.
Those are just a few of the problems with Pascal’s wager. Again, I’d refer you to the SHAFT post that I linked to earlier.
Thanks again, and I do believe your are correct about Pascal’s wager (thank you for reminding me of the name) being over simplified as was my argument. I made the implied assumption that once you believed in a god, you would create a rational reason for choosing which god to believe in. If the purpose of USUSHAFT is to objectively verify whether there is a god, and if so which if any is the true and correct god, good luck. On the otherhand, if the proposition is that belief in some unseen “higher power” is irrational, as is often asserted, I must respectfully disagree. There are a multitude of rationally self-interested reasons for believing in god, including: family and social pressure, piece of mind, and the need to explain things beyond our understanding. Making a rational decision does not mean making a risk free decision. Do you run the risk of choosing the wrong god to believe in, or that all of your charitable work during your life will be for not, regardless of whether there is a god(s) or not, sure. But just because there is a possible negative outcome does not make the decision irrational. All rational decisions are made based on information available at the time that the decision is made. What is irrational is to make a decision regarding the existence of god at one point in your life and never reconsider your decision.
Thanks again for providing a place for such discussion.
I think you’re conflating “rationally self-interested” with “rational.” Sure, people have reasons why they believe in god–like you said, there are family and social pressures, and it provides comfort and answers. But couldn’t the same be said for those who believed in the Nazi ideology? There would have been tremendous pressures in Nazi Germany to be a Nazi (or at least profess to be one). Nazism also provided people with comfort and answers, because it made the Jews the scapegoats for all the woe that befell Germany after WWI. So a German who believed in Nazism would certainly be “rationally self-interested.” But that wouldn’t make Nazism “rational,” would it?
“What is irrational is to make a decision regarding the existence of god at one point in your life and never reconsider your decision.”
Agreed. I would guess that most members/readers of SHAFT are agnostic atheists—that is, they don’t believe in any god, but they haven’t ruled out the possibility of some deity or deities existing.
Pingback: Link bomb #7 | Main Street Plaza