During a recent discussions with my (devoutly Catholic and highly intelligent) mother, we touched on the question of proving the existence of things that cannot be observed scientifically. I wish I could recall the entire conversation for you here, but one of her questions was, “If you were asked for proof that I love you, could you give it?” Meaning that love–which she sees as a very real thing and more than just synapses and chemicals reacting in the brain–cannot be proven, but it still exists. You can guess that she wished to illustrate that God can exist while we cannot scientifically observe or test it.
All that to say … I just read a highly fascinating article called “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe in Science” on why scientific findings can be so thorough and so solid, yet there are still those who will argue against overwhelming evidence and hold tightly to anti-scientific beliefs. You may find it as enlightening as I did. I even see this behavior in myself, so don’t go thinking all atheists claim to be rational and without bias, now.
… [A]n array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called “motivated reasoning” helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, “death panels,” the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.
We’re not driven only by emotions, of course—we also reason, deliberate. But reasoning comes later, works slower—and even then, it doesn’t take place in an emotional vacuum. Rather, our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about.
That’s not to suggest that we aren’t also motivated to perceive the world accurately—we are. Or that we never change our minds—we do. It’s just that we have other important goals besides accuracy—including identity affirmation and protecting one’s sense of self—and often those make us highly resistant to changing our beliefs when the facts say we should.
Modern science originated from an attempt to weed out such subjective lapses—what that great 17th century theorist of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, dubbed the “idols of the mind.” Even if individual researchers are prone to falling in love with their own theories, the broader processes of peer review and institutionalized skepticism are designed to ensure that, eventually, the best ideas prevail.
Read more on MotherJones.
Bonus: Creationist cartoons!
Read the Rest! Post a comment (4)
photo by MissTessmacher
What do you think about debating with theists? In your discussions and debates with theists, do you try to convince them their god does not exist? Do you ever try to help people leave religion/faith behind? What do you think about atheists who (for lack of a better word) “evangelize” others?
Loading ...Go ahead, share your opinion!
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” say Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t though of that” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
– Douglas Adams from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” – 1979
An article on ChristianityToday.com asks the question: Why are there still atheists? “Still” is in reference to Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 19:1 (as well as Creationists—young- and old-earth alike) that declare God has made it plain that he exists through the things he has made. The author, Shawn Graves, argues that the lives Christians lead and their own words must also be the illustration of proof that God is real.
I am relieved that Graves (more so than Jim Spiegel in a previous piece for the same website) acknowledges respectfully that atheists have rational, evidence-based objections against the Hebrew god Yahweh.
Spiegel asserts that for many atheists, it’s not “cool, rational inquiry” that led to their atheism. Rather, in many cases it’s complex moral and psychological factors that produce atheism.
… Surely some people accept atheism due in part to such powerful motivational factors. For some atheists, it’s not merely a matter of evidence. Yet, as Spiegel grants, these motivational explanations don’t hold for all atheists. Consider some of the personal essays found in Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, edited by Louise Antony. Some testify that their move from theism to atheism came at tremendous personal cost and required significant, and painful, existential reorientation. A few even express a deep longing for Christian spirituality. Apparently, these philosophers had plenty of strong psychological motivation to retain or embrace theism. Yet they didn’t. Their atheism really did seem to be a matter of evidence and argument.
Yes! Someone gets it. I, for example, was extremely happy and content with Christianity. It had never done me wrong, and I benefited from it. As I’ve said before, I left theism kicking and screaming. I was horrified by the idea that I had been mistaken all my life, and that there really wasn’t a great and magic solution to suffering or evil.
I’m intrigued by the humility in this conclusion:
We should acknowledge that we have our own powerful non-rational motivations for belief. We ought to confess that our religious proclamations haven’t been as clear and compelling as the heavens and the skies in proclaiming “the glory of God and the work of his hands,” that our lives haven’t “made it plain” that God exists. We need to grant that our God is a God who sometimes hides and is silent. Finally, we need to concede that all of this does make a genuine evidential difference for plenty of atheists. Maybe that helps to explain why there are atheists.
Do you think Graves ever answers the question about why there are still atheists? Do you think it’s up to theists to fix this, or are they still incorrectly assuming that what keeps us atheists from belief is a lacking in humanity (namely pride, sin, etc.) and not because there truly is a lack of evidence?
You guys! I found an atheist book on the Free Shelf at work today! *Dances a jig with jazz hands*
John W. Loftus, author of one of my favorite blogs, Debunking Christianity, and the book Why I Became an Atheist, has edited a collection of articles critiquing the claims of Christianity. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails is shooting to the top of my to-read list!
Non-fiction—especially concerning subjects about which I am passionate—makes me yearn for an Amazon Kindle or similar device with which I could make highlights and notes about certain passages to remember for later. I revere printed books too much to write all over them; I even hate writing in pretty journals because I don’t want to sully them with my chicken scratch handwriting. A book about atheism, science, and faith is certainly going to stir up many ideas, and I would love to store those light bulbs of inspiration somewhere. Ah well; it’s on my wishlist 
for shitsn’giggles, here’s a not-so-intellectual book I also grabbed off the Free Shelf that’s sure to make you chuckle.
What books are you reading right now that I should add to my list?
Meghan on 
LeetheGirl on 