Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Are atheists mentally ill?
That's the title of Sean Thomas's latest piece. Personally, I don't think making this claim while debating an atheist is a good idea. Not only is it impolite (I confess I'm a big softy sometimes), but it will only drive the atheist away further. Nevertheless, Thomas is correct in concluding that believers, on average, live longer, healthier, and happier lives. Alvin Plantinga says that atheism is the result of a cognitive disfunction. Whether he and Thomas are correct, you can make the call yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not only is it impolite (I confess I'm a big softy sometimes), but it will only drive the atheist away further.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, conditionally. I think one of the larger problems in terms of 'getting through' to a lot of atheists is that they tend to think that, by virtue of being an atheist, they must - must! - be not only intelligent, but more intelligent than just about any theist. I think that's exactly the sort of notion some people need to be disabused of, and part of that is a refusal to pretend that they are intelligent.
(That's part of why I have little patience for over-respect for various atheists. Dawkins is not a brilliant genius scientist. He's a middling ex-scientist who is known for being a pop sci good writer.)
As for the claim that atheists are mentally ill, here's my problem with the negative stance.
Take a look at Susan Blackmore's writing about this. Now, superficially, it's a nice article - Susan changed her mind and no longer believes religion/religious belief to be a 'virus of the mind'. But the important thing to note is that what changed her mind was comparative data - it turned out that theists were functioning well, or better than, atheist/irreligious counterparts on a variety of metrics, ergo religion is not a mind-virus.
The problem is, that only works if 'irreligion' is taken as the default or baseline. If 'religious belief' is the default or baseline, then atheism or secularism or irreligion generally turns out to be the mind-virus.
I get where you're coming from, Crude. I was asked recently to publicly debate an atheist who referred to himself as "brilliant." There's just something about a person who goes around telling people that he's brilliant that makes me want to avoid discussing these matters with them, and it's probably because I perceive they're entirely unwilling to consider changing their minds. At least Blackmore has enough sense to do that on occasion.
ReplyDeleteBefore anyone criticizes your comments as committing a hasty generalization, I'll preemptively note that you said that a lot (not all or even necessarily most) of atheists think they're more intelligent.
Before anyone criticizes your comments as committing a hasty generalization, I'll preemptively note that you said that a lot (not all or even necessarily most) of atheists think they're more intelligent.
DeleteI'll further moderate what I said and note that it's particularly Gnu-style atheists who this seems to come up with, and there's a broader variety out there than the Gnus. So yes, good point, and welcome clarification.
I'll also note that some atheists are, in fact, quite intelligent. As are some theists, for that matter. But there seem to be a considerable number out there who regard themselves as specimens of supreme intelligence and fonts of wisdom and clarity - and it's not exactly deserved.
Sure "a lot of" atheists think they are more intelligent, but so do "a lot of" theists. And it is also a fact that "a lot of" theists hold to mindstaggeringly simplistic beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the fact that believers tend to live longer and happier, does not mean that what those believers believe is the truth. In the eyes of "a lot of" those believers, there is only one true belief, yet others who hold the "wrong" beliefs also seem to benefit from this.
So, I guess it would be better for me if I started believing something (does not seem to matter what exactly), but I refuse to take the easy path, instead I take the path that leads to the truth, even though it is much harder.
There certainly are theists who think they are more intelligent, and there certainly are theists who hold to simplistic beliefs. However, the comment that a lot of atheists think they are more intelligent was made in the context of certain studies that suggest atheists have higher IQs than theists (this is actually a myth, but I won't get into it here).
DeleteI think you're oversimplifying the right versus wrong religion aspect. Nearly all religions believe in a Supreme Being and agree with basic moral axioms, such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "do no harm." In addition, nearly all religions promote prayer and meditation. The contradictions between these religions are real, no doubt, but let's not over-exaggerate.
And, of course, nobody is suggesting that what makes us happy is necessarily true. What studies like this suggest to me is that if you're on the fence, you have a strong pragmatic reason to practice religion. Moreover, these studies give us even more reason to conclude that human beings are biologically hardwired to believe in God, etc. The so-called "God gene" suggests that one has to suppress his or her belief in God, even if this suppression is done unwittingly.
Sure "a lot of" atheists think they are more intelligent, but so do "a lot of" theists.
DeleteNot in my experience. Theists, at least Christians, tend to exaggerate humility - for every Vox Day pointing out his Mensa-level IQ, you've got 20 self-effacing Christians. Your mileage may vary.
And it is also a fact that "a lot of" theists hold to mindstaggeringly simplistic beliefs.
It's a fact that "a lot of" *people*, period, hold simplistic beliefs. You really think atheists, Gnu or not, are exceptions to this?
So, I guess it would be better for me if I started believing something (does not seem to matter what exactly), but I refuse to take the easy path, instead I take the path that leads to the truth, even though it is much harder.
So it's sometimes rational not to do the 'better' thing?
Crude
Delete"So it's sometimes rational not to do the 'better' thing?"
It's not a matter of 'doing', it is a matter of 'believing'. Suppose the statistics showed that atheists functioned better on a variety of metrics than religious people, would you suddenly become an atheist?
If belief is merely a matter of choosing something because it has certain benefits, then it amounts to little more than opportunism.
Suppose the statistics showed that atheists functioned better on a variety of metrics than religious people, would you suddenly become an atheist?
ReplyDeleteThe cases are asymmetrical. I'm a theist, a Catholic and a person who believes in objective moral values, purposes, etc. The value of 'truth' is inextricably tied up these views, so that limits my options. I'm even sympathetic to the belief that (for example) I couldn't lie, even to save my life or others' lives.
But if you're an atheist and a materialist - what exactly is your reasoning for not engaging in acts that would most likely maximize your material benefit? Mere immediate subjective preference? So when you say...
If belief is merely a matter of choosing something because it has certain benefits, then it amounts to little more than opportunism.
...My reply is, possibly. So what? Is there something wrong with opportunism? Again, there is for me. There is for the moral platonist, or the jew, or the muslim, or the Catholic, or various others. What's wrong with opportunism for the atheist materialist?
"But if you're an atheist and a materialist - what exactly is your reasoning for not engaging in acts that would most likely maximize your material benefit?"
DeleteI could engage in all sorts of acts, but they would not be a belief for me.
I could attend Mass every Sunday, in fact I sometimes do, but I don't belive the things I hear there.
Sure, but I don't see how this answers my question. Not unless you're suggesting that you cannot purposefully foster and inculcate a belief in yourself through action.
DeleteBefore we continue, let's consider that "opportunism" is defined as: taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others. The pragmatist who adopts theism because of its health and happiness benefits is not doing so without regard for the consequences of others. It's not a selfish thing, so that's an inappropriate term.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Just using the language tossed at me. The compatibility of materialist atheism and opportunism can probably be put aside.
DeleteI recall Neil Shenvi gave an argument like this, and it seemed to carry a lot of weight. If a materialist atheist would benefit from being a theist, there seems to be no barrier to being a theist. (Shenvi's argument was stronger, in that he seemed to argue that even flat out thinking theism was false would be no barrier. If you enjoy believing such, believe it.)
I am not sure that every pragmatist who adopts theism because of its health and happiness benefits has regards for the consequences for others. It may be so that his choice has no (bad) consequences for others, but the choice itself is often for purely selfish reasons.
DeleteI very much enjoy Star Trek and I would very much enjoy believing in the Star trek universe. But you seem to think it would be irrational for me not to believe in it.
DeleteWalter, be careful not to confuse selfishness with self-interest. The two are not the same. Selfishness is self-interest at the expense of others. Opportunism entails selfishness, but there's nothing that necessarily connects opportunism with self-interest.
DeleteI'd be interested in studies that show Star Trek believers live longer, healthier and happier lives. I'm not even sure what becoming a Star Trek believer would entail other than a mental change. With God, there's prayer, meditation, community (church, synagogue, mosque, etc.), and we have the studies to back up that these things are good for us.
DeleteOpportunism entails taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences of others, so there is nothing in this definition that oppportunism necessarily goes at the expense of others. In is possible that something that is in my interest also happens to be in your interest but if I choose it solely for my own benefit, I am an opportunist, and so are at least some pragmatists.
DeleteMy Star Trek analogy has nothing to do with studies that show or don't show things, I was replying to Crude's quote from Shenvi that "if you enjoy believing such, believe it".
Self-interest is consistent with one having regard for the consequences of others, which is why "opportunism" is inappropriate to use as a blanketed term. You chose to say that pragmatic religious conversions are "often for purely selfish reasons." How exactly would you know that, short of being a mind-reader? I'll grant there may be some instances of selfishness being a motivating factor, but that's simply irrelevant to the negative connotation associated with "opportunism." In fact, other definitions include selfishness (and not just self-interest) in the definition, e.g.: the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of circumstances.
Delete