"Why did God create atheists?"

[Terry Sampson]

Betcha the title of this thread jerks a heathen cage or two, eh?

(Dedicated to my favorite RF Reprobates)
​

I recently came across Dominic Thompson's article "What are atheists for? Hypotheses on the functions of non-belief in the evolution of religion", published in Religion, Brain & Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012.
I found it interesting and I dare to hope that others in RF will too.

The article opens with the allegation that a lot of recent research (as of February 2012) suggests that religious beliefs and behaviors:

• Are universal,
• Arise from deep-seated cognitive mechanisms, and
• Were favored by natural selection over human evolutionary history.

So, If religious-belief formation and behavior is a “fundamental characteristic” of human brains (as by-product theorists and adaptationists agree) and/or is an important feature of Darwinian fitness (as adaptationists argue), then

“how do we explain the existence and prevalence of atheists even among ancient and traditional societies?”​

Thompson tells us that one possible answer is that, like other psychological traits due to natural variation, there will always be “a range of religious-belief degrees”, and atheists simply represent one end of that range.

But he goes on to suggest that an “evolutionary approach to religion” raises several other “adaptive hypotheses” for atheism, such as:

1. Frequency-dependent selection meaning that atheism as a ‘‘belief strategy’’ is selected as long as atheists do not become too numerous;
2. Ecological variation meaning that atheism outperforms belief in certain settings or at certain times, maintaining a mix in the overall population;
3. The presence of atheists may reinforce or temper religious beliefs and behaviors in the face of skepticism, boosting religious commitment, credibility, or practicality in the group as a whole; and
4. The presence of atheists may catalyze the functional advantages of religion, analogous to the way that loners or non-participants can enhance the evolution of cooperation.​

Since evolutionary theorists ask what religious beliefs are ‘‘for’’ in terms of functional benefits for Darwinian fitness; Thompson says we should also consider what atheists might be for.

[T.S. Comments: Neat, huh? I think so.

• I'm especially intrigued by Hypothesis #1, because it evokes the notion that, from time to time, it may be appropriate "to cull the herd".
• I also liked the Jewish story about the rabbi and his disciple's exchange.
  • "Do you believe," the disciple asked the rabbi, "that God created everything for a purpose?" "I do," replied the rabbi." "Well,"
    asked the disciple, ‘‘why did God create atheists?’’ ]

Dominc Thompson's article is attached for the benefit of the literate among you.

 

[Sunstone]

I strongly believe there are NO human behaviors that entirely lack any and all genetic basis for them, and I also believe that human religiosity is to some large degree a manifestation of our genes. However, I do not necessarily endorse any of Thompson's proposed explanations for atheism. I'll have to think about them a whole lot more than I have.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I recently came across Dominic Thompson's article "What are atheists for? Hypotheses on the functions of non-belief in the evolution of religion", published in Religion, Brain & Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012.

I found it interesting and I dare to hope that others in RF will too.

The article opens with the allegation that a lot of recent research (as of February 2012) suggests that religious beliefs and behaviors:

• Are universal,
• Arise from deep-seated cognitive mechanisms, and
• Were favored by natural selection over human evolutionary history.

So, If religious-belief formation and behavior is a “fundamental characteristic” of human brains (as by-product theorists and adaptationists agree) and/or is an important feature of Darwinian fitness (as adaptationists argue), then

“how do we explain the existence and prevalence of atheists even among ancient and traditional societies?”​

Thompson tells us that one possible answer is that, like other psychological traits due to natural variation, there will always be “a range of religious-belief degrees”, and atheists simply represent one end of that range.

But he goes on to suggest that an “evolutionary approach to religion” raises several other “adaptive hypotheses” for atheism, such as:

1. Frequency-dependent selection meaning that atheism as a ‘‘belief strategy’’ is selected as long as atheists do not become too numerous;
2. Ecological variation meaning that atheism outperforms belief in certain settings or at certain times, maintaining a mix in the overall population;
3. The presence of atheists may reinforce or temper religious beliefs and behaviors in the face of skepticism, boosting religious commitment, credibility, or practicality in the group as a whole; and
4. The presence of atheists may catalyze the functional advantages of religion, analogous to the way that loners or non-participants can enhance the evolution of cooperation.​

Since evolutionary theorists ask what religious beliefs are ‘‘for’’ in terms of functional benefits for Darwinian fitness; Thompson says we should also consider what atheists might be for.

[T.S. Comments: Neat, huh? I think so.

• I'm especially intrigued by Hypothesis #1, because it evokes the notion that, from time to time, it may be appropriate "to cull the herd".
• I also liked the Jewish story about the rabbi and his disciple's exchange.
  • "Do you believe," the disciple asked the rabbi, "that God created everything for a purpose?" "I do," replied the rabbi." "Well,"
    asked the disciple, ‘‘why did God create atheists?’’ ]

Dominc Thompson's article is attached for the benefit of the literate among you.

Dawkins has an interesting hypothesis.

He proposes that religion arose as a result of co-opting the natural tendency of people, especially children, to unquestioningly submit to authority figures, especially fathers and tribal chiefs - a behavior which offers a survival advantage.

Also, add the intuition to impute agency to nature, which we inherited from the beasts. Better to assume that that sound or movement was due to a conscious agent, run, and to have been wrong than the other way around. Thus lightning and thunder became gods warring once linguistic thought and ideas such as that became possible.

Given these proclivities in man, it's nor surprising that gods were invented to explain the wrath of nature, and religions established with priesthoods ostensibly to appease these gods with offerings and obedience. You referred to manipulation above. This is manipulation at the grandest scale, using the literary device of a god for those wishing to exploit others by usurping its alleged authority when speaking as if channeling a divine command

Dawkins offers the example of the moth spiraling into the flame or light bulb as an illustration of this usurpation of an instinct by a modern development. If you ask what survival advantage that behavior provided the moth in the current context, the answer is the same as with religious activities : none. Following paths using light sources evolved when the only night lights were celestial bodies, bodies that were so far away that their beams, which the moth uses to navigate, are parallel for practical purposes. It's the radial beams emanating from nearby light sources that confound the moth and condemn it to spiraling into the light.

Dawkins' larger point is that just because a behavior is widespread doesn't mean that it offers a survival advantage. The moth's behavior is clearly destructive. Dawkins argues that man invests so much energy and consumes so many resources on this activity, religion, that like spiraling into a flame, it is actually counterproductive rather than conferring a survival advantage.

 

[BSM1]

He wanted a challenge....

 

[Terry Sampson]

it is actually counterproductive rather than conferring a survival advantage.

Mother Nature's way of "culling the herd"?

 

[Terry Sampson]

He wanted a challenge....

Hmmm, ....

 

[Invisibilis]

God created choice. Atheists chose to be atheists.

 

[BSM1]

Hmmm, ....

View attachment 37816

I think I've met the little guy...

 

[Bear Wild]

Betcha the title of this thread jerks a heathen cage or two, eh?

(Dedicated to my favorite RF Reprobates)
​

I recently came across Dominic Thompson's article "What are atheists for? Hypotheses on the functions of non-belief in the evolution of religion", published in Religion, Brain & Behavior, Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012.
I found it interesting and I dare to hope that others in RF will too.

The article opens with the allegation that a lot of recent research (as of February 2012) suggests that religious beliefs and behaviors:

• Are universal,
• Arise from deep-seated cognitive mechanisms, and
• Were favored by natural selection over human evolutionary history.

So, If religious-belief formation and behavior is a “fundamental characteristic” of human brains (as by-product theorists and adaptationists agree) and/or is an important feature of Darwinian fitness (as adaptationists argue), then

“how do we explain the existence and prevalence of atheists even among ancient and traditional societies?”​

Thompson tells us that one possible answer is that, like other psychological traits due to natural variation, there will always be “a range of religious-belief degrees”, and atheists simply represent one end of that range.

But he goes on to suggest that an “evolutionary approach to religion” raises several other “adaptive hypotheses” for atheism, such as:

1. Frequency-dependent selection meaning that atheism as a ‘‘belief strategy’’ is selected as long as atheists do not become too numerous;
2. Ecological variation meaning that atheism outperforms belief in certain settings or at certain times, maintaining a mix in the overall population;
3. The presence of atheists may reinforce or temper religious beliefs and behaviors in the face of skepticism, boosting religious commitment, credibility, or practicality in the group as a whole; and
4. The presence of atheists may catalyze the functional advantages of religion, analogous to the way that loners or non-participants can enhance the evolution of cooperation.​

Since evolutionary theorists ask what religious beliefs are ‘‘for’’ in terms of functional benefits for Darwinian fitness; Thompson says we should also consider what atheists might be for.

[T.S. Comments: Neat, huh? I think so.

• I'm especially intrigued by Hypothesis #1, because it evokes the notion that, from time to time, it may be appropriate "to cull the herd".
• I also liked the Jewish story about the rabbi and his disciple's exchange.
  • "Do you believe," the disciple asked the rabbi, "that God created everything for a purpose?" "I do," replied the rabbi." "Well,"
    asked the disciple, ‘‘why did God create atheists?’’ ]

Dominc Thompson's article is attached for the benefit of the literate among you.

Humans have cognitive mechanisms for social behaviors and for creating explanations about the world they live in. When you have social behaviors are mixed with creating explanations about the unknown in our world you get the combined behavioral patterns we have labeled as religious. Social behaviors increase the survival of the group as seen in many animals and creating explanations for the unknown such when encountering something such as death decreases the anxiety in the person improving the individual's chance of survival. Atheists have the same cognitive mechanisms but choose not to give explanations in terms of supernatural forces.

 

[sun rise]

Some of us, myself included, started out life as atheists and changed our minds. I have a friend who went in the other direction.

So the thesis of the OP includes a false dichotomy which asserts that atheists and theists stay the way they are and reasons from there.

 

[dybmh]

God created atheists so that theists and atheists could get together and make agnostic babies. It was all for the sake of agnostics... naturally

 

[Twilight Hue]

All this analysis over eyptomology pertaining to, "one without gods".

Something that everybody begins life with until thy one with the puppet arrives.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Dawkins offers the example of the moth spiraling into the flame or light bulb as an illustration of this usurpation of an instinct by a modern development. If you ask what survival advantage that behavior provided the moth in the current context, the answer is the same as with religious activities : none. Following paths using light sources evolved when the only night lights were celestial bodies, bodies that were so far away that their beams, which the moth uses to navigate, are parallel for practical purposes. It's the radial beams emanating from nearby light sources that confound the moth and condemn it to spiraling into the light.

Dawkins' larger point is that just because a behavior is widespread doesn't mean that it offers a survival advantage. The moth's behavior is clearly destructive. Dawkins argues that man invests so much energy and consumes so many resources on this activity, religion, that like spiraling into a flame, it is actually counterproductive rather than conferring a survival advantage.

That's interesting, except that it's wrong.

An atheist spends far more resources (time, energy, happiness) in the acquiring of things. In point of fact, the acquisition of stuff results in extremely destructive behavior (as an analogy, my nephews were fighting over plastic Easter eggs today). A religious person understands that this is all just stuff. An atheist assigns value to the physical world. From a survival perspective, fighting over land, gold, or jewelry is liable to get you killed. An idea, not nearly as much.

Also, the reason insects fly towards flames is because they need warmth, they simply don't understand the difference in extreme between the sun and flying directly into a flame. This is also symbolic.

 

[SomeRandom]

That's interesting, except that it's wrong.

An atheist spends far more resources (time, energy, happiness) in the acquiring of things. In point of fact, the acquisition of stuff results in extremely destructive behavior (as an analogy, my nephews were fighting over plastic Easter eggs today). A religious person understands that this is all just stuff. An atheist assigns value to the physical world. From a survival perspective, fighting over land, gold, or jewelry is liable to get you killed. An idea, not nearly as much.

Also, the reason insects fly towards flames is because they need warmth, they simply don't understand the difference in extreme between the sun and flying directly into a flame. This is also symbolic.

It’s hard for me to reconcile this with the fact that the richest institutions in the world are actually religious organisations.
The RCC alone is worth billions. (Nothing against Catholics, of course.)

Also people kill over ideas all the time. I mean just look at human history.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Why did God create atheists?"

Because humans are free to believe in G-d or not to believer in Him. Quran mentions it clearly. Right, please?

Regards

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Some of us, myself included, started out life as atheists and changed our minds. I have a friend who went in the other direction.

So the thesis of the OP includes a false dichotomy which asserts that atheists and theists stay the way they are and reasons from there.

also assumes that the theistic spectrum is binary and that there are not and cannot be any intermediate positions...

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Or why did Atheists create God?

 

[McBell]

That's interesting, except that it's wrong.

An atheist spends far more resources (time, energy, happiness) in the acquiring of things. In point of fact, the acquisition of stuff results in extremely destructive behavior (as an analogy, my nephews were fighting over plastic Easter eggs today). A religious person understands that this is all just stuff. An atheist assigns value to the physical world. From a survival perspective, fighting over land, gold, or jewelry is liable to get you killed. An idea, not nearly as much.

Also, the reason insects fly towards flames is because they need warmth, they simply don't understand the difference in extreme between the sun and flying directly into a flame. This is also symbolic.

Televangelist Jim Bakker Ordered By Attorney General To Stop Selling Fake Cure For Coronavirus

 

[McBell]

It’s hard for me to reconcile this with the fact that the richest institutions in the world are actually religious organisations.
The RCC alone is worth billions. (Nothing against Catholics, of course.)

Also people kill over ideas all the time. I mean just look at human history.

I can tell you now she is completely immune to truth and facts.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans own the group sharing living status as imposed by the term extended family.

And all humanity own the living life condition, spiritual self, human and extended family.

Spirit of self, natural...and our extended family.

Terms and conditions for civilization were artificial standards. And only group coercion, as group status enforced the belief of a TITLE involving entitlement.

A natural fact of human history.

Atheists were in fact theists.....as scientists, the con of the ists as con science, not consciousness.

Humanity know family diversity for country of origin or Holy land is real....but it still makes you my human brother and my human sister.

Ask why a male who implied that he spoke on behalf of 2 equal natural human beings, why he did it......because he did....the scientist.

And then when he got irradiated or anti attacked, the information he shared was 2...between his science cause, image and recording and self.

Why the female missed out on her equal equality rights in human life...as a human.

For our brother implemented a secondary go between in the statements SCIENCE by the term reference the ISTS.

Scientists, a theist....theory and theism.

[ɪst]
NOUN
informal
derogatory

1. a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.