Here is an article in Der Spiegel International that may resonate with some here: Going Godless: Does Secularism Make People More Ethical?
Non-believers are often more educated, more tolerant and know more about God than the pious. A new wave of research is trying to figure out what goes on in the minds of an ever-growing group of people known as the "Nones".
The most surprising insight revealed by the new wave of secular research so far is that atheists know more about the God they don't believe in than the believers themselves. This is the conclusion suggested by a 2010 Pew Research Center survey of US citizens. Even when the higher education levels of the unreligious were factored out, they proved to be better informed in matters of faith, followed by Jewish and Mormon believers.
Two Different Thinking Styles
Boston University's Catherine Caldwell-Harris is researching the differences between the secular and religious minds. "Humans have two cognitive styles," the psychologist says. "One type finds deeper meaning in everything; even bad weather can be framed as fate. The other type is neurologically predisposed to be skeptical, and they don't put much weight in beliefs and agency detection."
Caldwell-Harris is currently testing her hypothesis through simple experiments. Test subjects watch a film in which triangles move about. One group experiences the film as a humanized drama, in which the larger triangles are attacking the smaller ones. The other group describes the scene mechanically, simply stating the manner in which the geometric shapes are moving. Those who do not anthropomorphize the triangles, she suspects, are unlikely to ascribe much importance to beliefs. "There have always been two cognitive comfort zones," she says, "but skeptics used to keep quiet in order to stay out of trouble."
Only a small portion of secularists are as radical as the "strong atheists" championed by British evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins. The majority are more likely to be indifferent to religion or mildly agnostic, according to Kosmin's analysis. There are also secular humanists, free thinkers and many other factions. "One problem of atheism research is that we simply can't agree on a unified terminology," notes Kosmin. "Every researcher thinks he is Linnaeus and invents his own labels."
Then he tells of a meeting of secular groups last year in Washington. They were planning a big demonstration. "But they couldn't even agree on a motto," he says. "It was like herding cats, straight out of a Monty Python sketch." In the end, the march was called off.
While this was not associated with the above site, this may also interest some here: Going Godless: Rediscovering Spirituality in the Material World
3 comments:
"The most surprising insight revealed by the new wave of secular research so far is that atheists know more about the God they don't believe in than the believers themselves."
That's the case with me. I was forced to delve deeply into the facts for my own peace of mind. I no longer can just accept on faith, which is super-belief based on cowering faith.
"You're going to end up in hell" doesn't terrify me in the least. I no longer can be cowed by a mythical oriental tribal chieftan on a cosmic level who demands cowering subjection of everyone.
Thankfully, we live in a society where the "representatives" of that mythical being can no longer threaten us with horrendous repercussions if we dare to "blaspheme," but there are many who lust for the return of those inquisitional days. They are doing all in their power to make it happen.
This Kosmin (or the journalist writing about his analyses) is screwing up the terminology pretty badly. It doesn't take a Linnaeus to figure it out, not in the age of Google.
One example (and this is just off the top of my head here): The New Atheists, while outspoken, are not "strong atheists", which is a term that describes gnostic atheists--those who claim to know there is no god. Dawkins certainly (and this is typical among atheists) identifies as an agnostic atheist, also known as "weak atheism" (just the opposite of the term applied to him in the article). And don't get me started on the nonsensical popular conception of agnosticism that this article perpetuates.
It's enough to make you want to choke somebody. I mean, all one has to do is look at a couple Wikipedia articles and the confusion is cleared up. Why do people refuse clarity? Might have something to do with those two different styles of thinking the article mentions.
I wonder how much secularism is a natural consequence of ethical thought, rather than vice versa. Also, to my mind, the explanation for why atheists are typically more educated with regard to religion than the religious themselves often has to do with the fact that so many atheists educated themselves out of religion. The less you know about your faith, the more likely it is you will remain in it. Why? Because all legitimate knowledge about gods militates against belief in those gods. That's not "surprising", that's obvious.
The typical journalist's coverage of stories about atheism always leaves me wondering how these people have jobs.
I must have stated this a thousand times, at least. Having grown up in WCG, and attended Ambassador College, during my early twenties, I had no sense of ethics whatever.
I learned my ethics from the business world. Ethics and morality often conflict. Really, I've found that for me personally, I need both.
BB
Post a Comment