Why Are There Atheists?

[rug]

October 11, 2013 By Connor Wood

Why are there atheists? This isn’t just a rhetorical question – much scientific research into religious belief over the past couple of decades has concluded that religious belief is culturally universal, and arises from cognitive and cultural defaults that are persistent across societies. Many academics, especially in the humanities, might reject such universalizing claims, but the fact remains that religious beliefs and practices are found in all human societies, very nearly without exception. Clearly, there is something basically human about being religious. So does this mean that atheists are freaks? One psychologist says “Nope.” Instead, she gives evidence to show that atheism is a perfectly expectable outcome of basic – and natural – personality differences between individuals.

In an article for Religion, Brain & Behavior, Catherine Caldwell-Harris, an experimental psychologist at Boston University, summarized research spanning decades on the differences between atheists and religious believers. The agglomerated results describe a unique personality profile for atheists, suggesting that certain aspects of personality orientation may naturally lead some people to religious belief and others to nonbelief. Namely, compared with religious believers atheists tend to be less social, more individualistic, and less socially conforming. Atheists also show a tendency to prefer logical rather than intuitive reasoning, to enjoy solving puzzles, and, in Caldwell-Harris’s terms, to prioritize this-worldly ethical concerns over supernatural or transcendent concerns.

The surveys Caldwell-Harris examined ran the gamut: she drew on everything from large-scale demographic studies, to quantitative cognitive and personality measures, to qualitative interviews. Sorting through this mountain of data, a number of important patterns made themselves apparent.

First, atheists tended to have lower levels of social attachment than religious believers. This included both family and friendship attachments; for example, in one large survey atheists rated themselves as significantly less enthusiastic than believers about family gatherings, road trips, cooking dinner with others, and getting together with friends. They also reported fewer social obligations; religious believers were more likely to report that others, including family members, depended on them for help or assistance.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2013/10/why-are-there-atheists/

Free access to the article gut it requires registration.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2012.668395#.Ul_NWk7D_3g

[djean111]

1. Another bullshit article.

"Atheists are just not as NICE as theists". Or there is something wrong with them.
Whatever. The need to quantify this sort of thing is telling, though. A wee bit defensive.

[rug]

2. Did you access the article?

[djean111]

3. Yes. I reject the need for the study, and the premise. When I read things like this -

"First, atheists tended to have lower levels of social attachment than religious believers. This included both family and friendship attachments; for example, in one large survey atheists rated themselves as significantly less enthusiastic than believers about family gatherings, road trips, cooking dinner with others, and getting together with friends. They also reported fewer social obligations; religious believers were more likely to report that others, including family members, depended on them for help or assistance."
I tend to roll my eyes. And knowing that data was "sifted" through makes me believe that the data was sifted through with an eye to proving some sort of already held belief. The "personality differences" boils down, to her, as theists - good, warm, cuddly, atheists - not so much. Yawn.

[enlightenment]

5. You might want to take a look at this

patheos article that also discusses Caldwell-Harris' research.

One excerpt:

Being drawn to science is all the more likely given what Caldwell-Harris describes as a focus on “pragmatic here-and-now problem solving.” This trait is especially important for reversing the stereotype that non-believers are not concerned with the meaning of life. Instead of finding meaning by investing the everyday with a sense of the sacred, atheists tend to find meaning in the here-and-now, in this world. This characterization is supported by previous research arguing that secular people are more concerned about social justice, environmentalism and a more inclusive altruism. Humanists won’t be surprised by this category.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2012/05/atheism-a-personality-profile/

[djean111]

6. I looked at that article, too.

I suppose that where I am coming from is I honestly do not see the need to try and figure out why some people are atheists, especially when, for the purposes of those studies, atheism is treated as an almost unhealthy and suspect aberration. A secure theist, I would have thought, would not be interested in why atheists are atheists, as if being atheist was some sort of puzzle to be solved. Or that atheism somehow diminishes their theism by existing. I see atheism as just another facet of humanity, not some sort of major definer of humanity.
Sort of like the difference between "gay musician" and "musician who happens to be gay". Picking one thing to define a group of people has always seemed almost silly to me. I think that slips into "all carpenters have blue eyes, so all people with blue eyes are carpenters". I know this is a physical attribute, not mental, but perhaps being told here on DU that as a Floridian, I am a racist Republican, based on geography has made me aware of this sort of thinking.

I think the answer is for me to not read this stuff. It is meant for theists, by theists, I believe. My atheism certainly does not preclude me from environmentalism, for instance, in fact, given that parameter, I am more likely to feel we should leave the earth in better shape for those to come, not act as if some god will sort it out, so why bother.

[enlightenment]

8. Your choice

I've never felt that my lack of belief precludes reading scientific studies - or that studies are not useful in a general sense of understanding or simply curiosity. Caldwell-Harris is a psychologist (and probably a non-theist, given her interests and associations) and does some very interesting work that has nothing to do with attempting to pigeonhole particular groups, including atheists. When it comes to this topic in particular, her goal is to "prove" that atheism is as natural as belief - so in that regard, she fully agrees with what you wrote.

You sound like a rational person, which makes your universal ("those studies&quot condemnation of scientific research into what factors precipitate belief or non-belief a rather odd reaction - but not one worth debating.

I'll just say that she does interesting work and leave it at that.

[Jim__]

11. I think you're right, she does refer to herself as a nonbeliever.

From Humanist Community at Harvard blog:

I found these ideas intriguing, impressive, rich, informative, fascinating, disconcerting and occasionally infuriating.

Some experimental psychologists say that we all go through our lives doing “mesearch”. Suspending disbelief, I wondered:

If religion is part of evolved human nature, why am I color blind to God?

Logically, the alternatives are: God (and supernatural) belief is not as natural or normative as the cognitive science of religionists say it is,
or:
We nonbelievers are statistically peculiar; we live in the tails of the bell curve.

[edhopper]

4. Because humans

have the ability to overcome their instincts and evolutionary make up in many areas. Religion might be a genetically predetermined, but that doesn't mean everybody must be religious.

The article shows correlation but not causation. And of course we can find many atheists and religious folk who run counter to his generalizations.

[cleanhippie]

7. Religion is not genetically predetermined, belief is.

Religion is a human construct that arose out of the self-protective nature of belief.

[edhopper]

9. okay,

though the instinct for belief combined with the instinct to form social groups and hierarchies would result in religion.

But I'm not someone who thinks we can make a clear demarcation on genetic vs cultural behavior. Learned vs innate. Combination of both seems to be more likely.

[PassingFair]

10. Why don't people "hear" god anymore?

[PassingFair]

12. In times and lands where religions hold sway...it was DEATH to infidels.

Most atheists kept their mouths shut or lost their lives.

People aren't predisposed to be religious...they're predisposed to
be fearful.

If questioning or going against the group means losing your life,
you tend to STFU.

The fastest growing atheist community in my state is comprised of
ex-muslims.

Free at last!

[uriel1972]

13. Do people become atheists because of lower social attachments or...

do people have lower social attachments because they have become atheists? I mean after all in highly religious communities such as the US being an atheist is isolating. Being an atheist in other religious countries is virtually a death sentence.

It's hard to engage in community activities as an atheist, if you are a basically honest person,where a requirement is a belief in some form of a god. Its hard to be social when you are NOT welcome unless you convert.

It seems to me you could say the same about isolated LGBT people, even if they are not out or to an isolated person of another religion or skin color within a community. To say atheists are not social by nature without mentioning this is bigotry pure and simple.

I am hoping the article mentioned this.

ps there are atheists because of many reasons, for this one it is the essential injustice of the universe (from my point of view) and the paucity of religious explanations for the above. YMMV

[pinto]

14. What type of community activities require a belief in a god?

[uriel1972]

15. Church activities, scouts, any activity within a highly religious community...

Charities (many), volunteer organisations (some), family activities if the family is religious, gosh any activity where a fair sized chunk is religious.

If people open and/or close a meeting with a prayer for instance. Everybody "Thanking God" all the time. All but you talking about your church activities. It's very alienating. The list can go on, but I wont.

[pinto]

16. I can see how close social / family relationships could become alienating, religious/non religious.

Yet any 501 (c) 3 organization is required to have a non-discrimination clause. It includes religion among others. Same with most work places. How that works day-to-day may be another thing altogether, I guess.

(asides) My brother has volunteered at a couple of low-income support programs, including the Salvation Army. Basic nuts and bolts support work, no proselytizing. He was never asked about his take on religion (he's an atheist). They welcomed his efforts for the program.

I worked in a public sector job. Among our team was a devout evangelical Christian. We agreed to disagree and put it aside. Our work and our individual contributions came first. This was in a HIV testing and prevention program. Our outreach and services were targeted to those at risk. In our area that meant a lot of young gay males. She was apparently able to put aside whatever her church's stand was and maintain a public health approach. Maybe an anomaly, but she did a good job.

My best friend and I used to go to Catholic midnight mass at Christmas. She's an atheist, didn't join in on any of the mass ritual. Remained seated throughout. She appreciated the show, saw it as performance art. And had no qualms with obviously being a non-participant. Given, she has a thick skin and it didn't matter to her one way or the other.

Opening prayers when they occur at governmental meetings bug me. I feel strongly about the separation standard. Yet I don't find it as big a deal as the many other larger intrusions of religion in the public sphere.

[dimbear]

17. Studies in the western hemisphere tend to show atheists are financially better off, more educated,

and more knowledgeable about religious concepts than believers. The answer to the question is essentially the same as the answer to "Why are there Lincolns, when there are Fords?"
This controversy also reminds me of a favorite question of my father's: why is a duck? I suspect that may go back to the Marx brothers.

[rug]

18. Why a fence?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4493024/the_cocoanuts_why_a_duck/

[Gore1FL]

19. Why are their atheists? Because there isn't a God. Pretty obvious, actually. n/t

[MineralMan]

20. Why wouldn't there be?

Why are there Buddhists? It's the same question, really. Why are there non-Christians?

A waste of words is what this article is.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Some questions aren't worth acknowledging.