Study Suggests Atheists Suppress The Truth
Posted in Atheism, Religion, Science on | 2 minutes | 40 Comments →
There’s been a lot of hubbub over this “Atheists and Asperger’s” study that recently surfaced at the Scientific American blog. For me, this was the interesting line:
In a second experiment, Heywood and Bering compared 27 people with Asperger’s with 34 neurotypical people who are atheists. The atheists, as expected, often invoked anti-teleological responses such as “there is no reason why; things just happen.” The people with Asperger’s were significantly less likely to offer such anti-teleological explanations than the atheists, indicating they were not engaged in teleological thinking at all. (The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.)
Romans 1:18-20 reads,
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (ESV)
Obviously, my title is loaded, in that I take it for granted that God is the truth. Though only a single study and by no means sufficient to justify broad conclusions, these preliminary findings seem to directly confirm Scripture. The study suggests what the Scriptures declare: that atheists have internal access to the truth of God’s existence just as much as anyone else—that they naturally reason teleologically—but that they “reject” or “suppress” it.
Who would have thought?
Hunt
says...I do believe that we all have a natural tendency to teleological thinking (to be clear: to attribute cause and purpose to natural processes). It seems to be an ingrained part of our cognition. This could (can) be explained evolutionarily: the man walking on African steppe who attributes the sound of a broken twig to a lion has a distinct survival advantage. Evolution may well have shaped our cognition to suspect intention in nature. There is no guarantee that they way we think should exactly reflect the true nature of reality.
By discipline of scientific reasoning, one can sidestep teleological thinking to a certain extent, but it’s very easy to slip back into it. Even Dawkins will talk about purpose and design in nature, but when he’s more careful he’ll specify that evolution produces structures that “mimic” design and intentional purpose.
Crude
says...By discipline of scientific reasoning, one can sidestep teleological thinking to a certain extent, but it’s very easy to slip back into it.
What’s so scientific or even reasonable about sidestepping teleological thinking? And is there a difference between being design-agnostic, and denying design? As in…
Even Dawkins will talk about purpose and design in nature, but when he’s more careful he’ll specify that evolution produces structures that “mimic” design and intentional purpose.
Sure, but how does he know evolution “mimics” design, rather than “really is” design? It’s not enough to say, ‘Well, it was an evolutionary process.’ – That’s as subsumable under design as anything else.
Crude
says...cl,
The study suggests what the Scriptures declare: that atheists have internal access to the truth of God’s existence just as much as anyone else—that they naturally reason teleologically—but that they “reject” or “suppress” it.
I’d agree that is suggested. One thing I wonder though: If the study ‘shows’ that atheists see teleology, but then offer up non-teleological responses when asked, would that qualify as lying by your sights?
joseph
says...Is there any evidence that teleological thinking is beneficial? Or back up the implicit value judgement?
If the kind of statements lead to, by teleogical thinking, are both beyond our ability to judge and has difficulty producing predictions, to what use can they be put.
Frankly if I read a pharmaceutical research paper in which teleological language was being used non-metaphorically by guard would be up. But I shout at my keys if I can’t find them.
I read in one of, he whose name we do not speak (dicky dawkins) books that children think in a more teleological fashion than adults, so he drew the opposite conclusion.
Hunt
says...Because he has a credible theory to explain the non-intentional design, and he is going by the theory that he believes. Here I’m just dispensing with the slight weasel-wording of “appearance of design” because it really is a design (there is no “appearance” of design; there is either design or there isn’t), but according to evolution there is no intention or thought behind it. It is not designed by a thinking being. In short, it is not a demonstration of natural teleology. I think it can be assumed we all know what I mean. Unfortunately in many discussions like this, the mere mention of the word “design” is a gotcha moment for proponents of teleology.
The question raised by this study is whether the intuitive appeal of design or purpose-oriented thinking has any ulterior bearing on the nature of reality. Well, yes, I would say that it does, because we all recognize design in nature, but the real question is what is the cause (etiology) of that design or purpose. How far are we able to expand the concept of design to natural material processes?
Hunt
says...Not sure if this was directed at me, but…
The “lion” scenario is strictly hypothetical. I read it somewhere, I can’t recall. So, no, I have nothing to back it up. To what use, for instance, could the process of “paranoia” be put? Well, again, according to evolution, or natural selection, the “use” is survival. If paranoia has survival value, then we all become a bit more paranoid. Viewed in this light I guess it’s amazing that we’re generally as psychologically stable as we are.
Teleological thinking could be beneficial as a general cognitive architecture. It’s possible that it was entirely arbitrary (IOW it just happened to work well enough) and that our minds might have worked in another manner, among a spectrum of possibilities. If it had been otherwise, perhaps we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
joseph
says...@Hunt
Was to anyone really.
My, perhaps incorrect, understanding of teleological thought, applied to the Lion example, would be our budding teleologists would say:
“The twig made the sound in order to forewarn me of a lion”
Opposed to:
“A twig broke, chance of it being broken by a predator, safer to act as though that were the case…”
Garren
says...I prefer “correct for cognitive bias.”
But anyway, aren’t the condemned people in Romans 1 idolators who are engaging in teleological thinking, but are anthropomorphizing nature instead of realizing divinity lies beyond nature?
Hunt
says...@joseph
Yes, I see your point. In terms of origins, though, “the twig made a sound to warn me…” presupposes quite a bit of back-story. There would have to already be a substantial theoretical structure supporting it. It’s possible that I’m mixing ideas here; the lion example may not be the best example of teleological thinking, but it’s an example of assuming intention in nature by default, as opposed to dismissing something as an insignificant event. If that is not exactly teleological thinking, it might serve as the primitive origin for it.
joseph
says...“Yes, I see your point. In terms of origins, though, “the twig made a sound to warn me…” presupposes quite a bit of back-story.”
I guess this is my problem with teleology, it seems to at least allow, at most encourage, complete arse-pulls.
If you limit it to only allowing conscious minds causing purpose it’s a lottle better, but inventing concious minds (i.e. thunder therefore Chris Hemford) seems permissible.
I will readily admit, I might have missed the point.
joseph
says...lottle=little, not some weird chimera word
Crude
says...Because he has a credible theory to explain the non-intentional design, and he is going by the theory that he believes.
Right. I’m asking what makes evolutionary theory “non-intentional design”. See, the problem is when people say this…
but according to evolution there is no intention or thought behind it. It is not designed by a thinking being. In short, it is not a demonstration of natural teleology.
..It’s not accurate. It’s not “according to evolution”, it’s “according to some guy’s belief about evolution”. Evolution is entirely compatible with there being intention or thought behind it, or with it being designed by a thinking being. We use evolutionary processes in our own designs – artificial selection, bounded variation, and combinations thereof.
So it’s back to my question about how we know that the design we see is a mimic or imitation. “Because it evolved” won’t cut it.
Thinking Emotions
says...There are obviously reasons why things happen. People still have motivations and desires, even if those reduce to or supervene upon physical properties. You don’t have to assume intrinsic value, greater purpose, final causes, etc. to believe there are reasons why certain things happen. What you have here is 34 dumb atheists and/or just bad questions asked by the researchers.
Aside from the Scripture you posted, there is no evidence demonstrating that atheists naturally reason teleologically. Notice how that was just sort of stuck in there:
Teleological reasoning would be beneficial even if its assumptions were untrue — that is, it would be useful to humans in a theistic or atheistic ontology. It helps us cope with unfortunate events and explain tragedies. It could just be a psychological mechanism. That doesn’t seem unlikely to me at all.
Just saying.
Thinking Emotions
says...Also, if it is the case that it is a psychological mechanism, then it is a naturalistic fallacy to say that atheists are self-deluded/lying when asserting such things.
Crude
says...You don’t have to assume intrinsic value, greater purpose, final causes, etc. to believe there are reasons why certain things happen.
But it’s not an appeal to vague ‘reasons’ that was studied here, but teleological reasoning. Not all explanations are teleological, or even anti-teleological.
Also, if it is the case that it is a psychological mechanism, then it is a naturalistic fallacy to say that atheists are self-deluded/lying when asserting such things.
The “lie” portion is up in the air. If I ask you to tell me what you think of X, and your instinct is to give reply 1, but then you force yourself to give reply 2 which is at odds with reply 1, did you lie? Note I didn’t give an answer to that. I wanted to know cl’s thoughts.
As for the naturalistic fallacy, that seems vastly more appropriate to note with the “evolution played a role in making people think that” response. I think that’s doubly the case given what I’m maintaining about evolution, which I see as a pervasive error.
Thinking Emotions
says...No, most definitely not. That’s why I said certain things. You don’t have to believe in a grand purpose behind some events that may personally affect you to believe they have reasons for happening. I imagine that all atheists are capable of teleological reasoning, but they find it fallacious/ineffective/meaningless.
Since when was instinct ever useful? Or do you mean instinct in this case as a spiritual impulse or some such thing? Our hindbrain, or reptilian brain, is the most instinctual part of our brain. It asks, “Can I eat it? Can I have sex with it?” The limbic system is also somewhat instinctual. The neocortex, or the rational brain, is generally what we champion nowadays due to its lack of reliance on pure instinct.
Moving away for pure instinct is the very reason we have philosophy, art, science, etc.
cl
says...Hunt,
I’m not sure that “Oh crap it’s a lion” qualifies as teleological reasoning, but I see what you’re getting at.
That’s weasel-wording alright… :)
Crude,
It seems more in line with delusion.
joseph,
Interesting question. Most atheists I’ve encountered will turn around and say that teleological thinking run amok, e.g. religion, is not beneficial. When and where they draw the line, and why, remains a mystery.
garren,
It seems to me they’re described as ungodly and unrighteous people who suppress the truth and worship the creation instead of the Creator. That doesn’t strike me as much different than the enchanted naturalist.
TE,
On what grounds do you deny the study?
Why do you say that? That seems to need some heavy-duty support.
From Wikipedia: “Moore stated that a naturalistic fallacy is committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term “good” in terms of one or more natural properties (such as “pleasant”, “more evolved”, “desired”, etc.)”
How would that be an example of the naturalist fallacy?
Crude
says...You don’t have to believe in a grand purpose behind some events that may personally affect you to believe they have reasons for happening.
But accepting the reality of teleology in the natural world does lead to some interesting consequences, or in the directions of them.
Since when was instinct ever useful?
Often, apparently.
Or do you mean instinct in this case as a spiritual impulse or some such thing?
Possibly, though it can merely be the awareness that there is an innate teleology and purpose in the universe and “natural” world generally. Call that spiritual if you like.
Our hindbrain, or reptilian brain, is the most instinctual part of our brain. It asks, “Can I eat it? Can I have sex with it?”
Two problems. First, the question isn’t about mere instincts, but about the appearance of teleology in the natural world. And apparently, even atheists tend to see the world teleologically – if the study is right, they’re actively trying not to, or at least trying to deny that they do.
Second, describing physical systems in intentional terms is just another form of teleology. Like regarding parts of the brain as “asking” about things beyond itself.
Moving away for pure instinct is the very reason we have philosophy, art, science, etc.
Or maybe it’s developing different kinds of instincts. Or honing instincts that we already had.
Thinking Emotions
says...To suggest it is lying/self-delusion to attempt to view the world in a sense that is not teleological because we naturally see the world teleologically. That fallacy* is dependent upon the second part of the previous sentence as Crude pointed out.
* Woops, I meant the moralistic fallacy: what is good and right is inherent and natural. However, both could apply here. To say we ought to trust teleological POVs because they are natural would be naturalistic. To say denying teleological POVs is self-delusion because teleology is a part of our perception would be moralistic.
I don’t think there is any teleology in the natural world, per se, but I do think there may be a psychological inclination to view the world as such. A bias of perception, if you will. And of course atheists would try to avoid seeing the world in such a way, because they think it to be fallacious.
To respond to Crude’s link, what does it prove in the midst of all this? We have been conditioned to look for patterns — we notice incongruence. This is also a psychological inclination. It may not take long to spot the odd one out, but when our rational brain tries to scan all possible options, we may vacillate. Also, I should have said: “Since when did instinct ever lead to any sort of true understanding?” Obviously instinct can be useful.
I don’t deny the study. It is true that atheists disbelieve in teleology, but the notion of atheists denying these teleological answers internally is unsubstantiated.
I thought I threw in some general examples. It helps us reconcile misfortunes (e.g. why bad things happen to good people, natural disasters, accidents) and cope with tragedies (e.g. better things lay ahead, wrongdoers will be punished, this is all a deity’s plan).
Crude
says...And of course atheists would try to avoid seeing the world in such a way, because they think it to be fallacious.
What’s the fallacy in seeing teleology in nature?
To say we ought to trust teleological POVs because they are natural would be naturalistic.
Who said that? In cl’s post, all I see is him pointing out a study that seems to support the idea that atheists see/think teleologically after all, but consciously weed it out, and that this is in accord with a scriptural claim. I think that’s more at the level of data than argument. He said it’s suggestive, but he also said it doesn’t prove the claim.
To respond to Crude’s link, what does it prove in the midst of all this?
You asked when instinct has ever been useful, I answered. What more should there be?
Also, I should have said: “Since when did instinct ever lead to any sort of true understanding?
“The research, published online in the journal Current Biology, shows that, in some cases, instinctive snap decisions are more reliable than decisions taken using higher-level cognitive processes.”
but the notion of atheists denying these teleological answers internally is unsubstantiated.
“The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.”
Steve Bowen
says...All teleological thinking means is that we are prone to assuming objects (or physical attributes) are for things. It’s mental shorthand, and from an evolutionary perspective could have been adaptive in early tool use (this doesn’t qualify as an explanation, just a hypothesis). The fact that atheists circumvent this shorthand in response to deeper philosophical questions is not “lying” or denying some platonic truth, it is reasonable and consistent with observation and reliable naturalistic explanations.
Crude
says...All teleological thinking means is that we are prone to assuming objects (or physical attributes) are for things.
That’s not the extent of teleology. There’s the idea that some things are “for” things. There’s also the idea that they are “about” things.
It’s mental shorthand, and from an evolutionary perspective could have been adaptive in early tool use (this doesn’t qualify as an explanation, just a hypothesis).
You know, as someone who’s entirely comfortable with theistic evolution, I wouldn’t mind such a perspective in principle. But let’s recognize something – imaging a loose ‘evolutionary explanation’ for just about anything is easy, since it amounts to “well, just suggest there was an evolutionary advantage”.
Either way, in what way would it be shorthand? “That biological/natural thing has a purpose/is about something/has an intrinsic meaning/etc” is shorthand for..?
is not “lying” or denying some platonic truth, it is reasonable and consistent with observation and reliable naturalistic explanations.
I’m up in the air about whether or not it’s lying. My question was, if you ask someone what they think of object X, and their consistent instinct is to describe it in way 1, but they reject that and describe it in way 2, is that a lie? I didn’t give an answer to that, since I don’t think it’s very simple. But it’s definitely a question.
Thinking Emotions
says...Just because it lead to the right decision doesn’t mean there was true, conscious understanding taking place. I’m not calling cl out. I’m calling the study out. I think it’s vague and arbitrary. It’s an interesting find, and I want to see it retried, but I don’t think it could ever actually demonstrate what it says below.
This just smells funny to me. Why don’t they explain how this happened? How do they know what the atheists were thinking? How do they know they first thought teleologically, then suppressed that reasoning?
It’s basically a cognitive bias. It can cause you to interpret things incorrectly and misunderstand events. It can close you off to theories with evidence that are out of step with teleology or refute it. It could even distort rational decision making — if one thinks a divine being has placed them in a horrible position to build their faith, the person may simply stay put until the situation passes, putting himself in danger and anyone choosing to accompany him.
Crude
says...It’s basically a cognitive bias. It can cause you to interpret things incorrectly and misunderstand events. It can close you off to theories with evidence that are out of step with teleology or refute it. It could even distort rational decision making — if one thinks a divine being has placed them in a horrible position to build their faith, the person may simply stay put until the situation passes, putting himself in danger and anyone choosing to accompany him.
Alright, a few problems.
First, just having a “cognitive bias” is not fallacious. In fact, saying something along the lines of ‘you think that because of evolution, therefore you shouldn’t think that’ would be a fallacy, if I recall right.
Second, what if a person thinks “I am in this situation for a reason” – and they are? What if they think there is purpose and teleology in nature – and there is? Even granting that they may be wrong specifically (Teleological reading X was given, but teleological reading Y was correct), they may be correct generally (Teleology was present).
I think the point of this post was simply to note that even atheists apparently instinctively see teleology in nature – the study as given suggests, for whatever reason, many are actively suppressing that reading. Likewise, a claim that evolution played a role in shaping the instinct doesn’t show or even necessarily suggest the instinct was wrong – evolution is just one more tool in a designer’s toolbox, in principle.
This just smells funny to me. Why don’t they explain how this happened? How do they know what the atheists were thinking? How do they know they first thought teleologically, then suppressed that reasoning?
Wanting to more directly follow the logic of cited research is entirely reasonable. I’d love to see the study itself.
Thinking Emotions
says...I think you’re right. I wouldn’t dispute that people instinctively see teleology. I wouldn’t deny occasionally seeing things as teleological, but nowadays I tend to naturally see things as coincidental or simply meaningful to me. IMO, it is perfectly possible to stop seeing things teleologically.
This is true, but I’m not saying we shouldn’t think that. There’s no moral connotation here, but a factual one. We really should try to be as unbiased as possible in our judgments and perceptions. Even though you’re correct in saying having a cognitive bias is not fallacious, it can still lead to fallacious beliefs and opinions.
Roffle
says...Let me get this straight. If I am playing poker and someone asks me why I just got the hand I got (which just happens to be say 8c-10d) and I respond “No reason, it was just random,” rather than condescendingly describing the actions of the dealer shuffling the cards and handing them to me of which the questioner is fully aware of, then I am actively suppressing an instinctive inclination to attribute a teleological nature to the way the cards were dealt? Or is this simply responding to the most reasonable interpretation of the question? After all, if they wanted a description, they would have asked “how” and not “why.” Can someone please explain exactly how this study supports the notion that atheists instinctively see teleology in nature?
Crude
says...Let me get this straight. If I am playing poker and someone asks me why
I don’t think that’s a good comparison to what the study suggests in the article. Closer would be “If someone asks you why you got the hand you got, and your first thought is to attribute it to some reason or purpose, but then you second-guess that and give a different response, what just happened?”
Can someone please explain exactly how this study supports the notion that atheists instinctively see teleology in nature?
“The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.”
That’s the summary from the article. As for the specifics of how, as I said with TE, I’d like to see the research myself. But there you have it.
TE,
IMO, it is perfectly possible to stop seeing things teleologically.
Perhaps, but I’m not sure that was in question anyway.
Even though you’re correct in saying having a cognitive bias is not fallacious, it can still lead to fallacious beliefs and opinions.
Maybe, but what can’t “lead to” that at least potentially? ‘Trying one’s damndest to be unbiased’ can inadvertently lead to that too.
Roffle
says...““The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.”
That’s the summary from the article. As for the specifics of how, as I said with TE, I’d like to see the research myself. But there you have it.”
I was aware of that statement. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I interpret that as saying in contrast to the subjects with Asperger’s, the atheist subjects gave teleological responses, ergo they were reasoning teleologically, but after evaluating the reason, they rejected it, hence replying in the negative. This is the point, there is no suggestion that the atheists believed a teleological purpose and then suppressed it; it is a fabrication from misinterpreting one phrase that is not parsimonious with the stated data and then based on the assumption that some unpublished part of the study somehow accounts for it.
Crude
says...Correct me if I’m wrong, but I interpret that as saying in contrast to the subjects with Asperger’s, the atheist subjects gave teleological responses, ergo they were reasoning teleologically, but after evaluating the reason, they rejected it, hence replying in the negative. This is the point, there is no suggestion that the atheists believed a teleological purpose and then suppressed it; it is a fabrication from misinterpreting one phrase that is not parsimonious with the stated data and then based on the assumption that some unpublished part of the study somehow accounts for it.
What is the difference between viewing something, immediately seeing things in a teleological manner, then rejecting this and instead giving a non-teleological reply – versus – “believing a teleological purpose and then suppressing it”? It couldn’t be an accusation of lying, since no one here said the atheists were lying – I asked cl whether he thought they were, and admitted I thought it was tricky to evaluate.
Also, you say it’s “not parsimonious with the stated data” and that an “unpublished part of the study accounts for it”. It’s entirely parsimonious with the stated data, if that’s the article itself. I checked around for a more direct claim, and here’s a related (if earlier) comment from Bering, one of the authors of the study:
“Other atheists in the study confessed that they sometimes caught themselves thinking in such a fashion too, but immediately corrected
this cognitive bias in line with their explicitly logical, irreligious beliefs. One such person was a middle-aged man who botched a job
interview for a position that he very much wanted, failing to get an offer from his prospective employer: ‘‘And I found myself thinking, ’’he
said, ‘‘maybe this is meant to happen so I can find a better job or move to a different county to work d something like that. But in reality I
don’t believe in fate, so it’s strange to find oneself thinking like that.’’ This pattern of thinking strongly implies that atheism is more a verbal
muzzling of God — a conscious, executively made decision to reject one’s own intuitions about a faceless uber-mind involved in our personal affairs — than it is a true cognitive exorcism. The thought might be smothered so quickly that we fail to even realize that it has happened, but the despondent atheist’s appeal to some reasonable mind seems a psychological reflex to misfortune nonetheless.”
That’s from 2009 article “Atheism is only skin deep: Geertz and Markusson rely mistakenly on sociodemographic data as meaningful indicators of underlying cognition” by the way. CL, if you’re reading this, I suggest having a look. It’s pretty unique as far as perspectives on this question go.
TruthOverfaith
says...You Jesus nutters continue to make the case for Christian doctrine emanating directly from Balaam’s donkeys ass!
And when they had finished the Last Supper, Jesus turned to his disciples and said, “Boys, I should have passed on the cabbage. I feel a major fart a ‘commin. Amen.”
If I only had a brain!
Hunt
says...Catholics, Francis Collins, and many other religious evolutionists appear to agree with you, but by and large evolution is a materialist theory. Yes, it can be cast in the role of “guided evolution,” and there is no definitive proof against that. My response would probably be as Fourier’s to Napoleon, that I do not require that assumption (in a different context), and I think most evolutionists would agree. Doesn’t mean I’m right, but it does mean that I’m making one less assumption than you are.
joseph
says...@Hunt,
Furthermore if you interpreted evolution as “God’s process”, you bear the weight of explaining some odd “designs”, and explaining the origin of some of the cruelties of the natural world, though perhaps with reference to “the fall” and “the devil” an answer of sorts can be given.
TheistDude
says...cl,
I’d be interested to know your take on the 3rd round of debate between Vox and Dom.
Roffle
says...“Also, you say it’s “not parsimonious with the stated data” and that an “unpublished part of the study accounts for it”. It’s entirely parsimonious with the stated data, if that’s the article itself. “
The stated data, the findings of the study, is that atheists respond to “why” questions in a negative teleological manner and that people with Aspergers respond with descriptions. This simply means that if someone asks an atheist why a certain event took place, the atheist will interpret that the questioner as asking for a teleological reason, for which they will answer in the negative if they think that the action did not have one.
The anecdotes from the actual study are much more interesting although not much more insightful. I don’t put too much merit in first responses. People do this all the time, when, for example, first upon seeing a mathematical question give an incorrect answer and then a couple seconds later correct themselves. Specifically, this question has been in the news lately, “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” The initial, “intuitive,” response people give is usually incorrect, but some people who use “reflective thinking” change their initial response on second thought. Does this mean that they deeply believe the original to be correct, even after their correction or acknowledge that the original is true and then suppress it? I don’t think so. They acknowledged that they made an error and upon further thinking, revised their evaluation to make it correct.
In fact, this should be troubling for theists. It showed that individuals who use reflective thinking tend to be atheistic. Taken in tandem with the findings from the study mentioned in the OP, it shows that atheists, while they may initially find a teleological reason, upon further reflection, they deem it to be false. Theists have stood behind their first answer; perhaps they should think about it more, and no, that does not mean to come up with rationalizations to support their first answer. While I doubt there is anyone who thinks that reflective thinkers
“have internal access to the truth of the” math problem’s answer and then suppress it, I seem to have found someone who thinks the same applies for God.
Crude
says...Hunt,
Catholics, Francis Collins, and many other religious evolutionists appear to agree with you, but by and large evolution is a materialist theory.
What does this mean? What could it mean? That many people, or at least many/most scientists, think evolution is entirely unguided? But that doesn’t make it “a materialist theory”. It would make it a theory that many self-described materialists accept, or put a particular gloss on. That doesn’t make the theory materialist, anymore than an abundance of theists seeing the Big Bang as an act of creation by God makes the Big Bang theory “a supernatural theory”.
Yes, it can be cast in the role of “guided evolution,” and there is no definitive proof against that.
It’s not just that there’s no proof against it, there’s also evidence for and against the proposition. None of it is conclusive, but none of it has to be.
My response would probably be as Fourier’s to Napoleon, that I do not require that assumption (in a different context), and I think most evolutionists would agree. Doesn’t mean I’m right, but it does mean that I’m making one less assumption than you are.
Well, no: The “theory”, as a theory, does not require any claim about guidance or teleology or the lack thereof. “It’s not guided” is extraneous to the theory. So is “it’s guided”. The only way to really settle it would, oddly enough, require something the Intelligent Design people are always going off about: A scientific way to detect design or its lack. But none is on offer.
Either way, it goes back to what I said at the start: It’s not that science shows us that evolution is unguided or that there is no teleology. That’s a belief people have about evolution. Line up 99% or even 100% of all evolutionary biologists on your side if you want, but it’s not going to change that.
Crude
says...Roffle,
This simply means that if someone asks an atheist why a certain event took place, the atheist will interpret that the questioner as asking for a teleological reason, for which they will answer in the negative if they think that the action did not have one.
The example I gave from the study author (though possibly from an earlier study) involved an atheist self-reporting about his own mental state, which apparently meant to serve as an illustration of a larger pattern – that atheists tend to innately incline towards teleological reasoning, then consciously correct themselves. It doesn’t seem related to ‘people asking them a question’.
Either way, the study simply suggests that many atheists still have an intuitive, if reflexive belief in grand purpose and meaning in the world. One of the study author’s points seemed to be not that this establishes some truth of God’s existence or Biblical truth (Though I agree with cl that it does constitute some evidence, though not conclusive evidence), but that beliefs and attitudes about the universe are complicated – simply calling oneself or even thinking of oneself as an atheist doesn’t mean that all theistic thoughts, attitudes, and instincts have gone away.
In fact, this should be troubling for theists. It showed that individuals who use reflective thinking tend to be atheistic.
Where did it show this? Where did it even imply it? That atheists tend reason teleologically then, upon reflection, reject the teleological reasoning does not imply that theists aren’t reflective – they can reflect, and conclude the teleological reasoning is correct, or in line with their beliefs. I see nowhere where this study reports “theists aren’t reflective”.
Further, the example of reflection given wasn’t “Well, I thought this event or thing had a grander purpose or meaning. But oh wait, here’s definitive proof that’s not the case, therefore I was wrong.” It was, “I thought this event or thing had a grander purpose or meaning. But wait, I’m an atheist, I don’t think things like that.”
Hunt
says...What does this mean? What could it mean? That many people, or at least many/most scientists, think evolution is entirely unguided?
Maybe I should have said materialist possessive, “materialists’ theory,” in other words, I think we’re in agreement, evolution is supported by a lot of materialists.
Either way, it goes back to what I said at the start: It’s not that science shows us that evolution is unguided or that there is no teleology.
…
That’s a belief people have about evolution. Line up 99% or even 100% of all evolutionary biologists on your side if you want, but it’s not going to change that.
I won’t go this far. I’ll just flip that around and say no matter how much or technically how correct you might be that guidance or a lack thereof is irrelevant to the theory, the study of evolution proceeds by way of methodological materialism. The ultimate intent is to explain things materialistically. Anyone is certainly welcome to study evolution while keeping an open mind about teleology, but the advancement of evolutionary sciences goes by way of non-teleological materialist method.
Roffle
says...Sorry about that, the “it” I was referring to this study: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx
Shatterface
says...I’m an atheist and an Aspie. What your bizarre interpretatiin of these results is telling me is thst your god deliberately created me in such a way that I do not have teleological thinking therefore I am incapable of seeing his hand in action and therefore I will not recieve salvation.
You or your god is an idiot.
cl
says...It’s not what you’re capable or incapable of. It’s what God is capable of.