SCIENCE: Death Anxiety Likely Cause of Belief in Intelligent Design

[Subduction Zone]

I'm completely serious. The New Atheist movement actively encourages people to call religious people names, to mock them and make fun of them. Dawkins, one of its four horsemen, wanted atheists to be called 'brights' in opposition to religious people, who the movement perceives as dumb, sheeplike and delusional at worst. There are many videos of him saying such things. They mostly rely on the narrative that all religion is bad, should be wiped out and that materialism is the only acceptable view. You only have to read some posts on here where religious people are routinely described as living in a fantasy land, believing in fairy tales, being intellectually inferior, the list goes on. These are mostly slurs used against religious people by New Atheists who perpetuate that religion is evil.

I disagree, now some religion is clearly evil. The "Islam" (scare quotes since clearly all Muslims do not practice this version of their beliefs) that leads to suicide bombing is evil. The "Hinduism" (again not all Hindus) that lead to Sati or widow burning is evil. The Christianity the causes them to try to teach the creationist and other myths of the Old Testament is an evil.

And though there are many bright people in those groups their beliefs in particular areas keeps them from being bright in those areas.

You are right now guilty of the sin that you accuse others of.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The "Hinduism" (again not all Hindus) that lead to Sati or widow burning is evil.

I don't think that's practiced anymore. The problem that Hinduism has now is with "guru" or "godman" con artists fleecing the gullible and with nationalist extremism that targets minorities for violence, ostracization and legal discrimination that is supported by their current government.

 

[Rival]

I disagree, now some religion is clearly evil. The "Islam" (scare quotes since clearly all Muslims do not practice this version of their beliefs) that leads to suicide bombing is evil. The "Hinduism" (again not all Hindus) that lead to Sati or widow burning is evil. The Christianity the causes them to try to teach the creationist and other myths of the Old Testament is an evil.

And though there are many bright people in those groups their beliefs in particular areas keeps them from being bright in those areas.

You are right now guilty of the sin that you accuse others of.

Yes, particular strains of particular religions may be evil in your eyes, that's fine. New Atheism, however, posits the idea that all religion is evil, unnecessary and makes apparently no distinction. Dawkins wanted to call atheists 'brights' as opposed to all religious people, not just the nutcases. This strongly suggests that this type of atheism makes no distinction and follows a black and white view of religion. That is why I specified New Atheism, not just atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, particular strains of particular religions may be evil in your eyes, that's fine. New Atheism, however, posits the idea that all religion is evil, unnecessary and makes apparently no distinction. Dawkins wanted to call atheists 'brights' as opposed to all religious people, not just the nutcases. This strongly suggests that this type of atheism makes no distinction and follows a black and white view of religion. That is why I specified New Atheism, not just atheism.

Can you find a source for that? Make sure that it is a valid quote, not one taken out of context. One can 'prove' almost anything with a quote out of context. For example the Bible says 'there is no God' at least twelve times, if one is not afraid to take that quote out of context.

 

[Kenny]

How so? Do you realize that his claims of irreducible complexity have been refuted? So what does he left after that?

I've read some of the refuted positions that really haven't convinced me... you have another?

 

[Kenny]

Precisely. This is why natural laws don't require a law giver.

LOL... That is why natural laws MUST have a law giver.

 

[Phantasman]

"Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.

The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.

The study was lead by UBC Psychology Assistant Professor Jessica Tracy and and UBC psychology PhD student Jason Martens. It was published in the March 30 issue of the open access journal PLoS ONE.

"Our results suggest that when confronted with existential concerns, people respond by searching for a sense of meaning and purpose in life," Tracy said. "For many, it appears that evolutionary theory doesn't offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions."
source and more

​

Considering the common motivation behind religious faith, it certainly makes sense to me.

.

Most fear of death is due to it's uncertainty. People fear the unknown, plain and simple.

I will agree that those who see a "burning hell" facing them would be much more anxious than a person who just believes that the lights go out and that's it.

I see neither, so death is only as strong as my built in survival instinct.

Therefore, become seekers for death, just as the dead who seek for life, for that which they seek is revealed to them. And what is there to concern them? When you turn yourselves towards death, it will make known to you election. In truth I say to you, none of those who are afraid of death will be saved. For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who have put themselves to death. Become better than I; make yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit."- Secret James

I see it that way. You are going to die. How you face it is your choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read some of the refuted positions that really haven't convinced me... you have another?

It does not matter if you are convinced or not. The fact is that his claims have been shown to be worthless. Which arguments are you familiar with? Why do you think that his claims were not refuted? Behe at one point went back and tried to redefine what "irreducible complexity" was and that did not save his failed idea. He was made a fool of in the Dover trial especially.

 

[Rival]

Can you find a source for that? Make sure that it is a valid quote, not one taken out of context. One can 'prove' almost anything with a quote out of context. For example the Bible says 'there is no God' at least twelve times, if one is not afraid to take that quote out of context.

It's actually become a movement now; I never realised this. Here is one website claiming to be them:

The Brights' Net - The Movement

"Any individual whose worldview is free of supernatural or mystical forces and entities may register as a constituent."

I cannot find a direct quote by him, although I do recall him saying it. I used to be an atheist myself and it probably was during one of his lectures. There is this video that also appears to reference it and Hitchens rebutting the idea,

I cannot find the larger context for this video, but here you go:

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's actually become a movement now; I never realised this. Here is one website claiming to be them:

The Brights' Net - The Movement

"Any individual whose worldview is free of supernatural or mystical forces and entities may register as a constituent."

I cannot find a direct quote by him, although I do recall him saying it. I used to be an atheist myself and it probably was during one of his lectures. There is this video that also appears to reference it and Hitchens rebutting the idea,

I cannot find the larger context for this video, but here you go:

That looks like quite a failure on your part. An obscure website that advocates for "brights" is no more proof that the "New Atheist" movement (what ever that is) thinks they should be called "brights". In the second Hitchens, who could be called a "New Atheist" himself was against the idea of calling atheists "brights", though it is not clear that he heard it or rather just claims about it. In the third the audio was very poor and I missed Dawkins claiming that, but he did make a statement about religions. How was he wrong in his statement about how some religions do make claims that need to be challenge? He said that "religion makes specific claims about the universe that need to be substantiated". Was he wrong in that statement? Don't some religions make such specific claims. I did not hear anything about the "brights" there.

If I found an obscure Christian site that advocated for death to homosexuals would that be proof that all Christians felt that way? There may have been some atheists that made the claims that you said that they have made, but your inability to support your claims makes even that dubious. I have heard Michael Shermer say that "some have said" and then explain why not. Dawkins clearly does not like the evil aspects of many religions, and if one reads religious books literally they usually are quite evil. He deals far to often with the intolerant so he has developed a bit of intolerance of his own. But one still needs to take his quotes in context.

 

[Rival]

That looks like quite a failure on your part. An obscure website that advocates for "brights" is no more proof that the "New Atheist" movement (what ever that is) thinks they should be called "brights". In the second Hitchens, who could be called a "New Atheist" himself was against the idea of calling atheists "brights", though it is not clear that he heard it or rather just claims about it. In the third the audio was very poor and I missed Dawkins claiming that, but he did make a statement about religions. How was he wrong in his statement about how some religions do make claims that need to be challenge? He said that "religion makes specific claims about the universe that need to be substantiated". Was he wrong in that statement? Don't some religions make such specific claims. I did not hear anything about the "brights" there.

If I found an obscure Christian site that advocated for death to homosexuals would that be proof that all Christians felt that way? There may have been some atheists that made the claims that you said that they have made, but your inability to support your claims makes even that dubious. I have heard Michael Shermer say that "some have said" and then explain why not. Dawkins clearly does not like the evil aspects of many religions, and if one reads religious books literally they usually are quite evil. He deals far to often with the intolerant so he has developed a bit of intolerance of his own. But one still needs to take his quotes in context.

Yeah, you're mostly right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, you're mostly right.

I personally do not agree with the "brights" term either. I suppose that people were inspired by the opposition to science by many theists. And many of those people that oppose evolution are bright in their own way, but unfortunately when one denies a certain aspect of reality one may look rather "dim" as a result. If you have a friend that swears cats are bad luck and will drive around the block when he sees one you might have some questions about his intelligence, where that is only a small aspect of one's total intelligence. That is also one reason why I will engage creationists in a discussion. If they can allow themselves to understand the basics of science (please note not that they can't the problem is that their fears keep themselves from learning) they would be able to see how life is the product of evolution. I have a feeling, though I can't prove it, that many of those staunch creationists fear that their religious beliefs would go away if they admitted to a fact that is obvious as gravity.

 

[Skwim]

Sounds like rubbish to me in only that in my belief system you can know of evolution and still think there is a design. I find it silly that these two concepts must be opposed.

Then apparently you don't understand one of them, or perhaps both.

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If your sense of morality doesn't reflect God's values, then the immoral one might not be God.

Then again, the morality of the "god" I've read about in the Bible suggests that he thought it a pretty good idea to kill women and children, but save virgin girls for yourself -- for whatever purpose you might care to imagine. I do believe I have seen propositions that I would consider to be at least slightly more moral than that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

As far as death anxiety I think it has less to do with people fearing death, and more that they will not be there for someone in their lives or get something done. Highly religious people typically have huge sense of responsibility and it probably bothers them more than some silly debate on evolution.

Years ago, there was a talk show host named David Susskind who had a doctor on speaking about death.
He said he saw No death-bed repenting but: regrets.
A person dying they did Not build that doll house for the daughter
A person dying they did Not build that dog house for the son.

As far as being born with death since birth, what is natural is to want to live.
We all have ' eternity ' in our hearts. For each day we can think of we can think of the next.
For each number we can count we can add another, counting both forwards or backwards.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Michael Behe does make sense, now that you mention it! IMV, not lo much about doubting evolution as it is in ID because reason says if there are natural laws, "there must be a law giver" (Rabbi Hirsch)

The problem with this sort of answer (now, as it has always been) is in the way that people misread the term "natural laws." The word "law" does not refer to something decreed, but to something that is observed to always happen in well-understood conditions. If you tear a piece of paper in half, it is a "natural law" that the left side will have a right edge that is the mirror image of the right side. Nothing mysterious there, and yet it is easily referred to as a "natural law." What "law giver" do you think set that down in fancy lettering? That is what the "natural laws" of the physical universe are -- nothing more than descriptions of what always happens to some physical entities under some conditions. Not ordained -- merely observed to always happen.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding something so completely simple?

Death does have a tendency to make one wonder if there is something after.

No, death itself does not raise that question -- the fear of death is responsible for that. And that springs from the simple inability we all have (including me) to actually imagine a state of non-existence. Yet, all you really have to do is ask yourself a simple question like, "what was it like for me while the Roman Empire was at its height?" And the answer is -- it wasn't "like" anything for you, because there wasn't anything like you in existence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If your sense of morality doesn't reflect God's values, then the immoral one might not be God.

Divine Command Theory? I know a better way to decide right from wrong, and I use it to judge character whether that character is fictional or not. I don't know which god you call God, but if it's the god of the Christian Bible, then it is judged morally wanting.

Yes, that blasphemy and an outrage to some believers, but nevertheless, if you drown most oof the world because you mmade a mistake, or build a torture chamber and staff it with demons just to keep people alive after death to suffer, or toy with the life of a man to entertain a demon, of fail to explicitly condemn rape and slavery, then you are not moral by my reckoning.

Only if you approach the matter by assuming that what this god does and says is moral because he did or said it. But if you goo that route, you have to agree that spooning out kittens eyes becomes moral if this god commands it.

Is that a good moral theory?

natural laws MUST have a law giver

A god wouldn't need natural law. The planets could simply go where this god willed them to go like a magician using his hands or mind to move objects

A godless universe, on the other hand, being a giant clockwork, absolutely requires these natural laws and physical constants.

Sounds like rubbish to me in only that in my belief system you can know of evolution and still think there is a design. I find it silly that these two concepts must be opposed.

That's the doing of the religious. Science makes no comment on religion and is not at war with it, but many of the religious felt threatened by science and began opposing it beginning with Darwin. Now we read about how the scientists are trying to exclude the creationists by conspiring to keep their research out of respected scientific journals and starve them for research dollars. There's the battle.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm completely serious. The New Atheist movement actively encourages people to call religious people names, to mock them and make fun of them. Dawkins, one of its four horsemen, wanted atheists to be called 'brights' in opposition to religious people, who the movement perceives as dumb, sheeplike and delusional at worst. There are many videos of him saying such things. They mostly rely on the narrative that all religion is bad, should be wiped out and that materialism is the only acceptable view. You only have to read some posts on here where religious people are routinely described as living in a fantasy land, believing in fairy tales, being intellectually inferior, the list goes on. These are mostly slurs used against religious people by New Atheists who perpetuate that religion is evil.

Speaking of battles, there is a cultural war being waged between the church and the rest of American society (I understand that this battle has largely played out in European democracies). You make it sound like that is an unprovoked assault rather than a reaction in kind.

The church has a long history of demonizing and marginalizing atheists. Not long ago, they seen as morally unfit to adopt, coach, teach, or serve on juries, and they are still seen as unfit for public office, or many times, even to give an invocation before a government meeting.

This has been going on for millennia. It was worse in the past. Atheists have long been described as evil - as god haters.There is nothing more damning that can be said about a person in the eyes of a god lover.

Prominent theists rarely fail to take the opportunity to blame any catastrophe on atheists (or liberals, or feminists, or LGBT, or legal abortion). America, they say, has been swirling down the bowl ever sine the evil Madalyn O'Hair succeeded in removing forced prayer from public schools.

And there is a war being waged on the state-church wall right now. Given the chance, the church will become represented by a majority on the Supreme Court, and then begin to contract a few freedoms that many people consider important.

So exactly what are you expecting back from the atheists? Gratitude? Affection? Support? Praise? Even now, in America, the Christians appear indifferent to what non-Christians want. For them, freedom of religion in America now means the right to impose one's Christian bigotry on others.

Atheists finally have a voice and a platform. They're letting the theists know how they feel about the past, and attempting to push them back - out of their lives. Once that happens, the struggle will likely end. Humanists have no other interest in the church.

Yes, I know that not every Christian is like that, but those are the ones that secularists have to fend off, and therefore they are the face of the church and the focus of the secularist's attention for now.

 

[Rival]

Speaking of battles, there is a cultural war being waged between the church and the rest of American society (I understand that this battle has largely played out in European democracies). You make it sound like that is an unprovoked assault rather than a reaction in kind.

The church has a long history of demonizing and marginalizing atheists. Not long ago, they seen as morally unfit to adopt, coach, teach, or serve on juries, and they are still seen as unfit for public office, or many times, even to give an invocation before a government meeting.

This has been going on for millennia. It was worse in the past. Atheists have long been described as evil - as god haters.There is nothing more damning that can be said about a person in the eyes of a god lover.

Prominent theists rarely fail to take the opportunity to blame any catastrophe on atheists (or liberals, or feminists, or LGBT, or legal abortion). America has been swirling down the bowl ever sine the evil Madalyn O'Hair succeeded in removing forced prayer from public schools.

And there is a war being waged on the state-church wall right now. Given the chance, the church will be represented by a majority on the Supreme Court and contract a few freedoms that many people consider important.

So exactly what are you expecting back from the atheists? Gratitude? Affection? Support? Praise? Even now, in America, the Christians appear utterly indifferent to what anybody else wants. For them, freedom of religion in America now means the right to impose one's Christian bigotry on others.

Atheists finally have a voice and a platform. They're letting the theists know how they feel about the past, and attempting to push them back and out of their lives. Once that happens, the struggle will likely end. Humanists have no other interest in the church.

Yes, I know that not very Christian is like that, but those are the ones that secularists have to deal with, and therefore they are the face of the church.

I guess as a European I don't experience a great deal of this. I am completely aware that a large percent of US Christians are not very well behaved. I'm just not sure that calling them delusional and believing in fairy tales is a mature way of going about altering the status quo. It's not exactly going to endear them to atheists, either. If it's peace with each other they want, neither side is doing itself any favours.

 

[Kenny]

It does not matter if you are convinced or not. The fact is that his claims have been shown to be worthless. Which arguments are you familiar with? Why do you think that his claims were not refuted? Behe at one point went back and tried to redefine what "irreducible complexity" was and that did not save his failed idea. He was made a fool of in the Dover trial especially.

For all the reasons that have been previously noted. Inability to refine all nuances