Do atheists really believe in God?
In the study, subjects were first asked to rate the unpleasantness of those statements. Not surprisingly, believers said they were more bothered than atheists were by the thought of daring God to burn down their houses or afflict them with cancer. Then subjects were asked to read aloud the statements while hooked up to a skin-conductance meter, which basically measures how much you sweat. The idea is that the more you perspire, the more worked up you are about a particular statement. (Such tests have been around for a long time. Here’s more about them if you’re curious.)
This is where it gets interesting.
According to the skin-conductance tests, the atheists found asking God to harm them or others to be just as upsetting as religious folks did. The researchers also compared the reactions of the atheists when making statements like “I wish my parents were paralyzed” and “I dare God to paralyze my parents.” Atheists were, like believers, more bothered by the latter statement, if you believe the skin-conductance tests, even though both declarations would be, in theory, equally empty if there were no heavenly overseer.
Those findings don’t prove that atheists believe in God, though the study does seem to suggest that the idea of God is extremely powerful, even in a relatively secular society like Finland.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
“Be careful what you wish for.” The end.
Jeddite on March 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM
I have often expressed the beleif that many of the ‘Militant’ Atheists in fact DO beleive in God.
When you listen to them talk, they are not expressing an opinion regarding something they consider to be non-existant, they are in fact expressing an opinion of something they beleive does exist.
The problem is not their belief in a non-existant God – it is, in fact, a flat out Hatered of God.
I further postulate that It is Impossible to Hate that which you do not beleive exists.
jaydee_007 on March 15, 2013 at 4:52 PM
No, I don’t believe in God. Going around wishing for bad things to happen would be upsetting to me, as it goes against my basically optimistic nature.
Maybe they should study liberals to find out why they vote for bad things to happen.
backwoods conservative on March 15, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Agreed. Dawkins and his ilk aren’t atheists, they’re anti-theists and there’s a very real distinction to be made there.
While not germane to the article, I’m inclined to think that most people who say they’re atheist or agnostic probably believe in some higher power, but reject the general image of God put forth by the Abrahamic religions.
LukeinNE on March 15, 2013 at 4:55 PM
If there wasn’t some level of belief why would so many atheists get all hissy when someone says they’re going to Hell? And why do they try so hard to convince believers they’re wrong?
katiejane on March 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Every human being is born with an instinctual knowledge of the existence of God. God gives us free will to believe in Him, or not. Choose your path wisely.
Pork-Chop on March 15, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Here’s the point. Whether or not atheists are disturbed simply by misfortune of others, why would they report being less disturbed by the same things?
Here is almost a clinical observation of what I call Intentional Fallacy. I don’t think I would react to that–because God is essentially nothing, therefore, I can’t let on that I might react to that. Meanwhile, whatever motivation–again provided the legitimacy of conductance tests–even if it was that every good atheist does not weeps at harm to others–they have a reaction to explain.
Axeman on March 15, 2013 at 5:05 PM
“I wish my parents were paralyzed” and “I dare God to paralyze my parents.”
Those statements are at all comparative, regardless of how much a person believes in God.
“I wish” is a nothing statement. It has no value or significance. “I dare” alone is more powerful a statement.
“I wish my parents were killed” and “I dare Allah to kill my parents”.
The latter statement is much more powerful, regardless of if you believe in Allah or not. And if you felt the latter statement was more powerful, it’d be ridiculous to conclude that it’s powerful because it mentions Allah.
Hell, the first phrase is passive! Passive statements by definition are less impactful!
segasagez on March 15, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Because religious beliefs are only what people want to believe–despite that religion is typified by the power of making people believe what you want them to believe–so as dupes, really not what you want to believe. Anyway, regardless of the truth of that, your acceptance of Hell shows that you want –or your superiors want their to be a place where people who have rejected their authority–or people who are not like you–or some combination of both–where they will get punished. And that is just not nice. You fantasizing about people burning for eternity.
Axeman on March 15, 2013 at 5:09 PM
It’s really only the a-hole ones and not the true atheists. At least in my experiences it seems to be that way. The a-hole ones really hate god, religion and the faithful but, only when it involves Christianity. Which is why they want all signs of Christianity removed from view. Most other religions they could care less about but, Christianity really trips their trigger. On the other hand the true atheists I’ve known don’t believe in any type of god and think that the world would be better off without any religions. Another thing I’ve noticed is that the a-hole atheists view Islam as a culture rather than a religion while the true ones see it as a religion.
Dr. Frank Enstine on March 15, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Actually, they tend not to be too cool on the Taliban, so that they can call Christians “Taliban”.
Axeman on March 15, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Many believe in Obama.
Schadenfreude on March 15, 2013 at 5:13 PM
This generation of intellectually-insecure, trendy, douchebag atheists do. I have been an atheist for almost three decades starting in high-school when it would get your ass kicked.
I actually prefer Christians and their society which is why I am on your side for the most part. Just don’t have the level of faith others do.
ClassicCon on March 15, 2013 at 5:16 PM
There’s intellect and then there’s emotion.
Many people may want to believe in god, but their intellect tells them that there is little or no evidence for it.
Atheist chose to be governed by their intellect.
Part of them still may still believe or want to believe in god so a galvanic skin response to the test is not surprising.
Human’s are not emotionless robots or computers. They are analog, not digital. Their responses are more than either on or off.
Many people read horoscopes but don’t believe them. A similar test could probably be performed when a skeptical subject reads a horoscope or a so-called psychic’s prediction that he’s about to die.
hepcat on March 15, 2013 at 5:17 PM
More proof that Atheists want God, but not if it means they are beholden or responsible for their actions.
LincolntheHun on March 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM
Not as a god, more as Santa Clause.
fogw on March 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM
That’s supposed to be science?
Sounds more like evidence that people don’t like calling for misfortune no matter who it is directed at.
Count to 10 on March 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM
In my youth, I was disturbed by religion’s “certainty” of God’s existence. I tried atheism, but found it equally rigid in it’s “certainty” of God’s non-existance. This is why I respect agnosticism’s honesty: they are not “certain” of anything.
squint on March 15, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Exactly. Is it really so hard to say “I don’t know”?
John the Libertarian on March 15, 2013 at 5:33 PM
I see it as cowardice.
ClassicCon on March 15, 2013 at 5:37 PM
I thought the psychiatric term for someone with no moral empathy for ill befalling others was “sociopath” not “atheist”. Or were they attempting to prove that aetheists are actually also sociopaths?
gravityman on March 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM
If you the Definative Answer, please feel free to share.
squint on March 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Not to get too abstract, but what do we know? Under your logic, “I don’t know” would be applicable to every question. As another poster put, it’s an easy, empty answer.
If you don’t believe there’s a god, then you don’t believe there’s a god. P
segasagez on March 15, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Of what value is agnosticism?
segasagez on March 15, 2013 at 5:44 PM
It’s not an answer. It’s an admittance that there is insufficient hard data to provide certainty one way or another. Or are you asking for Faith? In what? Belief or unbelief? Both sides demand fealty.
squint on March 15, 2013 at 5:49 PM
I agree, it’s not an answer. It doesn’t nothing to address the question, and is therefore useless.
I think people confuse faith and Faith. Belief and belief. There is nothing spiritual about having faith or beliefs. There are social constructs that we’ve applied to the terms(faith more than belief), but they are abstract ideas. For example, I have faith that when I stand up, I won’t continue floating into space. I believe this is true because I expect the laws of gravity to still be in effect at that future point. There’s nothing spiritual about that.
If someone were to ask me, “Are you going to float when you get up”, I would conclusively answer “No”. Now, do I have hard data to prove with certainty that I won’t? Nope. But all the hard data I currently have supports my conclusion.
Likewise, whether you believe in a god or don’t believe in a god, there exists some data that a person relies on to reach their conclusion. Agnostics, in my opinion, aren’t cowards as much as they are hedging. They are saying “Well, all the data that I am analyzing leads me to believe one thing, but…..I don’t know for sure so fudge it, I’m agnostic.” It’s lazy.
segasagez on March 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM
Perhaps – but would a true non-believer sweat bullets if they asked “I dare the Flying Spaghetti Monster to paralyze my parents”?
Skywise on March 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM
The interesting point was the different response between a generic wish of harm on someone and a specific wish of God harming someone. They established that atheists have a stronger response to the latter sentence than the former.
I suppose the next test would need to see if there’s a difference between saying something like “I dare Santa Clause to paralyze my parents” and “I dare God to paralyze my parents”. In the above test, it could be that asking a specific entity (even one you don’t believe in) to cause harm is more stressful than a general wish of harm. In the follow up test, you would be determining if there’s something about calling on “God” that stresses people out more when wishing harm than calling on another being that they believe is just as make believe.
JadeNYU on March 15, 2013 at 6:06 PM
Most atheists “know”.
CW on March 15, 2013 at 6:11 PM
What aren’t they doing that makes them lazy? Prosletyzing? Don’t get me wrong, I’m actually a practicing Catholic. I believe in God and Jesus; but my faith comes with a pinch of agnostic flavoring. I understand these are my Beliefs, not scientific facts. Which is why I don’t believe in prosletyzing (which I am sure I’m misspelling, but screw it). Who am I to sell as a certainty what amounts to a glorified opinion? I believe these things, but I don’t know them to be true. I can’t sell Faith. Faith happens on it’s own, organically; or not at all.
squint on March 15, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Faith (little f) isn’t something you take for granted though. (Like not flying off the earth as we spin). Faith is something where you dont know the outcome. Science has been a good tool for pushing the boundaries of faith into more contained realms (surviving storms and medical issues, etc). Intellectuals than extrapolate and say, once all is knowable than god will truly be dead because there will be no need for faith. But that’s hubris. As much as socialism can ever work because they both work on the same axiom. Once everything is under control and catalogued then utopia will reign.
To which I defer to Dr Ian Malcolm “life, uh… Finds a way”
Skywise on March 15, 2013 at 6:14 PM
I completely agree about your points on proselytizing. I at least understand it from a religious perspective, but it makes absolutely no sense in regards to atheism.
That being said, the lazy part is intellectual laziness, not physical. It’s taking a scientific perspective and throwing out the science. Not being able to prove something doesn’t mean that you throw out all conclusions from the thing you can’t prove. If that makes sense.
segasagez on March 15, 2013 at 6:21 PM
Quite the opposite. There is no conclusive data either way, hence “I don’t know.”
John the Libertarian on March 15, 2013 at 6:23 PM
No , you don’t believe in proselytizing because of your ” pinch of agnostic flavoring.” People that truly believe want to share and in fact believe it is their duty.
CW on March 15, 2013 at 6:25 PM
What a stupid question!
Analyze the term, Atheist, for the answer!
OldEnglish on March 15, 2013 at 6:28 PM
It’s not just “I don’t know”. Its “I don’t know, and I don’t really feel like figuring it out for myself, so I’m just going to set up camp here”. I’m pretty sure that’s text book laziness.
segasagez on March 15, 2013 at 6:28 PM
We all worship something. I’m pretty sure they do, considering what Scripture says. Either God or some form of false god, be it money, power, pleasure, or an actual pagan god.
Othniel on March 15, 2013 at 6:33 PM
If you mean sharing your faith with someone who wants to know and is open to the message, yeah sure. If you mean getting in people’s faces who don’t want to hear it, then not so much. If I can’t stand atheists doing that, why should I become the Believer version of that? Someone once said: “A good mentor doesn’t lecture, he merely answers questions.” I’ll go with that.
squint on March 15, 2013 at 6:36 PM
You would be surprised how quickly they come down with a case of religion when their children are diagnosed with an antibiotic resistant infection or a serious disease such as leukemia.
crosspatch on March 15, 2013 at 6:42 PM
Desperation leading religiousness is not such a ringing endorsement of religion.
segasagez on March 15, 2013 at 6:44 PM
Agnostics are the bisexuals of the God conversation; hammered by both sides demanding that they chose a side. And they better chose the Right One (the demander’s side, of course)!
squint on March 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM
That is actually very rare.
CW on March 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM
atheism means to be without theism, so whether you self identify as an outright “I don’t believe in god” attitude or you’re just an anti-theist, they both end up in the same place.
But I agree in principle with your assessment. I myself lean towards the god hypothesis as an answer to where everything came from. I’m just damn sure the god that COULD be ISN’T bible god, or koran god, or any other religious text you wish to forward that claims to know a social/personalized aspect of god.
“It is time we admitted, from kings and presidents on down, that there is no evidence that any of our books was authored by the Creator of the universe.
The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emergent technology. To rely on such a document as the basis for our worldview-however heroic the efforts of redactors- is to repudiate two thousand years of civilizing insights that the human mind has only just begun to inscribe upon itself through secular politics and scientific culture.
We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself.”
Sam Harris
SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2013 at 6:51 PM
I suppose you’re saying that atheists “find” god when they’re scared and worried about themselves or a loved one?
A common canard, and a speciously thought out one at that.
SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Maybe if we taught by example, and less by words, it wouldn’t have come to this. We teach by our walking, not our talking.
squint on March 15, 2013 at 6:59 PM
The study apparently misses an important third possibility:
For an atheist, the act itself of praying to a God in Whom one does not believe is anxiety producing. This would be true even if the atheist were compelled to pray for something GOOD to happen.
In other words, the act of praying is in conflict with the atheist’s beliefs. This conflict (cognitive dissonance?) would produce anxiety regardless of whether praying for something good or something bad to happen. This hypothesis would be easy to test for, of course.
topdog on March 15, 2013 at 7:03 PM
Atheists don’t pray for anything, they’re well aware from when they were still theists that prayer gets you nowhere.
Two hands at work are worth more than all the hands on the planet clasped in prayer…
SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2013 at 7:06 PM
SauerKraut537 on March 15, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Sometimes even those hardships are used by God to humble someone into at least hoping He’s listening.
When He answers, it’s pretty clear He is.
Been there, done that, know Him, now.
Jus sayin.
pambi on March 15, 2013 at 7:56 PM
Absolute statements are totally radical man.
tom daschle concerned on March 15, 2013 at 11:53 PM