Why atheists are not as rational as some think + Templeton funds more atheist-bashing

[Magical Realist]

So your trust of your family is just a chemical reaction evolved to make people cooperate?

Where did I say that?

[Syne]

So your trust of your family is just a chemical reaction evolved to make people cooperate?

Where did I say that?

Why would love and altruism evolve in family relationships? Because it enhances the survival of the members to cohere as a group. There is nothing divine about it. It is the bond of kinship that contributes to the well-being and survival of all the members.

That's the only explanation you gave.

[Magical Realist]

So your trust of your family is just a chemical reaction evolved to make people cooperate?

Where did I say that?

Why would love and altruism evolve in family relationships? Because it enhances the survival of the members to cohere as a group. There is nothing divine about it. It is the bond of kinship that contributes to the well-being and survival of all the members.

That's the only explanation you gave.

Where did I say my trust in my family is a chemical reaction? Why would you think I said that?

[Syne]

So your trust of your family is just a chemical reaction evolved to make people cooperate?

Where did I say that?

Why would love and altruism evolve in family relationships? Because it enhances the survival of the members to cohere as a group. There is nothing divine about it. It is the bond of kinship that contributes to the well-being and survival of all the members.

That's the only explanation you gave.

Where did I say my trust in my family is a chemical reaction? Why would you think I said that?

Again, that's the only reasoning you've given.

It is a faith (complete trust) in their goodness. If you believe that goodness is just a result of social/evolutionary pressures,...

Why would love and altruism evolve in family relationships? Because it enhances the survival of the members to cohere as a group. There is nothing divine about it. It is the bond of kinship that contributes to the well-being and survival of all the members.

So your trust of your family is just a chemical reaction evolved to make people cooperate?

Now if you don't understand that the evolutionary psychology of emotions is mediated by neurotransmitters, like dopamine and serotonin (e.g. chemical reactions), that's your own ignorance.

[Magical Realist]

Now if you don't understand that the evolutionary psychology of emotions is mediated by neurotransmitters, like dopamine and serotonin (e.g. chemical reactions), that's your own ignorance.

No..love and trust is a complex experience processed in the temporal lobe and the amygdala. It is not just a chemical in the brain.

At this point it's obvious you have nothing more to bitch about and are interested only in insulting me. Gladly moving on now...

[Syne]

Now if you don't understand that the evolutionary psychology of emotions is mediated by neurotransmitters, like dopamine and serotonin (e.g. chemical reactions), that's your own ignorance.

No..love and trust is a complex experience processed in the temporal lobe and the amygdala. It is not just a chemical in the brain.

For example, the amygdala outputs driven by threat detection alter information processing in diverse regions of the brain.  One important set of outputs result in the secretion of chemicals throughout the brain (norepinephrine, acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin) and body (hormones such as adrenalin and cortisol).
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...ear-center


Temporal Lobes and Emotion
Contained within these lobes is the amygdala. The amygdala is the brain’s panic button and has a more specific function in mammals that survive based upon a “fight or flight” response. The amygdala attaches an emotional layer to sensory input, such as the sense that a lion is about to attack.  Other limbic structures overlap into areas of the temporal lobes.
- https://braininjuryhelp.com/temporal-lob...al-cortex/

All mediated by neurotransmitters, e.g. chemical reactions.

At this point it's obvious you have nothing more to bitch about. Gladly moving on now...

At this point it's obvious you don't understand the basic science, and have only tried to backpedal from your own sterile explanation of trust without offering anything else whatsoever. When you give no other explanation for trust than evolution and survival, and then get squeamish about your own description, we can only conclude that you are hopelessly confused...and likely suffering from cognitive dissonance, considering the seeming self-contradiction.  

Typical.  

[Mohsen Ezz El-Din Al-Bakri]

Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think
https://theconversation.com/why-atheists...ink-103563

EXCERPT: Many atheists think that their atheism is the product of rational thinking. They use arguments such as “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science” to explain that evidence and logic, rather than supernatural belief and dogma, underpin their thinking. But just because you believe in evidence-based, scientific research – which is subject to strict checks and procedures – doesn’t mean that your mind works in the same way.

When you ask atheists about why they became atheists (as I do for a living), they often point to eureka moments when they came to realise that religion simply doesn’t make sense.

Oddly perhaps, many religious people actually take a similar view of atheism. This comes out when theologians and other theists speculate that it must be rather sad to be an atheist, lacking (as they think atheists do) so much of the philosophical, ethical, mythical and aesthetic fulfilments that religious people have access to – stuck in a cold world of rationality only.


The problem that any rational thinker needs to tackle, though, is that the science increasingly shows that atheists are no more rational than theists. Indeed, atheists are just as susceptible as the next person to “group-think” and other non-rational forms of cognition. For example, religious and nonreligious people alike can end up following charismatic individuals without questioning them. And our minds often prefer righteousness over truth, as the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has explored.


[...] But are atheists more likely to embrace science than religious people? Many belief systems can be more or less closely integrated with scientific knowledge. Some belief systems are openly critical of science, and think it has far too much sway over our lives, while other belief systems are hugely concerned to learn about and respond to scientific knowledge.

But this difference doesn’t neatly map onto whether you are religious or not. Some Protestant traditions, for example, see rationality or scientific thinking as central to their religious lives. Meanwhile, a new generation of postmodern atheists highlight the limits of human knowledge, and see scientific knowledge as hugely limited, problematic even, especially when it comes to existential and ethical questions. These atheists might, for example, follow thinkers like Charles Baudelaire in the view that true knowledge is only found in artistic expression.

And while many atheists do like to think of themselves as pro science, science and technology itself can sometimes be the basis of religious thinking or beliefs, or something very much like it. For example, the rise of the transhumanist movement, which centres on the belief that humans can and should transcend their current natural state and limitations through the use of technology, is an example of how technological innovation is driving the emergence of new movements that have much in common with religiosity....

MORE: https://theconversation.com/why-atheists...ink-103563

---

Templeton funds more atheist-bashing
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...t-dissing/

EXCERPT: Lois Lee, a religious scholar whom I’ve written about before, is the lead investigator on a big Templeton grant, or, as The Conversation describes her in erroneous spelling, “Principle [sic] Investigator on the Understanding Unbelief programme.” Templeton gave her and her co-PI Stephen Bullivant (also a religious scholar) nearly three million dollars to study the nature and variety of “unbelief”. While the grant summary pretends that this is a dispassionate inquiry into the origin and nature of atheism, I wrote at the time that giving the grant to these two was “like asking creationists to direct a sociological study of why so many scientists accept evolution.”

And indeed, it’s clear from Lee and Bullivant’s writings that their study is tendentious. It’s not a rational inquiry into atheism, but rather an attack on atheism, and, in Lee’s latest article in The Conversation, “Why atheists are not as rational as some like to think”, she positively celebrates irrationality. [...]

I’m not sure I want to dissect this egregious and lightweight piece; it’s best summed up by saying its thesis is this: “Atheists are irrational, just like religious people.” In other words, “You’re just as bad as we believers are”: not a very persuasive argument. In fact, Lee adduces no strong evidence that atheists are just as irrational as believers. Rather, she uses a series of arguments, many of which rest on opinion rather than data, e.g. “some atheists are irrational” or “many atheists don’t arrive at their nonbelief through reason or science, but because they’re indoctrinated by their parents.

Who would deny this? Certainly not all atheists arrive at their stand by reason, but many of them have enough rationality to think “there’s no evidence for religious beliefs”, which is all the rationality you need to reject religion. You don’t have to be rational in every aspect of your life. Further, Lee fails to mention that religious belief is completely irrational—in the sense that there’s no evidence supporting the existence of Gods or the factual (and conflicting) assertions of the world’s many religions.

So yes, perhaps to some people “atheists aren’t as rational as you’d like to think”, but so what? What matters is not whether atheists are 100% rational, or whether some of them become atheists for reasons other than reason, but whether the claims of religion are true. That crucial issue isn’t discussed. Lee’s purpose here is simply to criticize atheists rather than to examine whether atheism can be seen as it truly is: a rational response to a lack of evidence for gods....

MORE: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...t-dissing/

Science and religion fundamentally disagree... Science explains the unknown using the known... while religion explains the unknown using another unknown.