The science of Atheism


|| The Science of Atheism ||

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.

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.

Emerging research is demonstrating that atheist parents (and others) pass on their beliefs to their children in a similar way to religious parents – through sharing their culture as much as their arguments.

Some parents take the view that their children should choose their beliefs for themselves, but what they then do is pass on certain ways of thinking about religion, like the idea that religion is a matter of choice rather than divine truth. It’s not surprising that almost all of these children – 95% – end up “choosing” to be atheist.

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.

[T]he idea that being atheist is down to rationality alone is starting to look distinctly irrational. But the good news for all concerned is that rationality is overrated. Human ingenuity rests on a lot more than rational thinking. As Haidt says of “the righteous mind”, we are actually “designed to ‘do’ morality” – even if we’re not doing it in the rational way we think we are.

Importantly, the scientific evidence does not tend to support the view that atheism is about rational thought and theism is about existential fulfilments. The truth is that humans are not like science – none of us get by without irrational action, nor without sources of existential meaning and comfort. Fortunately, though, nobody has to.

~ Lois Lee, Research Fellow, Department of Religious Studies, University of Kent for The Conversation


Tags: #Atheism #Science

Show More

Related Articles


  1. While much of this post about Atheism and rational thinking is true, it is about as relevant to the discussion as a balloon resting on a table. It only touches at one small point, and exerts no real pressure.
    Atheism isn’t about rational thinking. it’s about not believing in God. Worse, it’s not believing in your claim that “your” God exists, which makes it personal. If you claim that He exists, Atheists will ask for proof. Some want science and rational explanation: others would be content with less strict evidence – yet none of them receive it – or Atheism would die off in a year. 😯

      1. MY version of Atheism is non-existent, and irrelevant. Observation and experience makes me disbelieve that first line also. “Many” Atheists simply reject claims for the existence of God, because they find them irrational. Their rejection of the negative does not necessarily make them + positive.
        Such a blanket statement seems to be either a face-saving Christian claim, or an arrogant intellectual assertion by an author too lazy to actually do research (or both). 😛

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button