I always thought I was an atheist, but now I’m a firm believer in Anoia, the goddess of things that get stuck in drawers. There’s no way that happens so often randomly, so it’s proof that She exists. But, She’s alone (and lonely) as the only actual deity.
Polling has shown that close to half of Americans believe that ghosts and demons exist.
Atheists are far less likely to be believers.
I haven’t seen polls on belief in woo startified by religion (or lack of it), but it would make sense that nonbelievers in religious claptrap are less likely to be ensnared by “alternative” medicine and such.
I don’t think that’s really the question. The question is, if you do believe in the claptrap, are you an really an atheist. I think the answer is obviously yes, since you’re an atheist if you lack belief in God or gods, unrelated to whatever claptrap you might believe.
Heck, in a world where magic actually existed but there was no evidence for gods, you could be a genuine wizard and still be an atheist without contradicting yourself.
That’s not a contradiction at all, since a world where magic exists, the evidence/reality based view is that magic exists. It’s not a sort of supernatural or unevidenced belief. An atheist who is a wizard in a world where magic exists is in a far more secure epistemic position than one who lives in the real world and believes in ghosts.
That’s my point, that materialism and atheism are two separate things. They just overlap a lot in real life because they share reasons for believing in them.
In a world where Giant Robot God announced that “nothing is supernatural, everything is matter and energy operating according to the laws of physics” then there’d be a big overlap between materialists and theism. And probably overlap between non-materialists and atheists; "Giant Robot God isn’t a real god, because robots have no soul".
I would hypothesize that it might be the opposite. Maybe religious belief makes people more suspicious of woo that doesn’t explicitly fit into their particular religious framework. Certainly most of the alternative medicine BS I see seems to talk more about “energetic healing crystals” and the like rather than anything explicitly theistic.
I think this may be where we see a difference between ordinary non-religious people and those who have actually thought about the matter enough to self-identify as atheists.
Also: 10% of atheists believe in demons? Well, that’s certainly a cheery worldview!
Or they believe in it but condemn it; it’s very common for right wing Christians in the US to condemn “the occult” as a gateway to Satan. And the “occult” can be something as simple as yoga.
I think the notion of “materialism” is somewhat out of date: the definition of what is “material” has stretched over time, so it doesn’t seem to me to be a useful circle to draw. Physicalism on the other hand is still meaningful and a useful principle enabling us to do things like science.
In terms of the OP, yes some sets of beliefs might be inconsistent but I think there are lots of woo-adjacent stuff that you could believe in without being inconsistent with atheism.
In any case, believing in one supernatural claim cannot mean believing them all, since some are mutually exclusive. (ETA: maybe belief in contradictory things is no more irrational than believing in the supernatural, but you get what I’m saying)
I would say “no” because there are a considerable number of scientists who are atheists.
Certainly this sometimes happens. I recall it being a theme of at least one, and probably several, of G. K. Chesterton’s Father Brown mystery stories, wherein Father Brown cites his Catholic faith as reason for rejecting a supernatural explanation for a seemingly impossible crime.
Why is that worth noting? Complete ignorance is the default state that humans are born into.
I think it’s worth noting, because unless you’re indoctrinated into one religion or another, it’s unlikely you’ll be religious yourself (I imagine – I don’t know the right search terms to track that down). For example, I was brought up without any religion, and any belief in God just wouldn’t have occurred to me.
In the same sense that unless you’re “indoctrinated into” one language or another, it’s unlikely you’ll speak any language yourself?
What’s the difference between “indoctrinating” and teaching?
Well, one is teaching you about the world, hopefully as it exists, as accurately as the teacher understands it, and one is trying to make you believe in a specific doctrine? Someone teaching me French is not trying to change my view of reality based on the doctrine of French speaking.
It’s been said that Jewish children get early practice not believing in the supernatural…every year at Christmas.
I don’t really ‘get’ the concept of the supernatural; surely anything that happens, no matter how weird, is natural, even if we don’t understand it.
Over time more and more phenomena have moved from the supernatural realm into the natural realm; if ghosts and telepathy exist, then they will be part of the natural world, with rules and so forth, even if we don’t currently understand them. If not, not.
And atheism is natural as well; even God, if She exists, is an atheist Herself, because She believes (rightly or wrongly) that no-one else created Her. If atheism is good enough for God, it is good enough for me.
I dont think thats true though. My understanding is that since our brains have grown quite a lot in the last 3 million years, that we learned to see patterns and intent everywhere. Other humans have intent, predators have intent, prey animals have intent. Supposedly this gave us an urge to see patterns and intent in the world, even when none exists.
The fact that endless cultures have organically created their own religions implies that it is in human nature to invent religions. The handful of major religions like the abrahamic and hindu faiths didn’t replace atheism, they replaced an endless variety of smaller, unique tribal religions. My understanding is native American cultures had hundreds of religions over north and south america, before Europeans came and converted everyone to christianity. Islam replaced endless smaller tribal religions in the arabian penninsula.
You’re right, that societies tend to create religions. That doesn’t mean that people are born with any innate religious ideology, any conception of god, or that every human, left to their own devices would invent religion. It just means that at least one person in a group does that, and their idea spreads until it becomes part of the group culture. Practically, it’s hard to escape being influenced by the cultural value of religion, but conceptually I believe it’s correct to say that atheism is the default state. It’s how you’re born and exists as a lack of belief until you are either culturally influenced and/or come up with your own ideas about God.
It’s important to note because religious people often frame atheism incorrectly as some sort of positive choice to reject God rather than the default position that every other magical thinking gets – that it’s assumed to be the null hypothesis / no belief until the person is taught by parents/culture/etc to accept that belief, or they generate that belief on their own.
To demonstrate this point, while some idea of “God” is somewhat universal, leprechauns are a culturally specific type of magical thinking. Most cultures do not have leprechauns. Would you consider people to be born “a-leprechaun”, having no belief in leprechauns? Or do you think people sort of default to believing in leprechauns and have to use critical thinking to talk themselves out of that belief?
Thats my view.
So I’m not saying this to get into debates (because we do not know what consciousness even is yet) but one hypothesis of consciousness is that each time a quantum superposition collapses, it creates proto-consciousness. So there is a field of proto-consciousness in the universe. Our brains just tap into this field and create our conscious experience by organizing it.
Roger Penrose, a Nobel Prize winning cosmologist, has suggested that each collapse of a quantum superposition creates a moment of “proto-conscious.” Penrose, together with the anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, posit that small structures in our neurons (and other cells), called microtubules, might weave these moments together into full consciousness.
Or another hypothesis is that consciousness is an intrinsic property of electromanetic fields. When we die our EM fields don’t dissipate, they get absorbed into the EM field of the earth or the sun. Which would provide a possible explanation for life after death without the need for a supernatural deity.
Again, I’m not saying these things are factually true and proven, I’m just saying as science advances the god of the gaps argument gets more and more narrow. Humans attribute anything that doesn’t make sense to them to the supernatural, but as humans learn more and more about how reality works, there are fewer and fewer things we assume are supernatural in origin.
A thousand years ago famines, locusts, natural disasters, etc were all considered to be supernatural in origin. But as we’ve learned more, these make sense under materialism.