Fear of Death Makes People Into Believers (of Science)

sciencehabit writes "Nothing, some say, turns an atheist into a believer like the fear of death. 'There are no atheists in foxholes,' the saying goes. But a new study suggests that people in stressful situations don't always turn to a higher power. Sometimes, they turn to science. Both athletes preparing for a big race and students asked to write about their own death showed a 15% stronger belief in science than those under less stressful situations (abstract). 'In stressful situations people are likely to turn to whatever worldviews and beliefs are most meaningful to them,' says study co-author, Anna-Kaisa Newheiser, a psychologist at Yale University. And many people find the scientific worldview more compatible with their own."

Comments

Science works

[MrEricSir]

There's nothing to "believe" in when it comes to science (it works either way) but if the fear of death makes people interested, that's great.

After all, science has brought us not only longer lives, but more fulfilling, healthier lives with less suffering. If you're worried about death it's just sensible to turn to science.

Re:Science works

[Daetrin]

That's not true either. I could honestly believe there was an intelligent being who created our current universe and simultaneously believe in the process of science. Believing in one does not generally require disbelieving in the other. There are some specific religions that are antithetical to science in their details, but that is a different issue.

Re:Science works

[Obfuscant]

To believe in science (and to disbelieve in religion),

Despite the common misconception, these are not mutually exclusive beliefs.

Science is great up to a point; it can tell us what happened and how it happened.

Science can tells us how it might have happened, but cannot tell us for a fact that it did happen that way.

Re:Science works

[bentcd]

To believe in science (and to disbelieve in religion),

Science isn't something you believe in, it's something you use. If I use a hammer to nail a picture up on the wall, does this mean I believe in hammer or does it just mean I used a hammer to achieve some desired result?

A scientific result is something you may choose to believe or not believe, depending on the level of confidence you have in the team behind it and the rigour of their methods. To believe in a scientific result on the other hand sounds to me more of a fanatical position than a rational one.

Re:Science works

[The1stImmortal]

Doctors are human and there are still big holes in our knowledge of disease and of human biology, so yeah it's entirely possible that a given doctor's advice may not be the best way to actually go for a given persons' case/illness. Doctors give advice based on the best knowledge available at the time (to them. No one person can know all of modern medicine and still have time to consult!).
Changing techniques based on empirical evidence is very scientific.
I'd imagine that doctor was/is very interested in the mechanisms of how the alternate approach worked and investigated it (or wrote up the case to allow others to investigate)
So you've actually given a brilliant example of why science works.

And glad to hear she lasted longer than usual and sorry to hear that ended btw

Re:Science works

[blackraven14250]

And he was considered the world's foremost expert on her condition. She lived longer than all his other patients, double over the next highest person. And he changed his treatment methods after her success even though it didn't make logical sense, because it had the best results. (Incidentally, that's HOW he became the world's foremost expert on her condition.)

So, which is it - was the the world's foremost expert before or after? Methinks some shit you said may be made up.

Re:Science works

[wonkey_monkey]

And my mom chose to believe what she felt God was telling her instead of what the doctor was telling her.

Thousands of other people die doing exactly the same. Were they not good enough to be saved? Sometimes people get lucky, and for some reason some people just can't accept this and have to invent some driving force behind the supposed miracle to literally sing their praises to, and mumble at in a cold building once a week.

In numerous cases, her intuition was right and he was wrong.

Sorry, but when it comes to medical treatments, your mom does not count as "numerous cases." She is one case of many, and quite likely an outlier. How many other people have disregarded their doctor's advice, used their own intuition, and subsequently died horrible painful deaths? You wouldn't be here telling us the story if that had happened (as it sadly has to so many people).

Statistically speaking, you're an idiot if you play the lottery. Any mathematician will tell you not to do it. Yet somewhere out there, at least one person usually wins, and for that one person, it's a wonderful bit of luck that wouldn't have happened if they'd listen to the statisticians. But it's random chance.

Here's another one. If a thousand people around the world toss a coin ten times, statistically speaking it's likely that one of them will get ten heads. If that person came here and wrote a post like yours, proclaiming it a miracle and praise be to the FSM, can you see why we'd be right to dismiss it? If so, why shouldn't we dismiss your anecdote as evidence of nothing but random chance?

And he changed his treatment methods after her success even though it didn't make logical sense, because it had the best results.

If that's really true, I don't want him having anything to do with the treatment of me or my family members.

(Incidentally, that's HOW he became the world's foremost expert on her condition.)

Incidentally, that's why we have bullshit like homeopathy. It "worked" once or twice, by coincidence, and people seized on it with both hands and won't be disabused of the ridiculous notion despite all the subsequent scientifically gained evidence that it's rubbish.

Re:Science works

[snakeplissken]

Which is why the belief that the universe started with a big bang, for example, is faith-based.

only in the same sense that the belief that the universe existed before last tuesday is faith based :)

snake

Re:Science works

[The1stImmortal]

I don't think that's strictly true.

To believe in science (and to disbelieve in religion), one needs to believe that the elements needed to create the big bang came into existence of their own accord and that the laws of physics decided to invent themselves.

Science is great up to a point; it can tell us what happened and how it happened. But when you go back far enough, it does requires the belief that everything which set off the chain of events somehow came into being without an intelligent creator.

I don't believe in scientific results. I believe in science as a process (in the same way that I can say I believe in Democracy as a process [for better or for worse!])

I would hope many scientists would hold a similar view, but I cannot speak for them.

In terms of cosmology - science attempts to unravel the chain of causality that resulted in the world we see today. To do this, it is assumed the universe works today much like it always has (and tries to determine the edge conditions that define that). It is also assumed that there is a point beyond which causality can no longer be followed (or that it loops back on itself or whatever. That there is a beginning, anyway - that' it's not just "turtles all the way down"). Now admittedly they're big assumptions but they seem to hold up so far, and without those assumtions the questions become meaningless in the first place.

So what happens then is that you work backwards, until a point is found for which there are multiple possible explanations. Then evidence is gathered based on experimentation and observation about which of the options seems most likely. As part of this process new options might get introduced.

What you end up with is the most likely set of explanations for the way the universe came to be the way it is, based on what we know today and what we can observe today.

It's not a presented as fact, but rather what is termed a "theory" for science, based on probability. Note that in this case the word "Theory" avoids presenting something as absolute fact whilst providing the implication of a comprehensive and somewhat tested framework, and still leaving the door open for testing and even disproving. It doesn't mean "Guess".

As for "believing" that " the elements needed to create the big bang came into existence of their own accord and that the laws of physics decided to invent themselves." - this isn't a belief per se, but part of the assumption that the chain of causality ends somewhere. If something "caused" the big bang (er - other than the big bang itself), then by definition the big bang wasn't the start of the universe, but we have to go back further. So if you assume it started somewhere then you have to assume that "before" that was unknowable, as it cannot be traced back.

In this regard - if there was a "creator" - it is/was either one that can interact with/affect the observable universe or not. If it is, then we can push the start of the universe back to be the "start" of the creator. But if not then the issue is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

Re:Science works

[CayceeDee]

She lived longer than all his other patients, double over the next highest person.

Ummm. The fact that she lived longer than other patients just means that she lived longer than other patients. I am sure that some patients lived a lot less than other patients. It had nothing to do with god. It had to do with the fact that people react to diseases and treatments differently. Some people live longer than some people who live longer than some people.

Re:Science works

[Black Parrot]

Which is why the belief that the universe started with a big bang, for example, is faith-based.

People who aren't trying to bring science down to the level of their own superstitions would call it evidence-based.

Or when you look in the oven and see that your biscuits are brown, do you consider your conclusion that they're done to be a faith-based belief?

Or any of thousands of other evidence-based conclusions that you readily accept because they don't conflict with your religious beliefs.

Re:Science works

[Black Parrot]

She lived longer than all his other patients, double over the next highest person.

Ummm. The fact that she lived longer than other patients just means that she lived longer than other patients. I am sure that some patients lived a lot less than other patients. It had nothing to do with god. It had to do with the fact that people react to diseases and treatments differently. Some people live longer than some people who live longer than some people.

IMO the common conceit that "God healed/rescued me/Granny", while letting all the others suffer and die, is the very pinnacle of arrogance.

Re:Science works

[Black Parrot]

Also, if his Mom had died we'd be reading about it being God's inscrutable will rather than that God healed her.

Re:Science works

[bzipitidoo]

Ahh, such simple minded thinking.

In science, there is no believing. Science is not about belief and faith. Science is not a religion. Science is facts, evidence, and logical deductions. The Big Bang is a theory that fits the facts we have. Is it right or wrong? Likely it is more subtle than that, and is correct as far as it goes, but is not anywhere close to a complete explanation. It certainly has difficult problems. There is no faith involved in that.

As to the idea that our observations may not be reliable, that what we see, hear, and measure may not reflect reality, and pretending otherwise is just acting on faith, this is an old problem in philosophy. How do we know anything we sense is real? We don't know. Is it faith to act as if what we sense is real? No! We accept that what we sense is reality, not out of faith, but because it doesn't make sense to follow any other line of reasoning. Imperfect though our understanding of reality is, and perhaps must be, we can still work with it, and we have. We would never have been able to make integrated circuits, radios, and all the other marvels of modern techonolgy if we didn't have some understanding of apparent reality.

What if we go with a hypothesis that we aren't sensing reality, that there is a deeper reality that we can't sense? Assuming it exists, what could the nature of this deeper reality be? If it is a supernatural reality, then that ends the scientific inquiry right there. Science is only about the natural, not the supernatural. Soon as the supernatural is invoked, it's all chaos. Anything at all might be true of a supernatural reality.

If you claim there is a deeper reality and it is natural, but that it cannot be observed, that makes things difficult, but hardly insurmountable. How can we know it even exists, if there is no way to observe it? Without any way to sense it, perform experiments on it, or extrapolate its effects to things we can observe, we can only speculate wildly. First, anyone making such a claim ought to have some sort of rationale for it. We do speculate, with ideas like that our universe is only a part of a multiverse, or that our reality is actually not 4 dimensions, but 10 or 26, with the extra dimensions being so small that we can't perceive them. This is not reaching for faith, this is simply speculation. Even if we can't sort this out now, we may be able to in the future.

Re:Science works

[morcego]

But when you go back far enough, it does requires the belief that everything which set off the chain of events somehow came into being without an intelligent creator.

No, it doesn't. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, without having to attribute it to a god, faeries, gnomes or the flying spaghetti monster.

"I don't know, so there must be a god" is without any fundament, and leads to what is known as "god of the gaps".

(Also, whoever modded parent "flamebait", you are being unfair. He is stating his views in a very polite way, and obviously ready to discuss the subject. Praise him for it, since it is so rare among religious people.)

Re:Science works

[ranton]

Science and religion are not intrinsically opposed to one another, but answer different questions with very little overlap from one to the other.

I contend that science and religion have 100% overlap in their intended usage. Both science and religion are used to give us the answer to "why?". Nothing more; nothing less.

When you talk about finding purpose and meaning you are really talking about the human tendency to anthropomorphize just about everything. There is meaning and purpose behind our actions, or at least we have that perception (depending on whether free will exists). That is what incorrectly causes us to project meaning and purpose into all aspects of life. It is a very useful trait, and our very ability to do this is part what separates us from other animals. But it is also a big flaw in our brain's ability to reason properly, along with plenty of other natural biases that adversely affect our ability to make good decisions. Honestly it is a miracle that we are able to think the way we do at all, so it is reasonable that our capacity for thought has many problems.

Science does currently have an answer to the question of purpose and meaning. It is that our primitive brains made those concepts up. Luckily a well trained mind is sometimes able to identify biases such as these and rule them out during decision making.

Re:Science works

[tnk1]

The problem is, even if you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we made up the idea of a creator, all that means is that you disproved the notion of a creator *as developed by humans*. The fact that humans invented a creator, does not mean there is no creator.

A well trained mind would understand the limitations of science. Science works with falsifiable theories. The existence of a creator is not falsifiable. Hence, even the best trained scientific mind would merely state that the notion of a creator is merely not useful as a predictor of natural events. And indeed, while any potential deities refuse to come forward and prove to a huge audience their power, this is true.

The nice thing is... you don't need to disbelieve to be a good scientist, you just have to accept that the supernatural is not useful in a discussion of natural processes. If God can create miracles, those miracles are, effectively, outside of science and thus useless to study as science. The antagonism between science and religion is the result of people on both sides with the lack of imagination to understand that there is essentially no real argument, and that maybe they should both just relax. If there is a creator, then he/she/it created those processes and so those processes are the actual proof of creation, albeit a proof we will never be able to understand as part of creation. If there is no creator, then everything looks the same, there is just another reason for it. Neither really helps us discover a theory of quantum gravity.

Re:Science works

[ranton]

The problem with using words like belief and faith is that they have ugly connotations. A belief is simply a state in which someone holds a premise to be true. Faith is simply having confidence in something. But unfortunately when most people talk about faith, they mean a belief that is not based on proof. They mean having a level of conviction high enough that no matter what evidence presents itself, they will still hold onto their beliefs. This is primarily why most scientifically minded people reject using the word Faith, even though they still have faith in many things based on most definitions of the word.

That depends on how you define "religion". True Religion is living the lifestyle necessary to prove your beliefs.

I am not sure where you got that definition. Every definition of religion I have ever seen relates a system of beliefs with a supernatural and spiritual component. You really need to bastardize the definition of religion to claim that science is a religion. If you are willing to rewrite the definitions of common words then you can probably "win" just about any argument you want to.

As soon as Science _dictates_ how a person can understand truth it has become a religion.

No, it becomes a religion when your beliefs have supernatural explanations. That is it.

I agree that there are ways to discover truth without the use of the scientific method. Early humans learned that plants need water to grow long before we formalized the use of hypothesis, experiments, and theories (although you could contend that we were informally doing that). Science does not claim that the scientific method is the only way to find truth, although it does claim it is the best method we have found so far.

Technically Science is NOT a system of acquiring truth but about removing ignorance. (A quite successful masculine path as everyone is aware of.

Um, ignorance means a lack of accurate knowledge. Truth means having accurate knowledge. So saying something is about remove ignorance is the exact same thing as saying something is about gaining truth.

The other system IS a way of acquiring truth. Since it is the feminine path it is no wonder most men chose to remain ignorant and blindly ignore it.

No, religion is about holding onto beliefs so you can be confident that you have found the truth. Just believing in something does not get you closer to the truth, it just increased your confidence. Accurate knowledge (truth) is a system of justified true propositions. Religion is about holding onto beliefs based on faith, not going out and discovering justifications for those beliefs.

That is why _mind_ NOT space is the final frontier. Space is finite. The Mind is infinite.

This is just silly. I honestly didn't even read this last sentence until after I started responding, and now realize that I probably shouldn't have even bothered.

Re:Science works

[__aaltlg1547]

Respectfully, I disagree. Religion and science are antithetical in nature. In religion, a thing is believed based on appeal to authority and tradition. In science, a thing is shown to be true (or true as best we can figure) based on demonstrable evidence. There is no room in science for accepting propositions based on appeals to authority or tradition. Nor is there any room in religion for the idea that basic assumptions can be tossed aside just because they conflict with evidence.

Re:Science works

[femtobyte]

If I use a hammer to nail a picture up on the wall, does this mean I believe in hammer

Yes, you believed the hammer would be suitable for fulfilling particular claims associated with hammers --- that it would quickly and easily drive the nail into the wall. There are probably reasons you chose to use a hammer to do this, rather than a rotten tomato or your eyeball. Likewise, people believe particular religions are suitable tools for producing claimed results --- from bringing rains to parched crops, to assuring eternal transcendent life. Often, this doesn't work out as reliably as the hammer (or it is exceedingly difficult to judge the outcome). Similarly, people believe in science to reliably produce claimed results (e.g. produce mathematical formulae that accurately model/predict physical events); and science has every bit as solid a track record of doing this as a hammer is reliable for pounding nails.

Re:Science works

[__aaltlg1547]

The problem is, even if you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we made up the idea of a creator, all that means is that you disproved the notion of a creator *as developed by humans*. The fact that humans invented a creator, does not mean there is no creator.

No, but it blows away any rationale for believing in a creator, because to believe in a different sort of creator, you must make one up.

Re:Science works

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I said once that the best answer to the trap question "Do you believe in evolution?" is "I believe in evolution the same way I believe there is a city called Philadelphia." I've never been to Philadelphia; no, Mr. Ham, I wasn't there. But I've heard about Philadelphia, I've read about Philadelphia, I've seen pictures of Philadelphia, when driving in Baltimore I've seen road signs directing me to Philadelphia, and I've even known people who (claimed to have) lived in Philadelphia--all of which adds up to sufficient evidence for "I believe there is a city called Philadelphia" to be a reasonable statement.

Those who are devoted to proving in their own minds that Science Is Just Another Religion tend not to understand this distinction, of course.

Re:Science works

[Eivind]

That's true mostly because religion retreats from those areas where science arrives. Because it cannot compete, seeing as science actually *works*.

Religion used to have opinions on lightning. (Thor, the god of thunder being angry blabla) But that's no longer sustainable now that science has a better explanation, one that makes sense and fits the observations. Science can quantify ligthning, they can predict it, they can shield you from it, they can even harness it.

The same is true for disease. Draught. Variations in the mechanical properties of iron. (it's brittle because of high carbon-content, not because you failed to sacrifice a hen while melting it...)

Today, religion is mostly stuck at "why", since there's very few areas left where religions answer to "how" aren't laughable.

Re:Science works

[voidphoenix]

The core of science is the scientific method, which is a set of mental tools and processes designed to help us figure out the truth and avoid our inherent biases and cognitive limitations. The part that's important to your question is this: extraordinary claims must require extraordinary evidence to be considered valid.

Not even considering the content and supposed provenance of the Christian Bible, just the claim that there is an entity with the qualities and attributes ascribed to the Christian God is an exceptionally extraordinary claim. There is absolutely no independently and empirically verifiable evidence to support that claim. Objectively, any acceptance of the truth of that claim is the same as acceptance of any of a number of similar extraordinary claims, most of which would fall under the categories of myths, legends, superstitions or pseudo-science: faeries, unicorns, elves, UFOs, ghosts, etc. There simply is no rigorously objective, intellectually honest juxtaposition between most major religions and the scientific method. Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot comes to mind.

Personally, I think if one considers oneself a scientist, one must apply the scientific method to all truth propositions, regardless of whether such happen to be in the lab or outside, or whether they fall under one's specialty or not. I suppose it's possible to draw a line somewhere and say "Here I'll apply the scientific method and there I won't." but given our inherent human fallibility, I think that's a recipe for disaster. Sooner or later, the line will blur and you end up with bad science.

Re:Science works

[ranton]

Good answer, but I would contend that Science asks "How?" while Religion asks "Why?". Science is not concerned with the philosophical reasoning for things, it just seeks to understand the process.

Science is most certainly concerned with the philosophical reasoning for things. Science itself sprung up from the field of philosophy. But it is not concerned with inventing existential reasons for the actions of inanimate objects which have no intent. Science is very concerned with why humans feel the need to anthropomorphize things such as the beginning of the universe, the rising sun, or any number of natural phenomenons. Just because science doesn't invent answers when the real answers (to the best of our understanding) are uncomfortable does not mean it is unconcerned with those topics.

GW

[riverat1]

Hmm... I guess that means we just haven't been alarmist enough about global warming to bring the deniers over to the science side yet.

Re:GW

[CayceeDee]

What part of cause and symptoms don't you people get? Global warming is the cause and the symptoms are climate change. It isn't a matter of one or the other. It's a matter of cause and effect. Then again, that is science and not wishful thinking which is what global warming>>climate change denial is all about. It might do you good to start paying attention to scientist and not economist. politicians and lawyers.

flying and turbulence

[Anonymous Coward]

I do this when I fly. I hate turbulence. As a professional scientist, when the plane starts bouncing, I think of 777 stress tests--how wings are flexed 30 feet at the end before they break, and how turbulence is jiggling us up and down on the 10ft level, when we're going forward hundreds of feet every second. There's a 747 cross-section/cutout in the British Transportation Museum that shows no metal stress after 30 years of service. Thinking of hard core science and its successes almost always calms me down.

Re:flying and turbulence

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I find that weird. People seem to be often fond of adrenaline sports, and many adrenaline sports are more risky than flying in a turbulence. Why not simply lay back and enjoy it?

Re:flying and turbulence

[GoogleShill]

It's the psychological effect of feeling helpless. As a passenger, you have absolutely no control over what happens and can't even see what's in front of you. You're just at the mercy of the plane, mechanics and pilot. For the most part, participants in adrenaline sports are completely in control of what happens.

I was on a flight last year and during take-off with a gusty crosswind our plane skidded to the side probably 20 feet. All of the passengers were bouncing around, and people were grabbing on to their armrests, freaking out. The lady sitting next to me was visibly scared, so I attempted to lighten the mood by putting my arms in the air and saying "wheeeeee!", as if I were on a roller coaster. She did not like that one bit.

It would be interesting, if tricky...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd be interested to see(though am at a loss for how one could...ethically...arrange such a test) whether you see the same thing in mortality-salience scenarios where it is explicitly clear that science won't help here, or whether that leads to a sharp jump in enthusiasm for something else.

Given the sheer scale of applied science's obvious successes(and, where applicable, the equally dramatic and unmistakable nature of its fuckups) it isn't a huge surprise that people would find some degree of belief in it almost inevitable. To do otherwise would be like trying to make it through a dinner party with the Hellenic pantheon without recourse to polytheism.

However, there are plenty of things that(while fundamentally amenable to scientific investigation) the answers available so far are incomplete and/or very bad news. I'm inclined to wonder if, in the face of this sort of 'failure' by science, people would skew in some other direction. Anecdotally, the steady trickle of terminal cancer cases and other incurables to the wacky and sometimes gruesome world of alt-med suggests yes; but anecdotes are more emotionally compelling than actually informative.

Belief in science?

[c0lo]

WTF? The base of science is doubting everything - if you can't falsify a hypothesis, that hypothesis is outside the area of science.

Is this some insidious way to push towards the position that science and religion are both a matter of belief?

Re:Belief in science?

[femtobyte]

WTF? The base of science is doubting everything

Not doubting everything; there are a few assumptions held --- though they may seem so "obvious" that you don't even realize making them. For example, the assumption that the universe is somewhat "repeatable" and amenable to mathematical and logical description: if an experiment about one thing in one circumstance can't tell you anything about other things in other circumstances, then science is entirely useless.

Re:Belief in science?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

WTF? The base of science is doubting everything - if you can't falsify a hypothesis, that hypothesis is outside the area of science.

Is this some insidious way to push towards the position that science and religion are both a matter of belief?

'Science' as a method and body of accrued knowledge isn't a matter of belief(which is why it has a long history of getting shit done while lesser epistemology waves its hands at uncertainty or contentedly chews its own cud); but an individual's relation to that body of knowledge is, necessarily, largely a belief test:

Even a practicing scientist will have personally tested only a tiny area of the world, and read in any detail only a slightly larger one(at which point they are already trusting their colleagues to, on average, have neither fucked up nor falsified their figures). Outside that, they pretty much depend on others to do the work and hand them the results.

This is not to say that all flavors of belief are identical: believing in some result because you've been told that it was obtained by scientific means is a different thing than believing in some result because you've been told that a magical pixie delivered it directly in a vision; but nobody has even close to enough time to actually do empiricism on more than a tiny sliver of the world. At best, we can do our best to seek out information that is highly likely to be the result of other people doing empiricism, properly, and accept that until further notice.

Atheism isn't for sissies

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually phrase it more diplomatically, but often people assume atheism is some sort of conscious cop-out to avoid all the hard morality that supposedly stems from religion. If the opening for discussion presents itself, I always soft-sell atheism on a negative note. Atheism offers shit for consolation on the issue of death. Friends, loved ones, family, parents, children, all of them are just gonna die and turn to dirt. That is a real shit sandwich atheism gives you right there, and there's a lot more where that came from. In this way I can steer the conversation in the direction of "People aren't atheists because they prefer not having to deal with religion, but just because they think it's the truth."

Frankly if I thought the idea of a sky-fairy running a magical kingdom keeping us all immortal forever was even remotely plausible, I'd convert yesterday. But, frankly, it ISN'T even remotely plausible, which is why I'm an atheist. Clearly some of the people in this article made the jump. Good for them. They get some consolation in their time of grief. Being right is overrated.

Re:Bible: word of God

[K. S. Kyosuke]

and everything will suddenly make sense

That sounds like the experience of a recently inflicted paranoid schizophrenic.

foxholes

[Black Parrot]

There are no atheists in foxholes,' the saying goes.

And it's a fucking stupid thing to say: The mere fact that they're in a foxhole shows that they're putting their faith in boring old non-supernatural dirt to save them, not in their god(s).

Re:foxholes

[Waffle Iron]

I always thought that was a stupid analogy anyway. There are also no unsoiled underpants in foxholes. But very few people think that means we should all go around shitting our pants on a regular basis.

Living by what your brain spews out under severe overstress doesn't make much sense. It's like using results from your computer that it calculated while you were zapping the motherboard with a Tesla coil.

Who fears death?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I always wondered when I watched one of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies why they had Davy Jones (the wet one, not the Monkey) ask, "Do you fear death?". I mean, why the heck would I fear death? That just isn't something I would worry about. Now, I greatly fear suffering, paralysis, and things like that. Enough that I don't want to engage in dangerous things like base jumping. Not because I fear ceasing to exist. Because I fear I would still exist, but be paralyzed or in great pain for the rest of my life.

Death? Nothing to fear there.

Another false dichotomy

[roca]

The abstract and the commentary imply the canard that faith in science and faith in religion must be at odds. This isn't the case in theory or practice. There is no philosophical incompatibility in believing that science and God both work, or even that God works through science. And in practice, most religious believers exhibit plenty of faith that science works and are comfortable with it.

Re:Another false dichotomy

[venicebeach]

The reality is that they are at odds in practice, especially in the United States. Otherwise we would not be in a circumstance where the majority of Americans disbelieve in one the of central scientific theories of our day.This state of affairs is directly attributable to the dominant religion and the anti-scientific mindset it must engender in order to survive in its current form.

But your comment has a troubling confusion embedded which might explain why you don't see the conflict. Religious believers need not exercise "faith" that science works, because there is evidence that science works. The mindset of faith is to encourage belief regardless of evidence. That is why faith-based belief systems are indeed in conflict with science -- they are impervious to evidentiary challenges.

It's true that science is not inherently incompatible with any specific truth-claim (e.g. the existence of a god), but it is incompatible with faith-based thinking. That is the point of this article -- the only reason someone "in a foxhole" would change their belief about the nature of the world is because they are influenced by the emotions of the circumstance. It's not like some new information about the existence of god suddently becomes evident because one's life is in danger.

Re:Another false dichotomy

[stanIyb]

After all, where did they come from, and what keeps them running?

Ah, a classic. I love this type of argument, because one can use it to 'prove' the existence of all sorts of crazy things. To answer your question? The flying spaghetti monster. Why? Because my own ignorance is evidence of the flying spaghetti monster's existence.

Re:Bible: word of God

[Black Parrot]

and everything will suddenly make sense

That sounds like the experience of a recently inflicted paranoid schizophrenic.

Huh? I thought it was just a bog-standard troll.

WTF is "belief in science"?

[Anonymous Coward]

So there is this process we use to help make predictions. Its called "science". It helps us form predictions that correlate with reality. Some people "believe" in it, I just use it. When I need to hammer in a nail, I use a tool: a hammer. When I need to make a prediction which I would like to correlate with reality, I use a tool: science.

Science is a tool: it helps you do specific kinds of things. It is useful.

This reminds me of my "creationism is useless" argument. Evolution helps you make predictions which correlate with reality. Its part of the science tool, and its very useful. Creationism does not help you make predictions that correlate with reality. Thus, its not useful in the scientific respect. Even if its true, its not science, so it should be taught in the department that covers that kind of thing (history) it you teach it at all. On the other side, evolution, even if incorrect, is useful science, and thus belongs in science classes.

We didn't stop teaching Newtonian mechanics because relative proved it wrong. They still make useful predictions that correlate with reality. Its still science, and we should still teach it, even-though we know its wrong.

Why does no one make that point? Maybe because they don't know what science is? (It would really suck to not to have science in my toolbox!)

Science vs religion: Prepare for boredom!!

[drrilll]

Seriously. I believe I have heard every single argument from either side about a thousand times, and that was just this morning. Agree to disagree already. Maybe find another hobby that isn't a complete waste of time. If I did happen to have an interest in someone's belief one way or the other, I would ask about it.

Re:Bible: word of God

[The1stImmortal]

I'm feeding a troll I'm sure - but I'm in a weird mood. So stuff it.

I love the circular reasoning in "The bible is the proven word of God. You really don't need any more proof than that." - so it's proven by the fact that it is proven. Hm. Rightio then.

Then there's a no-true-scotsman fallacy of if you've read it and don't believe it, then you've not really read it. Hm. Rightio then.

I'd love to understand why Bible believers think that, for non-believers, the Bible in particular is special?
Seriously - for someone who already doesn't believe in god(s), what would make them believe the Bible over the Torah, the Qur'an, the I Ching, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Principia Discordia or "There and Back Again" as a text of divine inspiration?

Finally - I have read the Bible several times. Fascinating read really (till you get to all the post-gospel stuff near the end to the new testament - I really don't care about early christians' "How are you doing over there then?" letters for example...)
But enlightenment did not come. Instead, the more I read the Bible the more I find it's just a curious collection of old folk tales and legends (old testament) combined with a dogma assembled by committee (new testament).
And Christians rarely live their lives strictly according to scripture btw. The average christian violates an awful lot of it whilst handwaving huge chunks as being "irrelevant" in the modern church (!). Which is fine if you accept that you're not living strictly according to the book. But don't pretend you are.

Finally - frankly, if it were written today the Bible would have a very rough time with censors. It's seriously lurid in parts. Incest, rape, slavery (both labour-based and sexual), extremely graphic violence, inciting racial hatreds... Much of which is presented as a good thing! It would probably be banned these days. I certainly will consider carefully when my son will be ready to understand the adult themes in the Bible for sure. I don't want to give him nightmares.

Observation:

[fyngyrz]

'There are no atheists in foxholes,' the saying goes

This is not a flaw with atheists, or in atheism. This is a problem with foxholes, and any other situation where you become so stressed that you can no longer think clearly.

Re:Observation:

[DigiShaman]

Sodium Pentothal. No inhabitions, no fear. Stress becomes water off a ducks back.

Re:Observation:

[cusco]

My dad had a customer who had been a paratrooper in Normandy. My brother made some dumb remark about 'no atheists in foxholes', and Dick snapped back at him, "More atheists are made in foxholes than anywhere else, because no god worth worshiping would allow something like that to go on!"

Re:Observation:

[Anonymous Coward]

"no god worth worshiping would allow something like that to go on"

It's people's choices that put them there... God might allow it, but people still choose to fight. Don't blame God for shit that is caused just because people don't know how to maturely get along with other people. It's only because some have the authority to dictate what other people do that puts unwilling soldiers in foxholes. God might allow it, but humans *cause* it. For God to disallow it would be to interfere with the the freely made choices that created that situation, invalidating the very purpose of giving us free will in the first place.

If God were to just turn around and stop us every time we make a wrong choice, then what on earth would the point be of giving us a free will?

Re:Observation:

[Joce640k]

It's almost like he *wants* a decent percentage of us to go to Hell, right?

Re:Observation:

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

In most uses of it, there's also no consciousness, which hopefully would also mean no inhibitions, fear, or concern about stress.

Re:Observation:

[TheSeatOfMyPants]

Exactly my reaction after staying in hospitals too often as a kid -- religious adults would tell me that I'd survived/recovered because their god was there lovingly protecting me, but by adulthood I could only think that I didn't want to believe in (let alone worship) a deity that allows or causes the kind of horrible things I witnessed/experienced.

Re:Observation:

[professionalfurryele]

But not orthogonal to the question of if there are benevolent deities.

Re:Observation:

[fyngyrz]

...and *particularly* not benevolent, omnipresent, omniscient deities.

Foxholes aside, as a poster above observes, birth defects, infections, cancers, natural disasters, etc., quite often aren't the result of "our choices", and yet clearly this imaginary omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent deity is perfectly happy to let them go on regardless, though ameliorating them would not interfere in the least with our "free will."

It's so obvious that the characterization typical of the major religions cannot be the character of any actual god with those three characteristics it's almost pitiful. Therefore, the major religions are wrong, no matter if there is a god or gods, or not.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are bunk. Pure, unadulterated bunk. Either there is no god, or gods, or it/they are the very worst kind of turdpockets playing with toys for which they have no concern. And again I find myself in agreement with the poster above who remarked (paraphrasing), "fuck them." But then I relax a bit, as there is absolutely no evidence of any kind that there are, or were, a god or gods of any stripe. One must not mistake the clamoring of a group of the deluded as evidence for anything. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not simply an increase in the loudness of protests.

Re:Observation:

[Tagged_84]

Hmm, last I checked no one had confirmed the existence of free will. I tend to favour the theory of Howard Bloom that free will is only likely if electrons and photons have it, and the world of science is only just starting to delve into the new theory of quantum communication afaik.

Re:Observation:

[Tagged_84]

I like to say that the greatest trick the devil ever played wouldn't be convincing the world they didn't exist, but rather convincing the world they were god. I mean god is a nasty motherf&cker with an appitite for destruction and death.

Plus everyone knows stories are better with killer plot twists, just ask M. Night Shyamalan

Re:Observation:

[flyneye]

Several times God commanded it, endorsed rulers who practiced violence , wiped out worshipers of other "Gods" and let's not forget the Plagues that predated chemical warfare by many centuries.
Atheists aren't made in foxholes, they're made in church pews. The fault lies in the milktoast politically correct,historically incorrect, censored, edited, watered down, council of Trent approved garbage preached by modern organized religion. It doesn't make sense, often misinterpreted for the sake reflecting "feel good" dogma practiced by the money hungry corporate entities. Who believes that garbage anyway? They just go and sit through it to appear morally superior to anyone bothered to notice.Besides that, I know at least one Atheist made in seminary and can imagine more would occur.

Re:Observation:

[drsmithy]

If God were to just turn around and stop us every time we make a wrong choice, then what on earth would the point be of giving us a free will?
From your logic can we conclude you are opposed to all laws, as well ?

Re:Observation:

[mark-t]

It has long been established in logic that there are things which are true which cannot be proven. Free will may be an example of one of those things.

Nonetheless, until science can show conclusively otherwise, we may as well presume that free will exists, since based on what we *do* know, we appear to behave as though we have it, even though we can't specifically explain it.

Re:Observation:

[peawormsworth]

Fear is a great manipulation tool. Used by almost every ruling class. Telling young children that they will be tortured forever after death if they dont believe a tale you just told them, is probably the most common way young minds are set.

Bullshit.

[khasim]

If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I was talking about the inability of science to do something, not religion's ability to do things.

That part is okay. It's accurate.

Which is why the belief that the universe started with a big bang, for example, is faith-based.

Bullshit. That's wrong.

Science is falsifiable.
Faith is NOT falsifiable.

The CURRENT model says that the "Big Bang" was the origin of this universe. But that model is based upon specific, identified observations and experiments and PREDICTIONS.

Now that model may be incorrect. But whatever new model replaces it will still have to account for all the specific, identified observations and experiments and PREDICTIONS that formed the basis for the "Big Bang" model.

Re:Bullshit.

[femtobyte]

Science is falsifiable.

One clarification: particular scientific theories (e.g. particular cosmological origin models) are falsifiable. However, "science" as the overall framework/method is not falsifiable in the same sense. What type of experimental evidence would convince you that "science doesn't work," rather than "this particular scientific theory doesn't work, and needs to be exchanged for another"? Science has a great track record of producing theories that are easily falsifiable but end up not being easily falsified; but "Science" itself is outside the realm of scientific scrutiny.

Re:Questions:

[smittyoneeach]

Furthermore, irrespective of all this theoretical panty-bunching: You. Behave. As. Though. Conscious. And. Possessing. Free. Will.
All of you hyper-materialistic piles of atoms should back up your nonsense by evenly distribute your time between barking, shrieking, silence, and speaking, since you are so busily claiming that it's all meaningless, and therefore all equivalent.
Lord have mercy on you knobs.

When My Wife Was Fighting Cancer

[Slashdot Parent]

When my wife was fighting cancer, it got to the point that we were told by her doctors that she would die of it. Not an unreasonable conclusion, as she had a very aggressive cancer, and we had tried all of the standard treatments.

Faced with that situation, we found that we placed more faith both in science and religion, simultaneously. We went all over the country to see the best experts in her particular cancer, and we also accepted prayers from all religions, all denominations. Obviously we focused the lion's share of our energies on her treatment (science), but we did not neglect the spiritual.

A funny thing happened. We traveled to see a one expert, a delightful old fellow who happened to be of our same religion. He took a particular interest in her case, and wound up unearthing a many-decades-old study that showed success in treating women in a similar position to my wife. Ultimately, it did wind up working for my wife, and she survived.

So, in summary, we threw our faith at anything we could find, science and religion. Was there some intervention that placed the idea in this doctor's head to search such old studies? Well, how the hell should I know? All I know is that she alive in the next room instead of dead in a cemetery, so I'm happy. I wouldn't change a thing.

No surprise

[Evtim]

When the going gets difficult, it is not a time for nonsense. That is not surprising at all.

From "Plato and platypus walk into a bar" - One day a man fell into a well. While falling he managed to grasp a root and hanged precariously over the abyss. "Is there anybody out there" - shouts the man desperately. No reply for a while and suddenly a big voice booms from above "It is me, the Lord. Let go of the root and I will save you". The man thinks a little and shouts "Is there anyone else out there?".

From "Miracle in the Andes" (the famous true story, also shown in the movie "Alive") - in the beginning of the ordeal, the captain of the team (one of the most devoted believers, although all of them were in principle believers, or they were supposed to be) shows real leadership and courage. However, he firmly believes that God will save them and does with such conviction that once they hear on the radio that the search for them is cancelled suddenly the man collapsed completely. 3 people from the team are described as being shaky in their believes. One dies (fascinating conversations with this man can be found in the book) and the other two (one is the author of the book, Nando Parado) save them all. The two least believers did not loose the desire to try something and at the end they found a way to save them all. Read the whole thing - I am not good enough to describe it to you.

Third example - there is a countryman of mine, who is almost 40 years in the space and aviation industry of USA. He has a collection of 200+ stories on social , economic and military themes he experienced (just a few) or collected (the rest) from other people. Alas, all is in my native tongue which is perhaps understood by ca. 100 /. readers at best. Anyhow, he has a fascinating story about a Vietnam veteran who was serving on a medical helicopter. When he was recruited for this specific job towards the end of the training, the major who was looking for people to do this job told him that he always looked for cynical, realistic people, preferably non-believers. Everyone else cracks on the job. Because it is such a horrific a job and more dangerous than being active soldier people who held any kind of delusions would not survive it. Reading the rest of the story shows that the recruiting major has nailed it in the center...

Do humans cause birth defects and disease as well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do humans cause birth defects and disease as well?

How about you shut the fuck up and go work full-time with the sick and the poor.

Fuck you and fuck your gods, all of them.

Re:Creation vs Reality

[fyngyrz]

If you experience a thing, you know it exists.

Absolutely untrue. Artificially: I point at LSD. Involuntarily: I point at dreams. Voluntarily: I point at imagination. "Experience" is a mental state. It's not in any way an assurance that you're perceiving reality. That requires quite a bit more, starting with the basics: consensuality, repeatability, and so forth. Things notably lacking in the realm of superstition.

Some of us have experienced God, yet you're absolutely sure that all those people are insane.

No. Not insane. Are those who dream insane? Are those who alter reality with drugs insane? Are gamers insane? Book readers? Theatergoers? I'm just sure claims of this particular class -- those of a god or gods -- arise from something along the lines of these issues. That doesn't address the class of falsely superstitious people who are engaged in defrauding and otherwise taking advantage of the susceptible; those people are simply despicable, a much simpler and easier to understand proposition.

Re:Do humans cause birth defects and disease as we

[flyneye]

Who keeps spreading this garbage about God supposed to make life all soft and safe for the innocent and believers?
I never did get that argument. Usually trotted out by atheist converts to counter "feel good" dogma propagated by corporate churches and popular sects.
Now me, I like an atheist who has read the Bible, Apocrypha and early Christian writings, has some history, archaeology, etymology or other supporting science under their belt and has done some rigor for their lack of faith. They would never make such a gaffe.

          In addition, it would be much more profitable for a young ,dumb atheist , to point out that Christ commanded the church to work with the sick and poor. But then you'd have to be well read enough to support the mocking of todays elaborate churches with their P.A. systems, projectors, modern architecture and "programs" for attendees and members with only occasional "canned good drives" to rationalize their part in "helping the poor".

          This is Slashdot, be something more than an atheist equivalent of Beavis or you'll get thrown to the Christians for our entertainment.

But He doesn't like cooperation

[TrekkieGod]

Don't blame God for shit that is caused just because people don't know how to maturely get along with other people.

Have you read the Bible? Because if you believe what's written there, people were getting along just fine, learning technology and how to make bricks instead of using stones. Building a city and within that city a tower taller than any ever built before, as a monument to what they could accomplish together. "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." (Genesis 11:5-9)

So yeah, His response to people maturely getting along with other people was to scatter them all over the Earth, and making them speak different languages to make cooperation more difficult.

For God to disallow it would be to interfere with the the freely made choices that created that situation, invalidating the very purpose of giving us free will in the first place. If God were to just turn around and stop us every time we make a wrong choice, then what on earth would the point be of giving us a free will?

Unless we're freely making making the right choices, right? Then He gets to interfere, and it somehow doesn't invalidate free will.

Look pal, I don't have a problem with people who believe in God, or have any religion whatsoever. As long as religion isn't brought into science classrooms, or used to make government policy, I'm fine with it. I do, however, hate this tendency of religious people to praise God for everything that turns out well, without giving credit to the work humans put into it (You walked way from that horrible car accident: clearly God saved you. The engineers designing the crumple zone and mercilessly doing crash tests obviously had nothing to do with it), while simultaneously blaming humans and leaving God blameless for everything that's bad (God didn't put you in foxholes, people's decisions did it). You can't do that. Either you believe He interferes with the world, in which case He has to take part of the blame for our suffering, or you believe He doesn't interfere with the world, in which case He doesn't get part of the credit for our successes.

Re:But He doesn't like cooperation

[TrekkieGod]

Right, except we have a model of what people do when there is a universal monoculture, and a nice example just last century within the USSR. The "top" ends up slaughtering the middle, like the 50 million dead of its own citizens in that case.

Oh no, you don't. That passage includes God's justification, and it doesn't even imply anything near what you're saying here. Read it again: "And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." He's saying if they were allowed to continue, no accomplishment would be beyond their grasp, and this is why they had to be stopped.

God doesn't give a fuck "personally" if people build a big tower, he's hardly going to be intimidated.

Won't he? It wasn't the first time he was afraid of what humans could become. After Adam and Eve ate of the apple: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." (Genesis 3:22) God went, "uh oh, now they're like me, and if they eat from the tree of life, they're also going to be immortal. Can't let that happen."

It's funny too, when you compare that sentence God uttered to what the serpent told Adam and Eve: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5). It's exactly the same thing God says after. Turns out the serpent didn't lie.

Re:Science is a belief system

[Yosho]

Fortunately, popular opinion does not decide what the truth is. What am I in the minority of in human history, anyway? If we're looking at all humans who have ever lived, no religion can claim to be a majority. Even within large, organized religions that rally together under a single label, there is considerable disagreement over what happens to a person after death. There has never been a majority consensus on the subject.

Also, you may change your mind when you are actually faced with death. Many people who believe like you very much think about it when death actually is imminent.

No, that's unlikely and also not true.
Here's some reading material.
I'll give you the short version: facing death typically only reinforces somebody's existing beliefs. Also, even if somebody does change their beliefs when they are scared and irrational, that does not mean their previous beliefs are wrong -- people frequently make poor decisions when scared and irrational. Also, you're really just reiterating the old "no atheists in foxholes" statement, which is insulting, condescending, and false.