Oxford University researchers will carry out a £2 million ($4.3 million) study into why people believe in God. The three-year study by anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics will consider whether belief in a divine being is an inherent part of human nature.

Project director Roger Trigg, acting head of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion, says anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world. “One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation.”

The news of this study was seemingly associated with another observation:

Recently I also came across New York University emeritus professor of psychology Paul Vitz’s arguments that – contra Freud – it may not be religious belief that is a neurosis but atheism.

Barney goes on to write…

Vitz says there is good reason to give only limited acceptance to Freud’s Oedipal theory. Instead, he works out a psychology of atheism based on the malign influence of the defective father.

Anyway, the post managed to spark yet another large collision of rants from atheists and the religious alike trying to talk “sense” into each other. I’m surprised Barney actually took time to reply to many of the 1000+ comments on his post, but I guess that’s his job.

Here’s the one that I accidentally stumbled upon by a Vicky K, it was after a whole bunch of other comments:

I am compelled to respond to some of your questions Barney as this is a topic that interests me greatly, mostly because of how much people attach their own ego to the question of whether or not God exists.

There is nothing that fascinates me more than the arrogance that convinces people of the omniscience of their own perspective.

I think I am equally as appalled by the atheist who clings to his/ her concept of “reality” and incorruptible and infallible reason, as I am by the fundamentalist religious right who cling to their “faith” and accept no argument.

Both tend to display a, shall we call it almost adolescent, need to be “right”. And both will quite often paint people of different persuasions in unflattering lights by creating straw men for themselves to knock down.

How much easy it is to knock down an immature, irrational person clinging desperately to an oedipal desire for a god-being, than one in which spirituality has evolved in a complex and carefully considered way. Or a person in whom spirituality and reason reside comfortably side-by-side.

And so we get these false discourses of irrationality versus rationality; of immaturity versus maturity and discussions of neuroses and wish-fullfilments.

Its all nonsense of course. The human psyche is far more complicated than that and it shows a remarkable lack of scientific curiosity to want to paint things so black and white.

I predict that the Oxford study might reveal that people, whether atheist or spiritual, may experience the world in different ways, but use much the same mechanical workings when it comes to how the brain works and the ins and outs of the human mind. I think this idea of one group of people having ownership over maturity of thought and another being simply the sum of their neuroses is a ridiculous fallacy, created only to serve those whom it flatters.

Having not read Vitz’s entire position, I cannot speak to it directly, but I will say that I have often noted with amusement the emotional foundation of the arguments of my most self-professed “rational” friends. The fact that they do not see this in themselves, or somehow believe that like the Vulcans of Star Trek, they have risen above their own natures, always strikes me as surprising. Is it a lack of introspection? Something else?

I choose to move through the world in an experiential rather than rational way. The difference between my position and that of the atheist is simply the lense through which I view the world. You will never hear me say, however, that an alternative lense is invalid. Nor do I waste my time trying to figure out what failure of their natures would send them on such a path. It seems to me as simple as saying we are different people, and the things that connect us far overwhelm these silly barriers we create between ourselves. I’m not arrogant enough to believe that my truth needs to be true for anyone but myself.

Sorry for the rambling post.

Here’s to that.

For me, I don’t particularly have time for Vitz’s comments. Perhaps I’m stating the obvious but I always thought that neurotic psychological barriers are a factor in everyone’s lives including their belief system and their behavior in and interpretation of the boundaries that they set for themselves, religious or not. Who cares what the mind “needs” and why does it matter if someone somewhere claims that the default position is being a turkey or a dolphin? Isn’t psychological neurosis present in everyone in some form? I’m sure this theory would somehow apply to some, maybe many people; but I don’t think it will help people become transparent to themselves in an attempt to find answers.

Barney says:

I am disposed to like Vitz’s theory to the extent that I have always felt there are subconscious and not strictly rational reasons (alongside rational ones) why people do or don’t believe. There’s some merit to the argument that if we confine ourselves to purely rational considerations, eliminating all others, the only acceptable position is agnosticism. But it’s a very human phenomenon to rationalise what we want to believe, one way or another.

I don’t disagree with Barney. At the same time I don’t feel that Vitz and/or suggestions regarding this study talk about anything truly new, apart from creating another (perhaps new) unhealthy polarized generalization about a default position in human nature and beliefs. I don’t see much usefulness in this intersection of psychology and religion or atheism. Honest introspection is something that’s been talked about so much over the years that it’s become very cliched – a sort of psychoanalysis of oneself – and it’s something that many people strive for but fail. It would be amazing and fascinating to be able to know why someone really believes in God and why another doesn’t, but I’m not even sure if it’s possible to understand why someone believes anything beyond a superficial level entrenched in many assumptions. I’d be interested to see how they find people to participate in their 2 million pound study.

What’s with this guy? I am glad though that he has a blog, because if I’m feeling a tad down, or stupid, I just click on Blogs 4 Brownback and laugh it up. More often that not the ridiculousness of many of his posts leads to an all out personal battle between him (and the few people that support him) and the rest of the blog community that manage to find the post.

This time, he said this:

Wow. I just found this. It’s amazing how easy it is to prove Darwinists wrong- even a child can do it!

Brian Benson, an eighth-grade student who won first place in the Life Science/Biology category for his project “Creation Wins!!!,” says he disproved part of the theory of evolution. Using a rolled-up paper towel suspended between two glasses of water with Epsom Salts, the paper towel formed stalactites. He states that the theory that they take millions of years to develop is incorrect.

“Scientists say it takes millions of years to form stalactites,” Benson said. “However, in only a couple of hours, I have formed stalactites just by using paper towel and Epsom Salts.”

I can’t wait to hear the atheists on this one. Beating up on an eighth-grader will be typical of their classy tactics to date. Then again, nobody likes to be outsmarted by a 13-year-old, especially not people with fancy degrees telling them they’re so much smarter than the rest of us.

Obviously a lot of people left comments asking this guy to shut up about science; many insultedhim based on amazingly valid reasons, but someone did stick up for the ridiculous author of the blog-post I’m talking about, and in comment 29 ”DPS” said:

I think you dimwitted liberals and heliofascists and vegans are just jealous that little Brian Benson is smarter than you. You secretly all wish that you had thought of his experiment, but since your brains are so addled with Darwinism and marijuana cigarettes and soy and recycling that it never even occurred to you. 

To which, “nobody” replied:

“I think you dimwitted liberals and heliofascists and vegans are just jealous that little Brian Benson is smarter than you. You secretly all wish that you had thought of his experiment, but since your brains are so addled with Darwinism and marijuana cigarettes and soy and recycling that it never even occurred to you.”

I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I’m not envious of the kid.

You don’t want your religion or beliefs insulted yet you have no problem calling people dimwitted, facists, and vegans (I’m not entirely sure how that last one is insulting).

I also don’t smoke (tobacco or marijuana) and never have. What’s so bad about soy? Briefly skimming the wikipedia article I see nothing that would indicate it is somehow bad or harmful. And what’s so bad about recycling? Are you saying that we should not recycle and instead just throw everything in landfills?

Well said I say!

It’s hilarious that a flawed blog-post about the flawed application of a experiment to caves which was somehow meant to disprove Darwin’s evolution theory, turned into a personal attack about soy milk and recycling – two things that clearly make one a heathen. What a hilarious blog; what a hilarious blog-post, what hilarious comments – what a hilarious conversation.

Perhaps he should stick to politics, or just shut up all together – but then I’d miss out on some laughter.

The second quote from this blog-post is really disturbing. Strange experiments that support scripture but are scientifically flawed seriously shouldn’t be encouraged. If anything, if science and religion disagree on a matter, children should be taught to question it – but not tricked into thinking that science and religion agree. They’ll be made into fools and ridiculed when they become older, and they’ll not have a leg to stand on when challenged by similar ideas by people who have different beliefs. They will not be taken seriously. Perhaps it will cause confusion in a child to be taught one thing in religion, and another by science, however it will allow them to come to conclusions that aren’t merely fabricated.

This is the funniest post I’ve ever read. I hurt from laughing. Oh, the humanity. You have to read it. The comments are somewhat amusing too. Apparently, the Earth doesn’t move because, for one reason at least, we can’t feel it moving.

What’s the difference between this fool, a Christian fundamentalist, who believes that the world doesn’t move and some of the Muslims fundamentalists that don’t believe (or do not acknowledge) that Israel exists. It’s funny and fascinating how people come to believe SOMETHING or anything. This blog post about heliocentrism must be a joke though.

The 222th comment, by packerwatch, on that blog post read: you’re stupid. just because we can’t FEEL the earth moving doesn’t mean its not you inbred dumbass. when you fly in a plane you don’t feel like you’re moving at 400 mph, you feel like you’re standing still. according to your ingenius observations, that means that the sky is actually flying past the stationary airplane. you are so stupid. and since we’re taking everything in the bible literally here, did you know that eating at Red Lobster is evil? and slavery is ok. you are a perfect example of why siblings shouldn’t have sex.

A blog post that talks about medicine that helps prevent a sexually transmitted disease for females, and the debates that surround the implementation of the vaccination in programs for women wanting the protection. I find it a bit arrogant to block vaccination programs based on a conservative view that is not shared by many in the community. The moral view of something like sex (as opposed to something like violence) greatly varies between people; therefore such a decision to block the implementation of vaccination programs to push a certain value system regarding such a morally hazy matter is unacceptable. The decision is supporting some communities within the larger American community and discriminating against other smaller communities who share different beliefs. So, is medicine a temptation which aids in giving way to other temptation?

Article found in this blog post is interesting when associated with ideas about right and wrong, if you bring it down to how the brain operates and facilitates such avenues of thought. So many ways to think about it – I mean if morality is down to how the brain functions, perhaps people need religion to give morality grounding (however brain function will impact interpretation in the same way, so again, right and wrong, and morality start to become hazy); similarly, given that brains are different, it is extremely unlikely (I want to use the word, impossible) that everyone will accept one ultimate system of belief. So, how will there ever be unity? Can there even be some sort of unity through acceptance?

Also interesting, a link to Wikipedia found in the comments to this blog post.

This is hilarious (and exciting). No doubt chunky people like me are waiting for stuff like this to hit the market, no, arrive in our mailboxes (because we’re lazy right) so that we can just sit on our bottoms and lose weight. I wonder what side effects this could produce… and if they can simply “switch on” and hopefully “switch off” (when you’re done losing weight). Permanently changing the genetic makeup of a newly born is cool, I’m curious how it could work as a tablet.

From GrinningPlannet.com