From an article in Vox entitled How many American atheists are there really?
How to find “closet atheists”
So if you can’t ask people outright whether they’re atheist and get an honest response, how do you go about finding them?
Gervais and Najle set up a very subtle test. They sent a nationally representative poll to 2,000 Americans, who were randomly assigned to two conditions.
The first condition asked participants to read through a bunch of statements like, “I am a vegetarian,” “I own a dog,” and, “I have a dishwasher in my kitchen.”
All the participants had to do was simply write down the number of statements that were true for them.
The value of this method is that participants don’t have to directly say, “I am a vegetarian,” or, “I’m a dog owner” — they only have to acknowledge the number of statements that apply to them. That alone should zero out any embarrassment or hesitance to admit to a particular item.
That’s important because the other 1,000 or so participants saw the exact same list — but with one statement added: “I believe in God.”
By comparing the responses between the two groups, Gervais and Najle could then estimate how many people don’t believe in God. (Because both groups of 1,000 poll takers should, in theory, have the same number of vegetarians, dog owners, and so on in each group, any increases in the number of agreed-to statements from the first group to the second should be reflective of the number of people who don’t believe in God.)
One thing is clear from the results: Much more than 10 or 11 percent of the country (as assessed in Gallup and Pew polling) does not believe in God. “We can say with a 99 percent probability that it’s higher than [11 percent],” said Gervais.
His best estimate: Around 26 percent of Americans don’t believe in God. “According to our samples, about 1 in 3 atheists in our country don’t feel comfortable disclosing their lack of belief,” Najle explains in an email.
Gervais admits this method isn’t perfect, and yields an answer with a wide margin of error. (On the other end of the margin of error, around 35 percent of Americans don’t believe in God.) But the most fundamental question he and Najle are asking here is do polling firms like Gallup and Pew undercount atheists? And it seems the answer is yes.
Just ask if similar effects have similar causes in biology.
According to UD, evil atheists actually believe that, contrary to all sense, while proper theists know that the patterns of similarities and differences on the smaller scale are merely due to chance and maybe natural selection, and that on the larger scale it’s due to design. Design and evolution produce similar effects, you know, except for the requisite poofs detected by really big numbers.
Then again, rationality might do better in this area than does the denialism of the ignorant and hard of thinking.
Glen Davidson
Methinks professor Gervais has a bone to pick…
Robin,
He’s just making the same point as in the diagram that Patrick used to post: that atheism and agnosticism are orthogonal to each other, not points on the same continuum.
Walto loves that diagram and will be happy to be reminded of it.
One thing I’m not agnostic about is whether I have any idea what he’s trying to say there.
“One can be agnostic while being either a theist or an atheist. One can NOT be agnostic while being either a theist or an atheist.”
I’d want a bit clearer definition of all these terms. We have “strong atheist” who claims there are no gods at all. Then we have “non-theists” who don’t give this matter much thought because they don’t care. Then there are atheists, who don’t worship any gods and think those who do are worshiping their own imagination. Next are the agnostics, who do not know the nature of any gods and don’t believe you do either. Then there are the rationalists, who claim to be open to gods given adequate evidence, while having defined “evidence” in such a way that gods (as widely understood) cannot qualify.
In this scheme, I’d lump those who do NOT check “I believe in god” mostly in with the nontheists – those who don’t care about gods and don’t care to be bothered by those who do.
Does it distinguish between I do not believe and I disbelieve?
Between I do not believe god exists and i believe god does not exist?
I think you’re missing Gervais’ nuanced grammar there. Note he used “can NOT”, not “cannot”. In other words, Gervais is noting that one can be agnostic while being either theist or atheist, but one does not have to be agnostic at all.
Yes–I think you’re right! Thanks.
I think that this is an ingenious way to obtain information that people would be hesitant about providing. I can see the value in applying this in other ways.
Gervais treats it as perfectly obvious (dare I say ‘self-evident’?) that the theism and atheism are metaphysical positions. I’m not at all sure of that.
If I say that I’m an atheist because I think no one has yet marshaled the requisite argument and/or evidence for establishing that one is entitled to assert that God exists, isn’t that an epistemological position?
Though it’s quite true that the content of the belief involves an existence claim, I’m not sure that’s enough to demarcate metaphysics and epistemology. (Generally speaking I’m against demarcating the two.)
I worry about how Gervais is using “agnostic” and “gnostic” here. Ordinarily this turns on the absence or presence of knowledge. But the use of Russell or Dawkins as ‘agnostic atheists’ only makes sense if knowledge is certainty. Since they are not certain that God does not exist, then they would be agnostics (lacking knowledge whether God exists or not) only if knowledge required certainty.
But surely we should reject the idea that knowledge is or requires certainty! Since certainty is impossible in all empirical claims that go beyond the immediate testimony of the senses — as Hume was the first to point out — then if knowledge requires certainty, then no scientist knows anything at all.
I submit that there’s a problem in one’s epistemology when one has set up the terms in such a way that no empirical science counts as knowledge.
But if science counts as knowledge, and all scientific knowledge is provisional, fallible, etc and yet still counts as knowledge, then knowledge doesn’t require certainty, which means that the distinction between agnostics and gnostics isn’t about certainty. Or, if it’s about certainty, then it’s not about knowledge.
The contrast between Paley/Aquinas vs Kierkegaard suggests a different confusion. What distinguishes Paley and Aquinas from Kierkegaard is that Paley and Aquinas, but not Kierkegaard, think that it is reasonable to believe in God — and indeed, they have arguments. Kierkegaard’s whole point is that faith is an inward passionate commitment that is not about any argument or evidence at all. (He does think that the leap of faith is informed by reflection, but more precisely, it’s informed by reflection on what argument and evidence cannot do.)
But surely Russell doesn’t think that his atheism is a leap of faith without any argument or evidence! He thinks that the preponderance of argument and evidence leans strongly towards the non-existence of God. He lacks certainty, sure, but it’s not as if he’s just making a Kierkegaardian leap of faith.
In that sense, Russell is just as much of a ‘gnostic’ as Paley and Aquinas are. A genuinely ‘agnostic atheist’ in that sense of ‘agnostic’ — someone who took a leap of faith into atheism — would be someone more like Camus or perhaps Nietzsche.
Kantian Naturalist,
What is his argument for the non-existence of God?
I can give my own answer here.
That if God exists, we should expect to find much better evidence of this, than visions by people with epileptic seizures, lunatics drooling in tongues, and very old books with grandiose but unsubstantiated claims. Some of which are even known to be patently false.
Given that we fail to find what we expect to find, there probably isn’t the kind of God that is claimed to exist. In the same way that if there’s an Elephant in my apartment, we should expect to find it, so when we don’t find it, there problably isn’t an Elephant in my apartment.
Why are the atheists so afraid if its true they are in the closet?
This is not a pro God society.
I don’t think its that high. Incompetent polling.
Did it ask these questions based on how smart the people were. The smarter should be the more believer type.
The jails are full of atheists. They are full of the dumber sort too.
Rumraket,
I think the situation is worse than that, myself, Rum–at least for the xtian version. It’s nonsensical. While I suppose it’s not utterly impossible to imagine evidence for it (we had at least one thread on that), it certainly does (and ought to) strain the credulity of any adult alive in the 21st century. It’s hard for me to understand how there can be as much discussion of it as there is here, actually. Extremely weird (though admittedley not in the sense of unusual) upbringings, I guess.
To me, it’s a really silly thesis–not much different from that of the flying spaghetti monster.
walto,
The claim has to establish that the universe was not the product of intelligent creation. I hear your assertion but do you really think you have an argument here that supports that atoms matter and life were the result of random chance?
walto,
I found Bertrand Russells claim on first cause.
There is no reason is an unsupported claim and false given that Aquinas has given a reason for his argument. Tell me there is more to atheism then this 🙂
What a complete and utter nonsense claim. Is that a religious claim you are making, that you know what we should expect to see if a God existed?
What is that sentenced based on, other than nothing?
Maybe what you should expect to find, if there was a God, is a world with laws in it. Maybe what you should expect to find, if there was a God, is a planet, which keeps constant spinning around an energy source, which provides life to millions of kinds of organisms. Maybe what you should expect to find, if there was a God, is organisms smart enough to take two wheels, attach them to a frame, then use the laws of physics to make those wheels spin in such a way that they can maintain perfect balance and control those two wheels to explore almost anywhere within that magical world that we should expect to see if there was a God.
Maybe what we should expect to see, if there was a God, is things that have the mental ability to think about that God. Maybe what we should expect to see, if there was a God, is living things that can write about that God, and other living things be able to perceive what is meant by those writings.
Or if I wrote like you, I should say, maybe what we should expect to see, if there was a God, is morons like you who make up things we should expect to see if there was a God, and others who can spot that moron. But since I DON”T write like you, I should just write, poppycock!
Only if you have good evidence to show that it might have been.
So far, nothing of the kind.
Glen Davidson
phoodoo,
Why? Can’t your god make a world with no laws in it? It is too weak to do that?
If by “expect” you mean “predict”, then it’s not much of a prediction if what you’re predicting is everything that you already know to be the case.
What you would need to show is that the theistic explanation of these phenomena is a better explanation than the non-theistic explanation of these phenomena.
Good luck with that.
In any event, I’d only intervened above to complain about Gervais’s use of “agnostic’ and “gnostic.”
Now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering!
Do you even get that it was Rumraket who said he knows what we should expect to see if there was a God?
You wrote this entire paragraph to me? What should one expect OR predict to see, if there was a God? You have an answer for that? Apparently Rumraket does. How? Who knows?
What is the non-theistic explanation? As far as I know there isn’t one.
Of course I know you have your catchall, “well, its what happens when things are.”
No, of course it doesn’t. That’ s completely backwards, a silly attempt at a burden shift.
I’m curious–Have those sorts of blatant fallacies ever convinced anybody you’ve conversed with?
The first cause argument is not an argument for the xtian god. In fact, it may even contradict it. I suppose you’re so hard-up for a god, you’ll take anything, but my post was about the xtian god, if you’d care to look. In any case, you have the burden, not Russell or me. It’s not enough to give “a reason”–it has to be a good, convincing reason.
Furthermore, in the case of the xtian god, the whole concept is, as I said, wildly ridiculous. Aquinas’ argument couldn’t do it even if it DID convince.
Sorry to pile on, phoodoo but that makes no sense. I’m a non-theist who cannot recall ever being taken with the idea of the God I was presented with as a young child. I don’t think that that God exists except as a human construct. Why would I need to explain that God? How could I explain that God? Why would I have need of such an explanation?
PS @ phoodoo, an explanation needs an explanandum. With God, there are no phenomena to explain, no entailments to test (excluding such things as YEC claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old which is testable).
Alan, “quoting” phoodoo:
That’s not the question phoodoo is asking, as the context makes clear:
phoodoo:
KN:
phoodoo:
walto,
The original request was, what was Bertrand Russel’s argument for atheism? So a burden of proof shift is not relevant since the discussion is about a specific argument Atheism. You were kind enough to give yours.
I think you might have misunderstood the context of Phoodoo’s question to KN, Alan. KN was noting that in order for Phoodoo’s description of what we might expect if there is a god to have any validity, Phoodoo would first need to show that the non-theistic explanation for those items in the description is not as good as the theist explanation. Phoodoo, of course, questions whether there is a non-theistic explanation for things like a world with laws, a planet spinning around an energy source, and so forth. And of course there are a number of non-theistic explanations. The multiverse is one explanation. Douglas Adams’ Fine-tuned Pothole Retort is another.
walto,
Can you support the claim the first cause argument contradicts the existence of God?
Again the original discussion was a logical support for Atheism.
Unless you can support the claim that it is ridiculous by making this statement you are reasoning in a circle.
This is similar to the personal incredulity claim made against creationists. You have been unable to make any real argument and you are a smart guy.
This is very telling to me. Is all we have here Keith’s argument from evil?
NOT THE NON-THEISTIC EXPLANATION FOR GOD! Go back and reread. The non-theistic explanation for all the things mentioned. KN is asking whether a theistic or non-theistic explanation makes more sense for the phenomenon in the world. He is not asking if a theist or non-theist explanation makes more sense for the existence of God for crying out loud.
Why did you add (for God) in my quote as if that was what was asked?
walto,
The evidence for the xtian God is historic. If you want to explore an argument for the historic validity read A Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
I’m sorry, but one can’t draw any conclusions from historical data. We’re going to need direct experimental evidence before we can conclude that the Christian God exists.
Bill “Double Standards” Cole.
I am utterly dumbfounded by claims like this. Do you really not get that such a statement actually undermines the validity of any sort of Christian god concept?
Hint: If the best evidence for some god is historic, how “omni” anything can it be?
So…completely unconvincing.
Glen Davidson
Speaking of double standards:
phoodoo:
…asks the guy who presumes to know that God is loving.
keiths,
There are two standards as there should be. A standard for a scientific claim and a standard for a historical claim. The problem surfaces when you use a historical standard and claim you have a good scientific case.
Robin,
I am not sure how your logic works here but a resurrection is pretty good evidence something “omni” is behind the scenes. Actually the existence of humans is pretty good evidence that something “omni” is behind the scenes.
I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you’re asking. And no idea what your post is asserting either. There are no “proofs” for the truth of atheism. I don’t know what that would mean. The xtian god is silly (almost beyond recognition) but I suppose not precisely self-contradictory. There’s no burden on atheists to prove anything.
Apologies!
Because I didn’t bother to read the thread and added an interpretation that was unwarranted. My mistake.
Alan,
Good on you for acknowledging that!
colewd:
Robin,
If…
Is it the modified quadruped ape skeleton, the vestigial hairs and tail vertebrae, or the lack of intelligence to give humans bird testes that can take high temps, more efficient bird lungs, or better bird eyes?
Omni means ignoring better ideas, or what?
Glen Davidson
Hold the phone…you don’t have “a resurrection” as evidence. You have a “claim of a resurrection” as evidence. Big difference. HUGE.
In point of fact, at this stage, you really only have a fable or narrative of a resurrection, which really is no more valid as evidence than events claimed in Beowulf or the Iliad are.
…I mean…if we’re going to be consistent in terms of logic working here…
As for humans existing, unless you wish to just beg the question, such implies nothing about omni gods.
walto,
I agree with you no one can prove any belief but how do support the belief with either argument or evidence?
How have your reached this conclusion?
Robin,
I think you need to do some open minded homework before you make this claim.
Robin,
And your explanation how atoms originating from the big bang can build conscious humans that can build their own flying machines and robots?
I’ve actually done some rather extensive research on this subject. Be that as it may, unless you can produce a video or a real-time demonstration of someone getting up from being dead, you don’t have “a resurrection” as evidence, by definition. Seems to me all you have a biblical reference to a resurrection, which as noted is merely a claim of a resurrection.
Heck, if you could somehow meet up with me and introduce me to your friend named Jesus and he went and showed me some old scars in the shape of holes in his feet and hands, even THAT would not be evidence of a resurrection, let alone his resurrection. For one thing, it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate in any meaningful way that said friend was some 2000 years old.
You might want to examine this concept of “evidence” you have against how scholars actually use the term.
colewd,
When Jesus on the cross asked why god had forsaken him, did he not remember that that was the plan that he’d hatched with god in the first place? Furthermore, given that god is jesus, how come he did not just remember the plan in the first place?
Oh me, why have I forsaken me?
Nope, not silly at all.
Compounding emergent properties coupled with dynamical systems.
Happened!