“HERE’s a fact to flatter the unbelievers among you: the bright young things at the University of Oxford are among the most godless groups ever studied in the UK. Of 728 students surveyed in 2007, 48.9 per cent claimed not to believe in any god, with 49.6 per cent claiming no religious affiliation. And while a very small number of Britons typically label themselves as “atheist” or “agnostic” (most surveys put it at about 5 per cent), an astonishing 57.3 per cent of the Oxford sample did.
This may come as no surprise. After all, atheism is the natural stance of the educated and the informed, is it not? It is only to be expected that Oxford students should be wise to what their own professor Richard Dawkins calls “self-indulgent, thought-denying skyhookery” – and others call “faith”. The old Enlightenment caricature, it seems, is true after all: where Reason reigns, God retires.
Of course, things are never quite that simple. Within the sample, for instance, the postgraduates (that is, the even-better educated) were notably more religious than the undergraduates, in terms of both belief in God and self-description. Although the greater number of non-Europeans in the postgraduate population is almost certainly a significant factor here, evidence from elsewhere backs the idea that there is no straightforward relationship between atheism and education.”
Read more at New Scientist (thanks, Tiram)
Hang on… so 49% don’t believe in god, and 57% are atheist/agnostic. That must mean around 8% of the atheist/agnostics DO believe in a god. HUH? For clever people it seems that a few of them have major cognitive dissonance problems.
I think it’s more to do with age. I’m currently in High School and the majority of peope I know are atheist or agnostic. The same goes for overgraduates – they’re older so are more religious. I think it’s more of a generational thing.
I think a disbelief in a god is better described as agnosticism. Atheism seems to me to imply a certainty I don’t share. Personally I subscribe to the sort of multi-valued ‘maybe logic’ favoured by the late Robert Anton Wilson; instead of true or false, he suggested a range of infinitely-valued maybes between the never attainable absolutes of true and false. In other words, you can be pretty damn sure about some things, but there is always a small (sometimes tiny) doubt. This also gives us more wriggle-room to change our opinions should further evidence becomes available, as science suggests we should. Some propositions are indeterminate: it is impossible to imagine an experiment that could prove or disprove them. I suggest the existence of a god is such a proposition.
FNORD!
If it’s an age thing, it’s the reverse for me. That uncomfortable feeling I had as a child of thinking I was missing something that others “got” has completely gone! This is confirmed daily by the intelligent people who I respect who also call themselves atheists.
In my opinion (and this is just my opinion,) anyone who claims to ‘know’ about the existence of God either way is stupid. Because they don’t know. Nobody does.
What is an overgraduate? Is it somebody who has graduated too much?
It is not a generation thing. It has to do with how uncomfortably close to death you feel. Even intelligent, educated people cling to stupid notions when the cold breeze of mortality tickles the hairs on the backs of their intelligent knecks.
Oh, and, atheism isn’t a certainty. If you said that you didn’t believe in gfrgle one could not claim that that was a certainty. Atheism is simple the condition of being without a god. It isn’t a label or a beliefe or a creed. It is the natural, unencumbered condition of an intelligent mind before an unsubstantiated, indemonstrable and highly unlikely proposition: that there is a thing called a god which cen be neither described nor located.
Well I was a Christian for 20 years (a long time ago now) and I can confirm that there are many very intelligent people in this and other faiths. We need a better study of just what are the hooks that bring people into religions (there are several) and what are the mechanisms that keep intelligent people in there. No two people are the same so it’s not a trivial study, but many of those who have never believed can be quite dismissive about the whole thing. In being dismissive we miss opportunities to help people out of religion and to prevent others falling in.
@Paul Theism/Atheism and Gnosticism/Agnosticism deal with different things. Theism/Atheism deals with belief. I am an Atheist, I do not believe in a God or gods. This belief does not require proof, it’s just your personal belief. Gnosticism/Agnosticism deals with knowledge. I do not have positive proof that God or gods do not exist, therefore I am (also) agnostic. I am therefore an agnostic atheist. Interestingly most believers should be correctly classified as agnostic theists, i.e. they don’t have positive proof. If they did then the proof would be self evident and there would be little debate left.
What would constitute positive proof of the existence of God/gods is an interesting debate in itself, which I shan’t go into here as it’s off-topic.
The piece from Hamlet is jyst as relevant now as ever before. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. None of us knows a definite answer and we would be indeed foolish to say we did
I stopped believing in God after reading Derren’s book, in fact I stopped believing in anything that had not been scientifically prove,d which does puts in direct conflict with my sister who practices alternative medicine. But I do think that being a non believer makes you more responsible for your own life because you can’t blame God or fate for your life. You are only here once so you have to appreciate the life you’ve been given and do the best you can.
About the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism:
Agnosticism is the only philosophically correct rational-logical proposition. It is impossible to prove the existence of a God, as it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a God, similiar to disprove that *all* ravens are black.
But for my daily life, Atheism is the best choice. Here I argue with propabilities: I have to make decisions, every minute, without knowing 100% of facts. Thats human life, to cope with uncertainties, and therefore sentences like “All ravens are black” are correct, in probabilistic meaning. The available evidence (plenty of it) points very clearly in one direction: Everything is best explained when there is no God. I’d like to call this “de-facto Atheism”.
Don’t athiests come from God too?
Naahhhh, i’m joking
athiests come from their mummy just like everyone else! 
@Paul: agnosticism is not in the middle between atheism and theism. Agnosticism is opposite to gnosticism which both relate to general \\\”being able to know\\\”. You can be atheist agnostic, atheist gnostic, theist agnostic and theist gnostic the same way you can be liberal theist, conservative atheist, anarchist gnostic etc. Different characteristics.
being certain doesn’t negate the ability to change your mind later based on new evidence.
But personally considering myself atheist is a practicality thing, if you say agnostic then people think that you are confused or don’t know at all, or that you give equal credit to each of the popular beliefs, and not that based on a logical determination the likelihood of any specific god existing is around 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001. So I round down and call myself atheist, it doesn’t mean I’m not open to the possibility, but I’m certainly not going to devote my life to trying to be sure, or loose any sleep over the question.
Athesits know ‘he’ doesn’t exist. So why the ‘probably’ in the ad? Did the not get imto bother for that?
Paul says:
“Atheism seems to me to imply a certainty I don’t share”
————
It’s funny but to most self-described atheists, it doesn’t. Probably because most of us realise you can’t prove a negative.
For me as an atheist – and for most atheists I’ve ever conversed with – atheism means no more than the LACK of a belief in God or gods.
Yet agnostics and theists continue to portray atheism as what is known as “strong atheism” (that is, a positive belief that God/gods don’t exist).
Anyone calling for “wriggle room” would presumably call for the same on the matter of the existence of demons, fairies, the flying spaghetti monster and so on? Are you agnostic about those things?
Slugsie, you really need to re-read the syntax and context of the above statistics. 57% identify as either atheist or agnostic. 49% are self-professed atheists. This leaves us with the obvious conclusion that 8% of the sample is agnostic. 43% are neither.
C’mon guys. Let’s do the math right, and leave insults about cognitive dissonance (or insults involving any other subject) to the young and the immature.
I’m with Torgwen (#5) on this one. Growing up, I also never “got” what others were feeling and telling me to feel. When people ask why I don’t believe in any higher powers, I explain to them that I was born that way, as if the religion center in my brain is defaulted to its “off” position. As a rational person, I can analyze things and say there are probably no gods, but after 32 years of trusting my mind and my “gut”, it would take extraordinary evidence to change how I feel, and how I am hard- wired.
And numbers are subjective, questions are subjective. Certainly definitions of “atheism” and “agnosticism” are personally subjective. Numbers are fun, but they’re not the whole story.
Replace “god” by “Father Christmas” I’m sure the majority reading this believed in Father Christmas at one time. Can anyone prove that Father Christmas does or does not exist?
By atheism I mean, “the doctrine or belief that there is no God”, and by agnosticism I mean “the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge”(both from Princeton). I very strongly doubt the existence of the spaghetti monster, and for all practical purposes I behave as if I believe it doesn’t exist, of course. This is of more than a philosophical stance; humans have a tendency, or an emotional need for certainty, and I think our certainty is often premature. Once we have acquired a belief, we tend to ignore or distort data that don’t fit that belief, and over- emphasize data that do fit our belief. “My goal is to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone, but agnosticism about everything. ” Robert Anton Wilson
Labels, labels……too many labels. IMO, We should just do away entirely with the term agnostic. These people are just “on the fence”. Years ago someone once said to me, “Be something, don’t be Agnostic. Pick a side where your beliefs fall and go there.” Well the wind (and there was barely a breeze) blew me over to the Atheists. I guess it’s something I’ve always known but just couldn’t commit to for social or family reasons. I wonder if this is true for other Agnostics. I suspect so.
I don’t get the people who say things like “I don’t like the term ‘atheist’ because it implies certainty.” If you feel that way, then I don’t think that words means what you think it means. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods (any of them) (that’s it). It doesn’t imply, nor state, certainty of any kind it is only in regards to beliefs. So you need to correct your definition of the word.
To take that one step further, I can honestly say, “There are no gods.” In the same way I say “there are no leprechauns/fairies/psychics/celestial teapots/etc.” There is the same amount of evidence for all of those…none. I am also fully capable of changing my mind if proper evidence is presented.
The I-don’t-want-to-be-associated-with-the-word-atheist attitude is cowardly & as defined, incorrect
I may be agnostic about whether someone exists until I meet them. Then I become sure. That is what being a follower of Jesus is about – I’ve experienced Jesus, seen his power at work, seen miracles – so I would be denying good evidence if I were to ignore it. Can I prove it? Only to myself. But the evidence puts it well beyond reasonable doubt for me.
I have an atheist acquaintance who completely rejects any idea of Deity, but when things go pear-shaped, the first words out of her mouth are ‘Oh my God!’.
@Neil – Thats common. Phrases such as: “Oh my god! “or “god damn it!” or simply when in a defeated state for argument sakes: “::sigh:: god…you’re such an idiot” – are all very common phrases that people have adapted into their speech. It doesn’t indicate their religious preference. It is simply a product of socialization and peer interaction which produces such exclamations. Yet, if you look at Muslim raised individuals, I’m sure you will not find many people who say “oh my god!” when frustrated or alarmed. Society shaped your behavior. USA is known for it’s high-level of Christians, therefore, using “god” as a remark to show your uttmost alarm, anger, etc, then ‘god’ (being infinite, supposably), seems to be a fitting use of application. I’m an athiest and I also say ‘oh my god’. Guilty
People can believe anything they want. I can believe that Penelope Cruz is heartbroken I haven’t called her. What you really need to ask is it true? As scholars more worldly then me have stated for centuries, we do not have to prove that God does not exist, (can’t prove a negative). What we need to do is have someone take the time to prove God does exist. That is hypothesis that needs to be tested. When there is proof of God’s existance (good luck finding any) then the dialogue can begin. But so what, any social contract we have with others in our own state or internationally have developed and expanded completely in the temporal, phenomenal world and go well beyond what even the old bronze age scriptures had written down. That’s so 2 millenium ago!
“After all, atheism is the natural stance of the educated and the informed, is it not?”
The simple answer to that question is no. I would say it is the uneducated and uniformed who do not believe in God, and the same goes for many of those in the so-called mainstream religions who atheists often debate and have problems with. Unfortunately if the bible is meant to be the word of God and you dilute it so much with human ideology, philosophy and interpretation especially to promote doctrine. Then much like dilute orange squash not only does it lose the strength it is meant to have, it becomes weak and unpalatable. The sort of arguments those representing the bible often use in defence of their beliefs, its no wonder people are leaving religious beliefs behind with such erroneous fallacies.