It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
When you ask atheists about why they became atheists (as I do for a living), they often point to eureka moments when they came to realise that religion simply doesn’t make sense.
Oddly perhaps, many religious people actually take a similar view of atheism. This comes out when theologians and other theists speculate that it must be rather sad to be an atheist, lacking (as they think atheists do) so much of the philosophical, ethical, mythical and aesthetic fulfilments that religious people have access to – stuck in a cold world of rationality only.
The problem that any rational thinker needs to tackle, though, is that the science increasingly shows that atheists are no more rational than theists. Indeed, atheists are just as susceptible as the next person to “group-think” and other non-rational forms of cognition. For example, religious and nonreligious people alike can end up following charismatic individuals without questioning them. And our minds often prefer righteousness over truth, as the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has explored.
Even atheist beliefs themselves have much less to do with rational inquiry than atheists often think. We now know, for example, that nonreligious children of religious parents cast off their beliefs for reasons that have little to do with intellectual reasoning. The latest cognitive research shows that the decisive factor is learning from what parents do rather than from what they say. So if a parent says that they’re Christian, but they’ve fallen out of the habit of doing the things they say should matter – such as praying or going to church – their kids simply don’t buy the idea that religion makes sense.
This is perfectly rational in a sense, but children aren’t processing this on a cognitive level. Throughout our evolutionary history, humans have often lacked the time to scrutinise and weigh up the evidence – needing to make quick assessments. That means that children to some extent just absorb the crucial information, which in this case is that religious belief doesn’t appear to matter in the way that parents are saying it does.
Children’s choices often aren’t based on rational thinking. Photo by Anna Nahabed/Shutterstock
Even older children and adolescents who actually ponder the topic of religion may not be approaching it as independently as they think. Emerging research is demonstrating that atheist parents (and others) pass on their beliefs to their children in a similar way to religious parents – through sharing their culture as much as their arguments.
Some parents take the view that their children should choose their beliefs for themselves, but what they then do is pass on certain ways of thinking about religion, like the idea that religion is a matter of choice rather than divine truth. It’s not surprising that almost all of these children – 95% – end up “choosing” to be atheist.
But are atheists more likely to embrace science than religious people?
Many belief systems can be more or less closely integrated with scientific knowledge. Some belief systems are openly critical of science, and think it has far too much sway over our lives, while other belief systems are hugely concerned to learn about and respond to scientific knowledge.
But this difference doesn’t neatly map onto whether you are religious or not. Some Protestant traditions, for example, see rationality or scientific thinking as central to their religious lives. Meanwhile, a new generation of postmodern atheists highlight the limits of human knowledge, and see scientific knowledge as hugely limited, problematic even, especially when it comes to existential and ethical questions. These atheists might, for example, follow thinkers like Charles Baudelaire in the view that true knowledge is only found in artistic expression.
Science can give us existential fulfillment, too. Photo by Vladimir Pustovit/Creative Commons
And while many atheists do like to think of themselves as pro science, science and technology itself can sometimes be the basis of religious thinking or beliefs, or something very much like it. For example, the rise of the transhumanist movement, which centres on the belief that humans can and should transcend their current natural state and limitations through the use of technology, is an example of how technological innovation is driving the emergence of new movements that have much in common with religiosity.
Even for those atheists sceptical of transhumanism, the role of science isn’t only about rationality – it can provide the philosophical, ethical, mythical and aesthetic fulfilments that religious beliefs do for others. The science of the biological world, for example, is much more than a topic of intellectual curiosity – for some atheists, it provides meaning and comfort in much the same way that belief in God can for theists. Psychologists show that belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety, just as religious beliefs intensify for theists in these situations.
Clearly, the idea that being atheist is down to rationality alone is starting to look distinctly irrational. But the good news for all concerned is that rationality is overrated. Human ingenuity rests on a lot more than rational thinking. As Haidt says of “the righteous mind”, we are actually “designed to ‘do’ morality” – even if we’re not doing it in the rational way we think we are. The ability to make quick decisions, follow our passions and act on intuition are also important human qualities and crucial for our success.
It is helpful that we have invented something that, unlike our minds, is rational and evidence-based: science. When we need proper evidence, science can very often provide it – as long as the topic is testable. Importantly, the scientific evidence does not tend to support the view that atheism is about rational thought and theism is about existential fulfilments. The truth is that humans are not like science – none of us get by without irrational action, nor without sources of existential meaning and comfort. Fortunately, though, nobody has to. "
Amendment IV – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Whether you are a US citizen or not
● Consensual – casual conversation
○ Evidence level required – Zero
○ Freedom to leave – yes
○ ID required – no
○ Legal search – plain sight or consensual
○ Example: Officer knocks on door to ask if you saw anything
● Investigative Detention- Temporary detainment for further info.
○ Evidence level required – Reasonable Articulable Suspicion
■ Visible paraphernalia (Ziplocks, rolling papers, pipes)
■ Tools for B&E (Crowbar, slim jim, weapons)
■ Profiling (Paper tag, DARE/Police decals, College attire, Gangster attire)
○ Freedom to leave – no (approx. 15-20 minute max)
○ ID required – not in 26 states (exception: you’re a driver)
○ Legal search: frisk, plain sight, or consensual
○ Example: Officer sees you wearing a ski mask at night.
● Arrest – Taken into police custody
○ Evidence level required – Probable Cause or warrant
○ Freedom to leave – no
○ ID required – yes
○ Legal search: frisk, plain sight, consensual, or warrant
○ Example: Officer catches you breaking and entering
Best Practices to Exercising Your Rights Safely
○ Always be polite, respectful, and keep hands visible
■ Reduce Exposure to Suspicion
● Crack door/window unless ordered to open fully
○ Clarify it’s an order, a request is not an order.
● Keep questionable items out of plain sight:
○ prescription bottles / medicine
○ hookahs
○ rolling papers
○ measuring scale
○ firearms/weapons
■ Ask to leave often
● Omitting to ask = voluntarily staying
■ Ask for cause
● Officers must articulate observed suspicions
■ If requested to do anything, clarify you will if it’s “an order”
■ Record or immediately write down your encounter
● **disclaimer: Audio and video recording laws differ state by state
■ Report any violations of your rights
○ NEVER:
■ Lie or give false documents
■ Answer questions
■ Give permission to a search without fully reading a warrant
■ Argue, resist, run, or obstruct– even if your rights are being violated
○ Filming your encounter with police:
■ You may video and audio record police performing official duties in public.
● Officer may NOT:
○ Confiscate, demand to view, or delete without a warrant.
Individual may NOT:
■ Interfere with the officers’ duty [ex. “stand back!” do so]
■ Physically resist– if officer reaches for your device, do not resist, just report it.
Tricky Police: Police may legally lie, bluff, and intimidate you.
○ Most avoidable arrests occur from trickery and intimidation:
■ admission of guilt
■ consenting to a search.
○ Refusing a search or to answer incriminating questions are not:v
■ admissions of guilt
■ reasons to detain you
○ Miranda Rights are read only in “police custody”
■ visual: handcuffs
○ Common Police tricks:
■ Phrasing:
● “Have you had anything to drink tonight?”
○ Best response: “Respectfully officer, I don’t have to answer that.”
● “Not answering is suspicious, why are you resisting?”
○ Best Answer: “I’m not resisting, respectfully, I don’t have to answer anything.”
● “If you have nothing to hide, you don’t mind if I look around.”
○ Best response: “I’m sorry Officer, but I don’t consent to searches.”
● “If you refuse a search, I’ll have to call a K-9 unit.”
○ Best response: “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”
Breath Tests to Determine BAC
○ Do you HAVE to take it? No, you have the right to refuse.
■ Be warned, refusal is an automatic, irreversible suspension of license (in every state)
○ Blood tests are more accurate, and require a warrant
○ Breathalyzers are tuned to the “avg” person
■ False positive factors:
● Smaller people
● Small lung capacity
● Diabetes
● Acid Reflux (GERD)
● Low-Carb Diet
● Inhalers
● Fumes (ex. paint, Ethanol gas)
● Roadblocks
○ DUI – Legality: protection from “imminent public danger”
■ Same rules as any other traffic stop
Border Patrol
■ Legal search – Agents may legally search anything without warrant
○ Drugs (It’s a Trap!)
■ The Supreme Court ruled random checkpoints for finding drugs are unconstitutional.
● “We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.”
● “Drug Checkpoint in 1 Mile” [sign] is a police trap, do NOT exit.
○ (visual of the sign near an exit cops/dogs are at exit, not 1 mile down)
○ Pull people over for:
■ Illegal U-Turns
■ Littering
■ Suspiciously exiting "