2014 article in online science journal: "Atheists Might Not Exist"

[Whateverist]

So I am new to the source, "Science 2.0", but this is what they say is their mission.  "Create a place where world-class scientists write articles and discuss issues without being filtered by size or editorial limitations, where there are no political or cultural agendas, and the audience can read great science directly from the sources and maybe learn some new things."  I'd be grateful if those more in the know about science would give me their take on its legitimacy.

I'd be surprised if this article hasn't been posted about here before but I'm just now getting around to it so please bear with me.  Those of you who've heard me prattle on about what I think 'God/gods' really amount to (without falling asleep) will recognize why I would find it interesting.  I tend to think the inherent processes of the brain which give us conscious and unconscious states might very well be capable of giving us an internal relationship with a kindly and wise 'other'.  After all we are only the conscious element of a creative process we did not initiate and do not control.  Who is to say how consciousness may manifest or how our desires may feedback on the form in which consciousness is given?

Interestingly this article comes from someone academically linked to literature, not science. 

NARRATIVE PRESENCE

These theories find confirmation from a very different academic discipline—the literature department. The present writer, based at the Creativity Lab at Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s School of Design, has been looking at the manifestation of cosmic justice in fictional narratives—books, movies and games. It is clear that in almost all fictional worlds, God exists, whether the stories are written by people of a religious, atheist or indeterminate beliefs.
    It’s not that a deity appears directly in tales. It is that the fundamental basis of stories appears to be the link between the moral decisions made by the protagonists and the same characters’ ultimate destiny. The payback is always appropriate to the choices made. An unnamed, unidentified mechanism ensures that this is so, and is a fundamental element of stories—perhaps the fundamental element of narratives.

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_e...oke-139982

[vorlon13]

"True Christians" are an even rarer beastie.

[Minimalist]

"World class atheists?"

I'm striving for "no-class atheist!"

[zebo-the-fat]

Atheists might not exist?? I looked in the mirror, fairly sure I exist

[Simon Moon]

I remember reading that article, and loosing track of how many straw men the author builds.

Even the very first sentence is a straw man of atheism, and does even reflect Dawkins' position accurately.

Some of the comments below the article pretty much point out the fallacious nature of much of it.

[downbeatplumb]

---

So I am new to the source, "Science 2.0", but this is what they say is their mission.  "Create a place where world-class scientists write articles and discuss issues without being filtered by size or editorial limitations, where there are no political or cultural agendas, and the audience can read great science directly from the sources and maybe learn some new things."  I'd be grateful if those more in the know about science would give me their take on its legitimacy.

I'd be surprised if this article hasn't been posted about here before but I'm just now getting around to it so please bear with me.  Those of you who've heard me prattle on about what I think 'God/gods' really amount to (without falling asleep) will recognize why I would find it interesting.  I tend to think the inherent processes of the brain which give us conscious and unconscious states might very well be capable of giving us an internal relationship with a kindly and wise 'other'.  After all we are only the conscious element of a creative process we did not initiate and do not control.  Who is to say how consciousness may manifest or how our desires may feedback on the form in which consciousness is given?

Interestingly this article comes from someone academically linked to literature, not science. 

NARRATIVE PRESENCE

These theories find confirmation from a very different academic discipline—the literature department. The present writer, based at the Creativity Lab at Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s School of Design, has been looking at the manifestation of cosmic justice in fictional narratives—books, movies and games. It is clear that in almost all fictional worlds, God exists, whether the stories are written by people of a religious, atheist or indeterminate beliefs.
    It’s not that a deity appears directly in tales. It is that the fundamental basis of stories appears to be the link between the moral decisions made by the protagonists and the same characters’ ultimate destiny. The payback is always appropriate to the choices made. An unnamed, unidentified mechanism ensures that this is so, and is a fundamental element of stories—perhaps the fundamental element of narratives.

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_e...oke-139982

---

Pratchett called this "narrativium".http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Narrativium

[Excited Penguin]

It's times like these I wish the internet never escaped the print of bad science-fiction.

[Minimalist]

But think of all the fun we have here.

[Angrboda]

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order, and has high potential to result in fallacy, especially when used to rationalize people's misfortune on the grounds that they "deserve" it.

The hypothesis popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech that imply guaranteed negative reprisal, such as: "You got what was coming to you", "What goes around comes around", "chickens come home to roost", and "You reap what you sow". This hypothesis has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s.[1] Research has continued since then, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just-world beliefs.[2]

---

Early evidence

In 1966, Lerner and his colleagues began a series of experiments that used shock paradigms to investigate observer responses to victimization. In the first of these experiments conducted at the University of Kansas, 72 female subjects were made to watch a confederate receiving electrical shocks under a variety of conditions. Initially, subjects were upset by observing the apparent suffering. But as the suffering continued and observers remained unable to intervene, the observers began to derogate the victim. Derogation was greater when the observed suffering was greater. But when subjects were told the victim would receive compensation for her suffering, subjects did not derogate the victim.[4] Lerner and colleagues replicated these findings in subsequent studies, as did other researchers.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

[Alex K]

So I am new to the source, "Science 2.0", but this is what they say is their mission.  "Create a place where world-class scientists write articles and discuss issues without being filtered by size or editorial limitations, where there are no political or cultural agendas, and the audience can read great science directly from the sources and maybe learn some new things."  I'd be grateful if those more in the know about science would give me their take on its legitimacy.

I'd be surprised if this article hasn't been posted about here before but I'm just now getting around to it so please bear with me.  Those of you who've heard me prattle on about what I think 'God/gods' really amount to (without falling asleep) will recognize why I would find it interesting.  I tend to think the inherent processes of the brain which give us conscious and unconscious states might very well be capable of giving us an internal relationship with a kindly and wise 'other'.  After all we are only the conscious element of a creative process we did not initiate and do not control.  Who is to say how consciousness may manifest or how our desires may feedback on the form in which consciousness is given?

Interestingly this article comes from someone academically linked to literature, not science. 

NARRATIVE PRESENCE

These theories find confirmation from a very different academic discipline—the literature department. The present writer, based at the Creativity Lab at Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s School of Design, has been looking at the manifestation of cosmic justice in fictional narratives—books, movies and games. It is clear that in almost all fictional worlds, God exists, whether the stories are written by people of a religious, atheist or indeterminate beliefs.
    It’s not that a deity appears directly in tales. It is that the fundamental basis of stories appears to be the link between the moral decisions made by the protagonists and the same characters’ ultimate destiny. The payback is always appropriate to the choices made. An unnamed, unidentified mechanism ensures that this is so, and is a fundamental element of stories—perhaps the fundamental element of narratives.

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_e...oke-139982

Of course there is a god in all works of fiction - the author