Are people born inherently atheist?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When "atheist" is defined as "a person who is not a theist", then there is necessarily no overlap between "atheist" and "theist"..

It's unclear, given the references to defining atheism in terms of a lack of belief, if this is indeed the definition of atheism, but perhaps if we start anew with the clearest definitions you've provided, it may help.

Also, it seems reasonable that atheism and theism should not overlap.

However, defining atheism this way means that in order to be an atheist, there must be a way to know one isn't a theist.

If we use only self-definitions, then one can believe in god and be an atheist as long as one believes one isn’t a theist. Clearly, in order to define an atheist as not a theist, we need to define a theist. It’s pretty uncontentious to say theists believe in god or gods.

The problem is what makes an atheist not a theist when the god a theist believes in, such as human beings or the sun, is something atheists believe in too? That is, if Joe says "I'm a theist" and Jill says "Well I'm an atheist", it follows that there is something that defines Joe as a theist and, lacking that something, Jill is an atheist. Let's say, like a fair number of people I've met, Joe's theism is particular people who have gone through stages of initiation and training without doing anything supernatural, claiming to have any supernatural powers, or in any other way asserting that what they are now makes them different in any scientific sense from the humans they don’t considered to be gods. There is in fact nothing about what Joe claims are his reasons to refer to himself as god that Jill doesn't believe in, nor is there a reason to for Jill to disbelieve. The only difference between what the two believe, in order for Jill to be an atheist, is that Joe refers to himself as god.

If Jill is defined as an atheist by not believing what theists do and (apart from a label Joe uses), there is no belief that Joe (a theist) holds about any entity that Jill doesn’t hold as well, then how do we determine Jill is an atheist? We could say Joe’s mistaken, but it has been argued here that we cannot deny Joe's self-designation. So the only thing that can ensure Jill is an atheist is the label, as there is no property Joe has she doesn't believe exists, no entity Joe believes in but Jill does not, nor anything else but a word.

If we are forced to accept the self-designation of those like Joe such that we affirm he is a theist, and are likewise forced to ensure that, in order to be an atheist, Jill must not be a theist, then Jill believes everything about Joe's god that Joe himself does, she just doesn't use that word.

This already makes atheism meaningless, but there are more problems. Because the only motivation we are given so far of Jill's reluctance to use the term "god" to refer to Joe is that she is an atheist. Presumably, though, if an atheist were presented with enough evidence of god they would believe. Because Jill, as an atheist, is defined by not being a theist (and theists are defined by believing in god or gods), she’s found a theist whose god she believes in. In fact, as there really are people like Joe, every atheist believes in gods (if, that is, we accept that no matter the nature of the entities a theist refers to as god or gods, that self-designation satisfies the definition). If Jill has no beliefs about gods, and is now presented with one whom her definition of theism demands be considered a god, why doesn't this evidence convince here there are gods? Why, if she accepts the legitimacy of Joe's claim to be a theist and by extension that he must believe in a god, and given that the god he believes in she also believes in, does she determine that she is still an atheist?

Because atheists have conceptions of god and do not wholly define theism by self-description. First, because if theism was simply anybody who described themselves as such then someone who doesn't believe in gods can legitimately call themselves theistic and vice versa. Second, because if we further require that theists believe in at least a god but allow them to determine what they consider god to be, then Joe is a god and Jill believes in him. Were we this limited, Jill would now either have to not believe in Joe's existences (which is ridiculous), or determine that just because someone says they're a theist and/or that some entity is a god, atheists cannot use this criteria and remain atheists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know of the roots of Gnostacism. And as you know that the Christian Gnostacism movement was based off of the older pre-christian greek philosophy of gnosis which is the active rejection of the physical realm for a spiritual or metaphysical one.

It's certainly true that many Christians we call gnostics fit your description well. The problem was beautifully illustrated in Williams, M. A. (1996). Rethinking" Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton University Press. A lot of the ideas about this movement were informed by a view that wasn't supported by the evidence we had then, and certainly not after new evidence like Nag Hammadi. Now the term is used to describe Christian movements with literally opposite ideologies. But, it's been in use so long it's not going away. And for the most part, you are right, IMO, because certain ideas like gnosis or some sense of rejection of the physical (either by extreme asceticism or libertinism, both with the idea that the material was insignificant) and especially a more esoteric, arcane nature tended to be pretty common among the groups usually labeled gnostic. So although there may be no real practice or belief that was common to all, there were several out of which some were common to all.

So the christian gnosis based movement then derived from the philosphy the idea that esoteric knowledge granted either by god or within us already was far more important than the exoteric knoweldge that we gather from our surroundings.

That's true. I would point out though that almost nobody really believed there was much point in empirical investigations (learning by investigating nature). The Greeks accused Socrates of "natural philosophy" (proto-science) and executed him because of it. The Greeks were one of the few cultures that ever got close to developing science, but although the desire to learn was there they didn't seem the point in exploring the natural world. For them, pure intellectual exercises, even if they involved physics, were the goal. My favorite example is Aristotle's theory of motion which he reasoned out and could have tested with, but never did. He was wrong and it wasn't until well over a thousand years later than anybody showed this. However, the gnostics did differ from a great many previous and later religious traditions in their esoteric approach. There were similar groups, going al the way back to the pythagoreans, but it wasn't until after there were already gnostics that groups very similar (such as the Neoplatonists) started getting to be big news.

The core of this resonates today in many anti-scietnific notions (ToE is false! Earth is only 10k years old! Tides come in, tides go out YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!).

Yes, alas. Critical thinking and reason must be taught. It doesn't develop well naturally and is all too easy to stamp out. At least in the Western countries the religion that now tends to hamper or interfere with scientific progress is the one that made it possible in the first place. It's a lot more difficult for scientific programs to not only take root but also grow in places where the cultural worldview holds that nature is inexplicable (and thus investigation is pointless) or that all things material are fleeting, eternally repeating, and should be disregarded as much as is possible. Time was that mystic worldviews (and we can see this to some extent today) were similar to what science was at the time (Newton was an alchemist and a biblical scholar). The occult was believed to be either a science itself or quite like one. After a few hundred years of incredible success within the sciences, one would hope that the vast disparity between these successes and those of e.g., the occult or Eastern views on the way nature works developed a thousand years ago or more would be recognized. It's one thing for medical practitioners in 18th century China to talk about chi flows and meridians, as at that time Western medicine as still talking about bile and hysteria caused by a women's uterus. But this isn't the 1700s anymore.

there is no god in the same esoteric way that someone would have "knoweldge" or gnostic belief in a god.

Precisely.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's unclear, given the references to defining atheism in terms of a lack of belief, if this is indeed the definition of atheism, but perhaps if we start anew with the clearest definitions you've provided, it may help.

Also, it seems reasonable that atheism and theism should not overlap.

However, defining atheism this way means that in order to be an atheist, there must be a way to know one isn't a theist.

If we use only self-definitions, then one can believe in god and be an atheist as long as one believes one isn’t a theist. Clearly, in order to define an atheist as not a theist, we need to define a theist. It’s pretty uncontentious to say theists believe in god or gods.

That is, if Joe says "I'm a theist" and Jill says "Well I'm an atheist", it follows that there is something that defines Joe as a theist and, lacking that something, Jill is an atheist.

Not that this is really related at all, but consider this- the conscientious theist or sophisticated theologian will sometimes acknowledge some of the problems with asserting the existence of God; as some have noted, it almost seems heretical to say that God exists, because existing is what mundane things like people, and rocks, and insects, and mud, do- surely God must do something else? Or, along other lines, they grant that there are many problems with asserting the existence of God; for starters, in taking the proper name "God" to be referential in the way that most other proper names refer when we say that God exists- what does this name denote? What state of affairs are we saying obtains when we say that God exists? In essence- they grant the premise of the atheist as technically true; that God does not exist; but yet, since they are a theist and no atheist, and there must be some crucial difference between them, they insist that the atheist is nevertheless mistaken about something... What, exactly, that may be is, as Wittgenstein would say, "that which cannot be said"- but there must be something... So this is sort of the reverse puzzle- when the sophisticated theist grants the atheists rejection of "God exists", in virtue of what are they nevertheless a theist and not an atheist?

(I guess if there's a moral to the story here its the overall inadequacy of these labels for the actual spectrum of views that are out there)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not that this is really related at all

You mean you are diverting the discussion about a particular definition of atheism to talk about something else even though this thread is about...um...something even less related to the OP than your post...so...yeah...take that.

Or, along other lines, they grant that there are many problems with asserting the existence of God

This I tend to find to be more of a real issue than the potential problems with the term existence. After first spending a long time relating words in various languages and then in various brains, one tends to develop a bit of tolerance when it comes both to certain limitations of language and to the human brain necessary required not only to classify & categorize thinks like god and the proper descriptive terms, but express these linguistically. For example, if the standard cosmology is correct there was not only a moment when the universe came to be but that when this happened time did to. How do we speak of anything "before" that when before entails a previous time when no time existed?

Granting existence as a serviceable term for want of a better one, the problems of this existence seem to me to be too many to count. To use an example that actually does relate to the problem the term "existence", we normally mean by "exists" something that has some realization in this universe other than the purely conceptual. However, there was likely a "time" when this universe was not. Yet this is not so for God (according to most, especially those who use the term singularly). And "where" does god dwell? These simple questions are only to illustrate that a central problem in asserting God's existence is that most of the properties said to describe God are defined in opposition to what humans are generally capable of conceptualizing. One has to look no farther than proofs of god to see how even formal expressions of gods properties are described as universals, completely differently from the ways in which we can describe things that (we usually believe) exist.

for starters, in taking the proper name "God" to be referential in the way that most other proper names refer when we say that God exists- what does this name denote?

And this problem was (at least partly) the impetus for the "proofs" I mentioned and you are familiar with. This is not how one typically describes something that exists. I don't defined an animal by naming every possible trait every other animal does or could have, and that the animal in question doesn't have, to define the animal (although we do something similar for real numbers and two-sided limits). On the other hand, how intersubjective words are used by single speakers to express their subjective concepts and to refer to some (alleged) external "thing" have been the subject of debate for some time quite independently of god. That's why I like dealing with concepts in the brain. Sure, we can't be as exact as words here, but we can actually see a relation between words expressed by the speaker and what it is that the speaker "uses" to express them.

What state of affairs are we saying obtains when we say that God exists?

SoAs for me is a term that I know of from cognitive linguistics and a few decades before that functional linguistics from which it borrowed, so from the brief acquaintance I have with the usage in philosophical texts I have the feeling that the use is similar with important differences. In particular, SoAs in linguistics do not focus so much on truth correspondence but on the linguistic expression of what is said to correspond to truth (usually only from the speaker's point of view). So while you raise a good point, I haven't thought about it until know and thus can't a view.

So this is sort of the reverse puzzle- when the sophisticated theist grants the atheists rejection of "God exists", in virtue of what are they nevertheless a theist and not an atheist

The difference would be that an atheist holds that a term such as "god" (or theos, deus, Gott, dieu, dio, etc.) doesn't correspond to anything other than to concepts represented internally that the word the word is used to refer to. Theists, sophisticated in this sense or no, believe that such words refer not simply to internal representations but to something that exists independently of any language or conceptualizer.


{quote]i guess if there's a moral to the story here its the overall inadequacy of these labels for the actual spectrum of views that are out there[/quote]

Not just that, but the problems inherent in language. While trying to make the use of terms as coherent, consistent, and precise as possible is a noble one which we should try to attain, one need only look at mathematics/formal languages to see that seeking to make things that well-defined cannot work as it strips meaning away. If someone wishes to call them selves a Christian atheist, then no amount or reasoning will make a difference, and that is an extreme example. However, there are still general methods and techniques to try to formulate terms. One is to recognize that there is an appropriate setting for maximizing precision, such as in the sciences and mathematics, and a place where too much precision in an attempt for real consistency will almost always inevitably fail. We cannot pretend that we have a manual from Plato's realm of forms telling us the true meaning of all words or that we must define words by taking into account every usage. Nor can we pretend the same disputes over semantics have the same methods of resolution. However, there are general practices we should use in order to make communication involving the terms of interest more feasible.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'd say so, even though there's not really a concept there, because as far as I know "atheist" simply means no belief in God and not only disbelief in God.

For example, babies are generally apolitical.

Although what greater matter does this hold? It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it doesn't mean anything really, other than labeling babies. I don't understand why people are curious about such a subject that doesn't touch a thing in the natural world.

In order to believe in God, you must understand what God is.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

it doesn't mean anything really, other than labeling babies

It means more than that because the label we refer to isn't limited to babies. By extending a label you can change rather fundamentally what a word means. To use an extreme example for illustration, if we extend or apply the term "child abuse" to include parents who do not give their children dessert after every meal, then the nature of what constitutes child abuse is radically altered. If I extend the term "theist" to mean "belief in any entity, including fictional characters, accused witches, magicians, etc.", then theist is a totally different word.

If we accept certain definitions proposed in this thread, then an atheist can believe exactly what any theist does providing that she or he doesn't use the words "god" or "theism". That fundamentally changes atheism

Although what greater matter does this hold?

That could be asked of anything.

It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist

It does address what certain terms absolutely fundamental to spiritual, religious, and secular dialogue mean, not to mention how one of the most important capacities of human mind should be understood. Belief isn't just a religious matter and questions related to religious belief have implications everywhere.

For example, it has been argued that to lack a belief means to disbelieve and to not believe and also to lack a belief. That means that every that every time I am asked something like "do you believe we should vote for X person?" and I say I don't believe we should, I'm am not saying that I believe we should not vote for them.

Likewise, if asked if I believe women should be denied the right to an abortion and I respond "I don't believe they should be denied this right" the (according to definitions presented here) I do not mean that I believe they shouldn't be denied this right.

Nobody is pretending that this discussion will respond what "belief" means nor theism nor atheism. But that's always true. It's the continued discussions that shape policy, culture, etc.

I don't understand why people are curious about such a subject that doesn't touch a thing in the natural world.

There is nothing that has caused more untold death, destruction, and horror than ideology. And central to ideology is belief. Understanding what it means to believe and what epistemic justification is so that one doesn't reinforce dogmatic positions with repetitive definitions, remove particular words even though they are replaced by synonyms 1984-style in order to carefully craft a depiction of a world view in opposition to (and influenced by the returned opposition of) other ideologies. Not that the fate of much hinges upon this thread, but to discount as irrelevant things that don't seem to relate directly to the natural world is problematic in the extreme. Also, even defining the term "natural world" is fraught with problems.

Less dramatically, religious discussions and the battles between the religious and between the religious and secular are quite important to a great many countries including the US. Dialogue is usually the best way to try to at least plant seeds in the minds of others and allow those planted in your own to be carefully considered. The natural world isn't all that important if worldviews and ideologies are formulated in ways that make it so.

In order to believe in God, you must understand what God is.

As no one is sure what it means for god even to exist for the most part, let alone how many properties ascribed to God could be possible, this seems pretty restrictive.

 

[ArtieE]

Notice that "does not believe in any gods" here is perfectly compatible with "lack of belief", as it must if the term is to be meaningful at all. The term "lack of belief" is used merely to distinguish between forms of atheism.

The term "lack of belief" doesn't distinguish between forms of atheism. Both weak and strong atheists "lack a belief".

I believe I have heard these two types referred to as strong vs. weak atheism, with weak atheism corresponding to apatheism described in the quote above.

Weak atheism doesn't correspond to apatheism. A weak atheist has an absence of belief and disbelief in gods but could be very interested in for example discussing gods. Apatheism is a subset of weak atheism where the apatheist not only has an absence of belief and disbelief in gods but has no interest in them.

Personally, I don't care for these as it is difficult to differentiate agnosticism from apatheism. Agnosticism means one does not know if any gods exist, and thus cannot be said to believe in any gods. To that extent they don't believe there is a god, for if they did they wouldn't be agnostic.

Nonsense. There are agnostic theists who don't know if there are gods but believe in their existence anyway.

 

[ArtieE]

I said that weak atheism is essentially agnosticism.

No it isn't. Being a weak atheist may have nothing to do with not knowing whether gods exist or not. Weak atheism just means having an absence of belief in gods. No reasons are given.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The term "lack of belief" doesn't distinguish between forms of atheism.

That's because the term is basically meaningless on its face and of little value with it is attempted to massage into something atheists use to describe whatever position they hope to by this:

To be an atheist is to make a statement of belief: "I do not believe in God (or gods)." We make the word meaningless by trying to pretend that babies are atheists because they don't have a belief about god.

We can actually show how atheists (and everybody else) organizes (and re-organizes) their brains to reflect their beliefs about concepts such as god.

Atheists, materialists, apathetic agnostics, etc., tend to show similar cortical activity when processing words/concepts that relate to religion in general (rather than religious people whose own religious commitments are more salient), but they also represent through activation in specific areas words/concepts like evolution, stem cell, marriage, etc. not only as distinguished from the religious concepts but as similar in ways that aren't for religious people. An atheist's conception held of god is attributed properties that the atheist groups as similar to some things and dissimilar to others that differs from theists. The reason for this is because simply using and knowing the word necessarily entails classification and attributing to the concept properties that define it in relation to other internal classification. That's what definition (in the brain) is.

If one is capable of using the word "god" in ways consistent enough with common usage to be understood, it is quite literally impossible to lack any belief about this concept. I did a study that split participants along one axis into a spiritualism-materialism continuum to see how concepts even as seemingly unrelated to spirituality as "professor" and "farmer" have a physical representation in the brain that is influenced by the degree to which the participant (mostly unconsciously) classifies these concepts along this axis...It is impossible to do this without having beliefs regarding the concept that for you underlies the word "god".

 

[ArtieE]

If we take the proposition to be "there is a god or gods," and negate the attitude, then we hold the proposition "there is a god or gods" to be false. Similarly if we negate the proposition, then we hold "there are no god or gods" to be true. Either one is atheism.

Strong atheism. Please use the proper terms.

If we eliminate the belief, take it out of the picture entirely so that it was never there, there is no opportunity for anything to be negated because there never was anything to negate. Atheism is negation, rather than elimination, of belief.

Wrong reasoning. You start off with weak atheism which is neither belief nor non-belief. Belief is not the starting point, weak atheism, neither belief nor non-belief, is. A weak atheist doesn't negate anything, he doesn't affirm theism or strong atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

One who does not have any concept of god has no neural representation of that concept. Atheists do.

Having a concept of god is not required to be a weak atheist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You start off with weak atheism which is neither belief nor non-belief.

1) We can literally show how your alleged "non-belief" organizes the representational structure of your brain through both activation (or lack thereof) when presented with particular cues based upon what properties you believe it has and does not have
2) Answer to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" is truth-bearing statement. If the answer is no, then either this is because you don't know if there are gods, or because you believe there are none. The one exception is people who don't speak English adequately enough to answer the question.
3) For any word one is able to use, (and every word corresponds to at least one concept), one has a concept of it. Concepts are classification processes without which cognition is impossible. Assuming you can think, then you have a concept of god. To say you don't believe in god or gods means that there exists no entity to which the concept that you have necessarily, given your ability to use the word, that you can categorize as an instantiation of that concept.
4) Belief is the affirmation or denial of a proposition. The proposition "I don't believe any gods exist" is a belief. The proposition "I lack any belief of gods" means you believe that there is nothing which you would classify according to your concept of god.

Belief is not the starting point

That's true. Complete ignorance is. If asked whether I believe in a word from a language I don't know, I don't start with belief. I have to learn how the word is used, related to other words, what properties the thing it refers to are said to have by some but not others, or not have by some but have by others, etc. If you can use god in discourse, you have a concept of god. You don't believe anything exists that you would apply the concept to.

 

[ArtieE]

To give this example a serious answer, it just reinforces what I said in my previous post, that atheism is not eliminative. We can consider a belief to be eliminated (there is either a belief or there isn't) but that's not atheism.

You can't "lack" what doesn't exist.

Then simply use the word "absence" instead. Weak atheism, absence of belief, absence of non-belief. Strong atheism, absence of belief, presence of non-belief. So simple.

 

[ArtieE]

I dont have to believe anything to not be a theist.

One raised on a island with no concept of a deity, nor ever learned theism, is still an atheist.

Weak atheist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Having a concept of god is not required to be a weak atheist.

In order to use the word, you have a concept. It is impossible to have a concept without ascribing to it some properties and denying it others, as well as impossible to not relate it to other concepts in order both to further understand it and to clarify what it and the things related to it are as a semantic network. It is impossible to lack any belief about a concept held, for that would entail that the cognitive processes necessary to use the word and the neural processes required to allow the cognitive didn't exist. As these processes require ascribing to the concept some set of things including but not limited to properties, characteristics, and entity titles, as you believe there is something that exists to which your concept applies, or you don't believe anything exists to which your concept applies.

 

[ArtieE]

That's because the term is basically meaningless on its face and of little value

"Weak atheist" is not meaningless. It simply means that the person is neither a theist nor a strong atheist. It means that a person has an absence of belief and non-belief in gods. The rest of your quotes just seem to show that you don't know the difference between weak and strong atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

Artie said: Belief is not the starting point.

That's true. Complete ignorance is.

Absence of belief and absence of non-belief is what we call weak atheism. Don't change the word "belief" to "ignorance".

If asked whether I believe in a word from a language I don't know, I don't start with belief. I have to learn how the word is used, related to other words, what properties the thing it refers to are said to have by some but not others, or not have by some but have by others, etc. If you can use god in discourse, you have a concept of god. You don't believe anything exists that you would apply the concept to.

If asked whether you believe in that word from that language you don't know you answer no I am a weak atheist regarding that word because I have never heard it before and must learn about it before I can say whether I believe or don't believe it. Your starting point is always weak atheism when it comes to beliefs.

 

[ArtieE]

In order to use the word, you have a concept. It is impossible to have a concept without ascribing to it some properties and denying it others, as well as impossible to not relate it to other concepts in order both to further understand it and to clarify what it and the things related to it are as a semantic network. It is impossible to lack any belief about a concept held, for that would entail that the cognitive processes necessary to use the word and the neural processes required to allow the cognitive didn't exist. As these processes require ascribing to the concept some set of things including but not limited to properties, characteristics, and entity titles, as you believe there is something that exists to which your concept applies, or you don't believe anything exists to which your concept applies.

I have read this several times but can't figure out what it means. If I look at an infant I can say he's a weak atheist because he obviously has an absence of belief and an absence of non-belief in gods. And he would be a weak atheist regardless whether he knows it or not or whether I call him that or not. Just like he is an infant whether he knows the term or not or whether I call him an infant or not.

I have a long list of gods. I just randomly picked the god Baalat from this list. I've never heard about this god before now. Yet I have managed to live my whole life being a weak atheist regarding this god, I have never believed in him nor have I ever disbelieved in him. And I would have lived like that even if I never knew what a god was. How do you explain that?

There is an animal living in forests called a burblesquatter. I bet you have spent your whole life with an absence of belief and an absence of non-belief in the existence of this animal. I just made it up. You see, you didn't even need to know the name of this imaginary animal to live your whole life neither believing nor disbelieving in the existence of it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's because the term is basically meaningless on its face and of little value with it is attempted to massage into something atheists use to describe whatever position they hope to by this:

It's no less meaningful than terms like "Canadian" and "civilian", both of which also apply to babies (the Canadian ones, anyhow).

For the life of me, I can't understand how, in the middle of a thread full of people using the terms "atheist" and atheism" meaningfully, you can maintain that the way they're using it isn't "meaningful".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In order to use the word, you have a concept. It is impossible to have a concept without ascribing to it some properties and denying it others, as well as impossible to not relate it to other concepts in order both to further understand it and to clarify what it and the things related to it are as a semantic network.

Is the term "atheist" the only one where you demand that the person being labelled an atheist has an understanding of the term, or do you not describe babies at all (e.g. by calling them "babies")?

When we're describing a third person, the person being described doesn't need to conceive of the concepts being used to describe him. When I say "Brian is an atheist", it's not Brian who's using the word "atheist"; it's me.