Are people born inherently atheist?

[Leftimies]

Isn't atheism an epistemic tabula rasa?

First you say infants are born not religious. Then you say the lack of religion is learned.
Am I missing something? These seem contradictory.

By lack or religion I do mean "Lack of Religion as an established and held doctrine", which indeed is learned.

Lack of religion and lack or atheism (as assigned to us in birth) is the 'tabula rasa' state we are born in, in which Religion or Lack thereof is not perceived - we cannot thus concern such matters with a newborn child.

Uh...do you understand what i mean?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By lack or religion I do mean "Lack of Religion as an established and held doctrine", which indeed is learned.

Lack of religion and lack or atheism (as assigned to us in birth) is the 'tabula rasa' state we are born in, in which Religion or Lack thereof is not perceived - we cannot thus concern such matters with a newborn child.

Uh...do you understand what i mean?

We aren't born in a "tabula rasa state". We're not born religious, and we're not born theists, but we're also not born "blank slates":

Except we're not "blank slates". We're born with innate tendencies, characteristics, and behaviors. Many of these aren't fixed - they change as we learn and grow... but this doesn't mean we start with nothing.

From what I've read on the subject, it seems we're born with a tendency toward rudimentary animism: right from the age that we can measure it, young children tend to infer agency and purpose in everything. I'd say it's not enough to qualify as theism, but it's definitely not a "blank slate".

 

[Leftimies]

We aren't born in a "tabula rasa state". We're not born religious, and we're not born theists, but we're also not born "blank slates":

We have tendencies, genetic flaws and attributes, but they are all potential yet to be wholly manifested - ergo, for all practical comparative purposes, we are de facto tabula rasa. Do you not agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have tendencies, genetic flaws and attributes, but they are all potential yet to be wholly manifested - ergo, for all practical comparative purposes, we are de facto tabula rasa. Do you not agree?

No, I don't. A "blank slate" stays blank unless someone writes on it. Any ability, attribute, or tendency that isn't imposed from outside speaks against the idea that a baby is a "tabula rasa", even if the ability in question isn't observable in a newborn.

 

[Willamena]

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

Let's say no concept of god exists in the entire universe.

Why do we have a word "a-theism"?

 

[Leftimies]

No, I don't. A "blank slate" stays blank unless someone writes on it. Any ability, attribute, or tendency that isn't imposed from outside speaks against the idea that a baby is a "tabula rasa", even if the ability in question isn't observable in a newborn.

Lets make the case of 'wolf children' then. Those who grew up out of civilization. Their traits and genetic makeup could've manifested in a variety of intelligent forms, but due to isolation from culture (i.e the intelligent, intellectual pencil that writes on the blank slate), they remain, for cultural and intellectual purposes, a blank slate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lets make the case of 'wolf children' then. Those who grew up out of civilization. Their traits and genetic makeup could've manifested in a variety of intelligent forms, but due to isolation from culture (i.e the intelligent, intellectual pencil that writes on the blank slate), they remain, for cultural and intellectual purposes, a blank slate.

No, they don't. For instance, these children have innate verbal language skills. The language they create is unique, but it still follows similar rules that apply to all language.

 

[ArtieE]

Let's say no concept of god exists in the entire universe.

Why do we have a word "a-theism"?

If no concepts of gods existed in the entire universe we would neither have the word theism nor the word atheism. The word atheist simply describes a person who is not a theist. If there are no theists, there is no need for a word designating a person not a theist. Everybody would be not theists.

 

[Leftimies]

No, they don't. For instance, these children have innate verbal language skills. The language they create is unique, but it still follows similar rules that apply to all language.

Lets just agree to disagree XD
Peace and love <3

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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".

I'm not. Your definition works ok like most definitions do. As I said, the problem isn't as much the definition itself but the fact that you claim it is somehow consistent when a definition based on rejection isn't It's the ridiculous application of some absurd standard that proves so obviously idiotic when we apply it consistently:


Salviati: "I don't don't believe in any haunted houses"
Simplicio: "Impossible. You can't say this unless you name every haunted house."
Salviati: "Why do I have to? I don't believe in spirits"
Simplicio: "So you're saying you neither believe nor disbelieve in spirits?"
Salviati: "No, like I said I disbelieve, so how can I mean they may exist?"
Simplicio: "Because you didn't say you believe they don't exist."
Salviati: "This is ridiculous. Fine, I believe there are no ghosts. Happy?"
Simplicio: "No, you'd have to know each and every ghost in order to say none exist."
Salviati: "What! I have to know all ghosts just to say I don't believe in any?"
Simplicio: "Not at all. You can say you don't believe in any without having to know each one."
Salviati: "But that's what I said."
Simplicio: "No, you say you don't believe ghosts exist. That's fine. You don't need to know each one to not believe in ghosts. That means that you lack a belief about ghosts."
Salviati: "But I don't lack a belief because if I lacked any beliefs then for all I know ghosts exists.
Simplicio: "Nope. You must lack a belief, or you'd have to know every ghost to say they don't exist."

etc.
The really ridiculous part is not understanding that by rejecting the existence of the concept god (and in thinking that one can not have such a concept and still use the word) one necessarily must know some full list of names despite the fact that it isn't this they are arejecting anyway (they're rejecting any entity that they would categorize as god). By saying one doesn't believe one either doesn't know whether gods exist or is saying that they don't exist. I don't need to name every fairy to say I don't believe fairies exist, I don't need to name every vampire to say I don't believe vampire exist, and truly not making any belief commitment means "I don't know".

 

[Willamena]

If no concepts of gods existed in the entire universe we would neither have the word theism nor the word atheism. The word atheist simply describes a person who is not a theist. If there are no theists, there is no need for a word designating a person not a theist. Everybody would be not theists.

Right; and that says that a concept of god is required for there to be theism and atheism. Even weak atheism.

The person who cannot hold a concept of god because they've never heard of it is just ignorant of god. When we claim an "absence" or "lack" for them we do so on behalf of a concept that we hold. We are the arbiters of their atheism. It's no "default" or "natural" condition of theirs, it's something we have applied to them. We, with our concept of god, are necessary for them to be atheists.

That "default" condition is what I'm arguing against.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not. Your definition works ok like most definitions do.

Thank you.

So you agree that when you said it was "basically meaningless", you were mistaken?

 

[ArtieE]

That "default" condition is what I'm arguing against.

Well, then you have two options:

1. A baby comes out with a belief in gods.
2. A baby comes out without a belief in gods.

Which one do you pick as the default "condition"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right; and that says that a concept of god is required for there to be theism and atheism. Even weak atheism.

The person who cannot hold a concept of god because they've never heard of it is just ignorant of god. When we claim an "absence" or "lack" for them we do so on behalf of a concept that we hold. We are the arbiters of their atheism. It's no "default" or "natural" condition of theirs, it's something we have applied to them. We, with our concept of god, are necessary for them to be atheists.

That "default" condition is what I'm arguing against.

That fact that a baby has no concept of god no more excludes him from being an atheist than the fact that he has no concept of nationhood excludes him from being a Canadian.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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

Are you inferring that it shouldn't? I don't believe there is anything fundamental about the term "atheist", considering this word is not describing a structure or an organization, it is merely a view on theistic grounds, a stance on theological issues.

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.

Exactly, and I agree. So what importance does it hold? While you don't believe they should be denied that right, if you do not hold the concept of what is being asked, it's an absolutely meaningless question.

You do not believe X, although that can mean two things: You do not have an opinion on it, or that your opinion is that of a negative one, a no.

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.

What could these dogmatic positions do anyhow? What effect would they take on society if a term is misused in such an example? Unless you live in the stricter middle eastern countries, just because someone is professed an atheist although lacking the idea of theism in general, doesn't mean they will be put to death.

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.

But there isn't going to be a worldview or ideology in the mind a newborn as there is no concept. Surely a parent could if they wanted to, start calling their baby an atheist without the baby even knowing what that means, but that is entirely meaningless. I'm sure most people would understand that atheism is the lack of belief in God in that case. Although the people that the label would actually effect or in which the label would be meaningful to do not lack belief in a concept, they disbelieve in the concept, they've formed an opinion as soon as they heard about it. So I'd say that using atheism in that way is pretty meaningless, although definition-wise it is very much agreed upon.

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.

What I meant is God in general, and God is a very general term considering the decades upon decades of different theological concepts. But someone cannot believe in "God" unless there is some sort of concept of it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Is the term "atheist" the only one where you demand that the person being labelled an atheist has an understanding of the term

No. I would hold it to be true of all self-descriptive labels. The problem the insistence that babies "lack a belief" in the same way atheists often use that phrase. It implies an ignorance both of how language works and how the mind works. It often involves the claim that atheists don't even know what this "god" concept is that they are denying. Such a view is completely misinformed. Using the word "god" as atheists means that their possession of a concept of it is required by biology and by every linguistic model of language use:

"ideas, concepts, and the like are represented by neural activity. The exact circuitry involved is uncertain, but it suffices for us to assume that some stable connection pattern is associated with each word, concept, schema, and so on"
Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. The MIT Press.

A central control task in neuroimaging studies that involve e.g., response times for lexical processing, or for tests of categorization, is the necessity of nonsense words. This is so vital because any other word is represented conceptually in the brain in a taxonometric network of relations to other concepts believed to have similar properties:

"word presentation activates functional webs, including multiple reverberatory circuits, that fail to become fully active if pseudo-words are perceived.
Physiological differences between words and pseudo-words have been found in numerous studies using both electrophysiological and metabolic neuroimaging techniques (Creutzfeldt, Ojemann, & Lettich, 1989; Diesch, Biermann, & Luce, 1998; Hagoort et al., 1999; Price, Wise, & Frackowiak, 1996; Rugg, 1983). Thus, it is uncontroversial that the brain distinguishes between words and similar but novel and meaningless items." (emphasis added)

Pulvermüller, F. (2003). The neuroscience of language: on brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge University Press.

"lexical concepts do not arise in language use. Rather, they are units of linguistic knowledge abstracted from across usage events (i.e., utterances) that encode linguistic content and facilitate access to conceptual (i.e., non-linguistic) knowledge. Thus, a lexical concept is a unit of linguistic knowledge that populates the "mental grammar," deriving from commonalities in patterns of language use."

Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford University Press.

"it is almost universally assumed that concepts play a pivotal role in linguistic communication. According to the standard picture, people understand each other’s words in virtue of the fact that they associate the same (or quite nearly the same) concepts with those words. If no two people associate the same concepts with their words, then communication is impossible. Therefore, concepts must be sharable."

Prinz, J. J. (2004). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. The MIT Press.

When we're describing a third person, the person being described doesn't need to conceive of the concepts being used to describe him

That's true. However, this only matters if the term does not necessitate a self-description to be held at least in theory. If an atheist really "lacks any belief" in god or gods the way a baby does, then they would be unable to use the word the way that everyone in this thread has. See above.

When I say "Brian is an atheist", it's not Brian who's using the word "atheist"; it's me.

Thank you for explaining the third person. If I said you were a demioergos, it would be me using the word. It doesn't make it accurate

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you agree that when you said it was "basically meaningless", you were mistaken?

No. The definition itself isn't the problem, meaning the way it is worded can work. It's how you interpret the definition and perhaps more importantly why you say we can use it and not a definition like "atheists deny any gods exist". In other words, your definition is basically meaningless if we accept your reason for claiming a definition like "denies the existence of all gods" and your definition of "lack a belief". We can certainly use your definition as worded, simply not as you interpret it.

 

[Willamena]

Well, then you have two options:

1. A baby comes out with a belief in gods.
2. A baby comes out without a belief in gods.

Which one do you pick as the default "condition"?

I pick 3. A baby comes out and gets assigned to be "without belief in gods."

Assigned by us. You can't eliminate us from that picture.

 

[Willamena]

That fact that a baby has no concept of god no more excludes him from being an atheist than the fact that he has no concept of nationhood excludes him from being a Canadian.

To you and me he can be atheist--could possibly be atheist--and only to you and me. I'm arguing against the idea that it is some sort of objective "default" condition of humanity, as put forth by some.

No god, no atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To you and me he can be atheist--could possibly be atheist--and only to you and me. I'm arguing against the idea that it is some sort of objective "default" condition of humanity, as put forth by some.

No god, no atheists.

If nobody has a concept of god, then everyone would be an atheist but nobody would care.