Are people born inherently atheist?

[Willamena]

You only have two options. We don't assign him to be "without belief in gods." He is "without belief in gods." He is also without belief in aliens, fairies, Santa, leprechauns, absolutely everything he has no concept of yet. He can only start to believe or disbelieve in any or all of those when he understands what they are.

And then he can be an atheist.

 

[idav]

And then he can be an atheist.

When you reject a specific theism then your only atheist for that particular concept.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Some people will argue that people are born inherently atheist

People will argue anything and everything. The question is first whether or not the question is meaningful to ask, and second if so what is the best way to approach an answer. Rather than reiterate again the problems with labeling infants atheists, we can turn to the question in a form that is actually studied: are people pre-disposed to finding god or do they require a nudge or even shove in that direction?

It has long been argued, although not without criticism, that in fact theism (or at least religious belief) is natural and atheism is not. For example:

Boyer, P. (2008). Being human: Religion: bound to believe?. Nature, 455(7216), 1038-1039.

(Unfortunately, I couldn't find a link to a free copy, but anybody who wishes one may feel free to PM and I will make it available through email)

Bloom, P. (2007). Religion is natural. Developmental science, 10(1), 147-151.

Geertz, A. W., & Markússon, G. I. (2010). Religion is natural, atheism is not: On why everybody is both right and wrong. Religion, 40(3), 152-165.


A key issue in the cognitive science of religion, evolutionary psychology, and to a lesser extent fields like neuroscience is why there is at least a good deal of evidence for the predilection towards religious orientation. Although "just so" stories abound, these are not easily tested. One problem is that the natural controls for a study of cognitive differences between the religious and non-religious is belief.

Studies designed to determine whether atheists relied on different neural mechanisms and cognitive processes than do theists for relevant tasks, judgment, etc.., generally indicate that atheism exists (from a cognitive & neuroscience perspective) on the same continuum of belief that theism does. In fact, some have gone so far as to suggest that, whatever self-reports indicate, atheism doesn't actually exist. There are not many serious researcher (as far as I know) who believe this ridiculous hypothesis. However, that from a cognitive-neurobiological perspective atheism is largely indistinguishable from theism is far better documented. For example:

Johnson, D. (2012). What are atheists for? Hypotheses on the functions of non-belief in the evolution of religion. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 2(1), 48-70.

Norenzayan, A., & Gervais, W. M. (2012). The origins of religious disbelief. Trends in cognitive sciences.

While it is (IMO) more than a little ridiculous to claim atheists don't actually exist, there is evidence self-reports are not always reliable. For example, one study found that despite differences between atheists and believers in their the verbal responses to statements about god, biological markers of stress/anxiety/discomfort was the for atheists as it for the religious:
Lindeman, M., Heywood, B., Riekki, T., & Makkonen, T. (2013). Atheists become emotionally aroused when daring God to do terrible things. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.

Also, when atheist are presented with priming material (vignettes, images, and similar stimuli) of a religious nature they tend to react as we would expect believers do when confronted with opposing religious views:

"In the author’s data, nonbelievers implicitly presented with religious primes showed increases in error-related brain responses. Believers implicitly presented with alternative ideology worldview primes (non-supernatural or otherwise) should show increases in error-related brain responses, a condition not tested by the authors."

Haque, O. S., Shenhav, A., & Rand, D. (2011). Differences in cognitive style, emotional processing, and ideology as crucial variables in understanding meaning making. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 1(3), 223-225.

Also, for the religiously inclined positive stimuli can aid task performance in ways that do not hold true for atheists:

Inzlicht, M., & Tullett, A. M. (2010). Reflecting on God Religious Primes Can Reduce Neurophysiological Response to Errors. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1184-1190.

And of course there are those factors that surprise no one, such as the fear of death. Evoking thoughts of death not only tends to strengthen religious convictions but also denial of the validity of alternative belief systems:

Vail, K. E., Arndt, J., & Abdollahi, A. (2012). Exploring the existential function of religion and supernatural agent beliefs among Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and Agnostics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1288-1300.

(once again, my apologies for being unable to link to a free version but as before I'm more than happy to email a copy to anyone who wishes)

Similar positive effects, such as reduction in distress or anxiety, are also possible reasons for a tendency towards religiousity. In fact, it could be that these effects are not just effects of religion but related to a neurobiological predisposition to religion, as some evidence suggests greater activity in emotional control networks among theists compared to non-believers:

Inzlicht, M., McGregor, I., Hirsh, J. B., & Nash, K. (2009). Neural markers of religious conviction. Psychological Science, 20(3), 385-392.

especially as both theists and non-believers, even when giving completely opposite responses during tasks, tend to use (again) the same regions where activity appears to differ is again in emotional regulation networks:

Harris, S., Sheth, S. A., & Cohen, M. S. (2008). Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty. Annals of neurology, 63(2), 141-147.

Harris, S., Kaplan, J. T., Curiel, A., Bookheimer, S. Y., Iacoboni, M., & Cohen, M. S. (2009). The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief. PLoS One, 4(10), e7272.







Other studies indicate other unsurprising results, such as a tendency towards greater reliance on intuitive means vs. analytical in religious vs. non-believers. However, the difficulties in developing a reliable experimental protocol to ensure the results are actually at least related to the variables measured are nothing compared to trying to speculate whether or not such correlations can inform evolutionary psychology. Moreover, in addition to the usual difficulties that confront the cognitive sciences studies designed to explore differences among non-believers face the same challenge as in this thread: it is much more difficult to define someone as belonging to a religion than it is to determine e.g.,. whether a non-believer is a "negative atheist" (or one of a number of similar terms) vs. a skeptical/positive/strong atheist. And, as noted above, self-reports are not always reliable (which we've known about for decades when it comes to the religious, but has not been much investigated among non-believers)

The main point, though, is that a convergence of several lines of evidence seems to suggest a predilection not towards non-belief but belief.

 

[Willamena]

There is an important sense in which being an atheist requires a positive intellectual movement- one has thought about the matter, and decided that they find the existence of God or gods to be untenable, and thus reject it. It is not a matter of a default state of non-belief, in an important sense. Atheism, as an intellectual or philosophical position, is essentially critical- meaning, it must be conscious and reflective; mere lack of belief in gods, as with an infant or someone whose never thought about the matter at all, has nothing to do with the philosophical/intellectual position that atheism usually comprises.

That's certainly how the word was used in my experience.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Right- in the sense that atheism is a philosophical/metaphysical/intellectual position or thesis, that is most assuredly how the term is used. Moreover, it is, as I think Legion has pointed out, in virtue of this positive intellectual step required to adopt atheism as a thesis or position that those who self-identify as atheists consider themselves atheists. It is that which makes one call or consider themselves an atheist, in virtually every case I'm aware of.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

...
It has long been argued, although not without criticism, that in fact theism (or at least religious belief) is natural and atheism is not...

I was going to give you frubals for this post, because you take the initiative to actually address some of the REAL issues underlying the terminological squabble here, but apparently I'm out of frubals for you... So, imaginary frubals to you, sir.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I was going to give you frubals for this post, because you take the initiative to actually address some of the REAL issues underlying the terminological squabble here, but apparently I'm out of frubals for you... So, imaginary frubals to you, sir.

Many thanks! Although, if I had any sense at all it wouldn't have taken someone else's post to get me to pay attention to answering (to the extent possible) the original question, not just thinking about it tangentially amid endless debates on the equivalents of syntactically manipulated mental state predicates.

 

[idav]

When you reject a specific theism then your only atheist for that particular concept.

This is important because a person may still be passive on other concepts and remain agnostic while a strong atheist would reject concepts even if they had not heard it to give it an official rejection. Both persons still share in not being theist.

 

[ArtieE]

How? If a person becomes a theist because they use that label, then once more only speakers of English can be theists. If a person becomes a theist because they believe in the concept we refer to by the word "god", then this must be defined well enough for us to say that a person can become a theist.

That wasn't the point of the post you quoted. The whole post said: "Well then simply think about it this way. It's as simple as I can express it. A person becomes a theist. How long was he not a theist before he became a theist? Since he was born." or you can say "A person starts believing in God and becomes a theist. How long was he not a theist (how long was he a weak atheist) before he became a theist? Since he was born."

Did you understand the point?

 

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by ArtieE
You only have two options. We don't assign him to be "without belief in gods." He is "without belief in gods." He is also without belief in aliens, fairies, Santa, leprechauns, absolutely everything he has no concept of yet. He can only start to believe or disbelieve in any or all of those when he understands what they are.

And then he can be an atheist.

And then he can be a "strong atheist". He always was a "weak atheist" before. You really should learn the difference and use the proper terms. This is just embarrassing for you.

A person starts believing in gods and becomes a theist. Before he started believing in gods he was always a weak atheist not believing in gods ever since he was born. So simple.

 

[Willamena]

And then he can be a "strong atheist". He always was a "weak atheist" before. You really should learn the difference and use the proper terms. This is just embarrassing for you.

Not for me, Artie. You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[ArtieE]

The main point, though, is that a convergence of several lines of evidence seems to suggest a predilection not towards non-belief but belief.

Actually, the main point of that research is to show that people have brains more or less wired to look for any kind of explanations for things and they didn't originally distinguish between what we call "natural" and "supernatural" explanations. To put it very simply they deduced that since people made things big people (gods) had to have made the big things (earthquakes/earth/universe). People are still looking for explanations and some don't rule out supernatural explanations and still believe in religions and gods while others like rationalists and strong atheists do rule out supernatural explanations.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A person becomes a theist.

You wish to define atheism by saying that if one isn't a theist, then one is necessarily an atheist, correct? That is, the only thing one needs to know about anybody to determine whether they are an atheist is if they are not a theist.

Having defined an atheist as "not a theist" you cannot then simply ask this:

How long was he not a theist before he became a theist?

In order for that question to have any meaning at all, we require a definition for theist. Otherwise, we have no idea when anybody may or may not be a theist.

"A person starts believing in God and becomes a theist

Define god. Some people who call themselves theists do so because they believe that human beings can be gods, and not those like Jesus or Caesar who were thought to be more than human, but gods because of the psychological state and mental outlook they have. In other words, for these theists belief in god means believing in something every atheist does (humans). So either we're all theists all the time (because we all believe in humans) or we have to define more clearly what it means to become a theist such that we can then say whoever is not a theist is an atheist.

Did you understand the point?

Of course. It's an attempt to simplify the issue of defining atheism by using only one criteria that avoids having to say anything about an atheist except that they can't be a theist. The problem is that this makes us no better off. If we're worried about trying to define whether somebody is fit to stand trial, and decide we can make this easy by saying "everyone is fit to stand trial except those who are psychotic" we cannot then lie back, assured that everything is solved, until we are very clear about how to determine who is psychotic.

The same thing is true here. We've defined atheism very precisely but that one, very precise criterion depends upon knowing exactly what makes someone a theist and presumably (since we'll probably define a theist as one who believes in at least one god) we must define exactly what we mean by god. Otherwise, our very precise definition isn't precise at all. An atheist is anyone who isn't a theist, only as things stand we can decide arbitrarily that X person isn't a theist because we don't think what they worship is really a god, or y person is even though they claim not to worship a god, etc.

Simply shifting the definitional burden by defining one thing entirely in terms of another only solves the problem if we have precisely defined that other thing, and in this case until that time we can't ever say anybody ever becomes a theist (except arbitrarily, that is).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A person starts believing in gods

I knew a group of people maybe a little over a decade ago. I've mentioned the kind of beliefs they had (and for all I know have) several times on the thread. They were theists who believed that every human being has the potential to be a god if they can attain a certain amount of psychological discipline and have a particular mental strength. They invoked no spirits, no magic, and nothing whatsoever that was incompatible with the natural sciences. Many people (perhaps most) would say that they didn't believe in gods they were just calling things god that weren't.

The point, however, is that if we can simply expect to use any definition of god people use, then you and I both believe in gods because we believe in human beings and some theist consider certain human beings gods. Under that definition, everybody becomes a theist as soon as they are able to have some concept of people/human beings.


Also, the word "god" is English. If you wish to talk about when someone becomes a theist based on if and when they start believing in gods, they strictly speaking everybody who doesn't speak English is an atheist. Clearly, that's unacceptable. It's just another indication that we can't simply say "when someone starts believing in god" without defining what it means to do this (unless, of course, you wish to learn all living languages well enough to determine which words in each of them should or shouldn't be considered equivalent to "god").

So simple.

Unless, of course, you try to apply it. The simplicity comes by having an airtight definition for an atheist that you can't ever apply except arbitrarily. It makes such a definition pretty pointless.

 

[ArtieE]

You wish to define atheism by saying that if one isn't a theist, then one is necessarily an atheist, correct?

No, one is necessarily a weak atheist.

In order for that question to have any meaning at all, we require a definition for theist. Otherwise, we have no idea when anybody may or may not be a theist.

OK. For the purpose of this post we can define a theist as a believer in the Christian God. The whole rest of your post is just a way for you to avoid answering if you understand the following:

A person becomes a believer in the Christian God. (Theist). Before he became a believer in the Christian God he was always since birth not a believer in the Christian God. (Weak atheist). He always were not a believer in the Christian God since birth. (Weak atheist). Do you understand this? Yes or no?

 

[Me Myself]

No, one is necessarily a weak atheist.OK. For the purpose of this post we can define a theist as a believer in the Christian God. The whole rest of your post is just a way for you to avoid answering if you understand the following:

A person becomes a believer in the Christian God. (Theist). Before he became a believer in the Christian God he was always since birth not a believer in the Christian God. (Weak atheist). There was never a point where he became not a believer in the Christian God. He always were since birth. Do you understand this? Yes or no?

I have been part of God since birth.

If you define God as the concept. Then surely the baby is an atheist. If you think the baby has a direct experien e of God in a way most people that deal merely with concepts can have, then it does not need be that way though.

The baby pretty much feels like God. Doesnt know death or separation. Knows pain but as easily forgets.

S/he si living eternity.

 

[ArtieE]

Unless, of course, you try to apply it. The simplicity comes by having an airtight definition for an atheist that you can't ever apply except arbitrarily. It makes such a definition pretty pointless.

The simplicity comes from having the ability not to overcomplicate things and the application of logic, reason and common sense when talking about things including definitions of gods. If you can't tell what atheists reckon to be gods you can start with this list at Christian Beliefs vs. Atheist Beliefs - Rook's Rant

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, one is necessarily a weak atheist.

Do you understand this? Yes or no?

I always understood it. You want to define weak atheism as not being a theist. That way, everybody is one until they opt for theism. As I explain below (and in multiple previous posts), not only is this at best simply a way to deprive the term of meaning while gaining nothing, it is also a poor choice for a number of other reasons.

The whole rest of your post is just a way for you to avoid answering

I'm not avoiding. I just don't have some odd desire to define atheism (or weak atheism, or other names for weak atheism that are used) to make it something it isn't. As soon as we define it as some default epistemic state then either nobody who actually labels themselves as an atheist really is or the term is so bereft of meaning that it doesn't actually matter if they call themselves atheists or scientologists. After all, scientologists don't believe in anything they call god.

This isn't just a matter of logical inconsistency, whitewashing a term of important meaning (and in doing so equating the worldview of the great minds of atheism with children, scientologists, and various "new agers" among others), and using wordplay all in an attempt not to define atheism (or weak atheism) usefully but for some ulterior motivation. Atheism was never intended to refer to lack of beliefs or some default epistemic stance because there's no such thing. We don't speak about infants in terms of political ideologies, stances on environmentalism, ethical beliefs, or other such issues because this is nonsensical. And if we wish to make the term "atheism" or "weak atheism" so utterly meaningless that a baby can be said to be one, we still require that one be as ignorant as a pre-linguistic infant to be a weak atheist.

As I've described more than once and linked to various studies that document this as well, atheism even in its weak form as a "lack of belief" is only actually a lack of belief if one isn't familiar with the words atheism, theism, or god. Anyone who is (or is familiar with equivalent concepts in other languages) has beliefs. We can and have tested these biologically.

He always were not a believer in the Christian God since birth

I've always understood it. It's a pointless definition that you made up and if we adopt it then we render the term "weak atheist" meaningless because a baby cannot be said to "not be a theist" in the way you or I can. There is no reason to conflate those who aren't theists because they can't even understand language enough to determine beliefs with those who have opted to believe that god doesn't exist (either in the "strong" form, in which disbelief is not only the product of contemplation but informs one's worldview in a way it doesn't for a "weak" atheist). There is good reason not to: there is a difference between someone who cannot decide they believe in god or don't believe and someone who can. The distinction is vital because, as everything from philosophy to neuroscience shows, people who label themselves as non-believers, weak atheists, strong atheists, agnostics, etc., all have beliefs about the existence of gods. Infants don't. And I don't like comparing the intellectual capacity and comprehension ability of those who label themselves "weak atheist" (or by similar terms) to the intellect of an infant.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When you reject a specific theism then your only atheist for that particular concept.

Right. And that makes everyone on the planet an atheist... for it is not possible to accept all specific theisms.

So we are all atheists, but some of us are also theists.

Except some say that if you accept even a single god concept, even if you deny that it should be labelled with the word 'god', then you are a theist.

So everyone accepts concepts which others consider should be labelled with 'god'.

So everyone on the planet is a theist.

Making everyone on the planet both an atheist and a theist.

It sounds reasonable to me.

 

[ArtieE]

I always understood it. You want to define weak atheism as not being a theist. That way, everybody is one until they opt for theism. As I explain below (and in multiple previous posts), not only is this at best simply a way to deprive the term of meaning while gaining nothing, it is also a poor choice for a number of other reasons.

Well, if you find it meaningless to be able to differentiate between people who are theists and people who are not theists by calling them different things be my guest...

I'm not avoiding. I just don't have some odd desire to define atheism (or weak atheism, or other names for weak atheism that are used) to make it something it isn't.

We don't have some odd desire to define weak atheism as something it isn't either. We define weak atheism as an absence of belief and an absence of disbelief in gods. Which means not believing in gods and not disbelieving in gods. In short, not believing in gods.

As soon as we define it as some default epistemic state then either nobody who actually labels themselves as an atheist really is or the term is so bereft of meaning that it doesn't actually matter if they call themselves atheists or scientologists. After all, scientologists don't believe in anything they call god.

If a person calls himself atheist, we ask him if he is simply not a theist or believes gods don't exist. If he calls himself a weak atheist we know he just isn't a theist. If he calls himself a strong atheist we know he believes gods don't exist. If he calls himself scientologist we can ask him what his view on gods are if we are only interested in that aspect of his beliefs. No need for us to define him as some atheist if he says he's a scientologist.

Atheism was never intended to refer to lack of beliefs or some default epistemic stance because there's no such thing.

The greek word atheos literally means "godless, without god(s)". Not disbelieving in gods. The added meaning of disbelieving in gods came later.
What is a "default epistemic stance"?

We don't speak about infants in terms of political ideologies, stances on environmentalism, ethical beliefs, or other such issues because this is nonsensical.

Yes it is. Weak atheism isn't a stance, it's the absence of a stance. It's not having taken a stance yet for various reasons, one of them being too young to take a stance.

And if we wish to make the term "atheism" or "weak atheism" so utterly meaningless that a baby can be said to be one, we still require that one be as ignorant as a pre-linguistic infant to be a weak atheist.

The term baby is meaningless because even a baby can be said to be one without the baby having a clue or even a possibility of understanding what the term baby means.

As I've described more than once and linked to various studies that document this as well, atheism even in its weak form as a "lack of belief" is only actually a lack of belief if one isn't familiar with the words atheism, theism, or god. Anyone who is (or is familiar with equivalent concepts in other languages) has beliefs. We can and have tested these biologically.

And infants are as you say not "familiar with the words atheism, theism, or god" and therefore do not have beliefs about them and are therefore weak atheists. Thanks for proving my point.

I've always understood it. It's a pointless definition that you made up and if we adopt it then we render the term "weak atheist" meaningless because a baby cannot be said to "not be a theist" in the way you or I can.

Thanks for giving me the credit but it belongs to another. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."