Atheism is not a default position

[outhouse]

"Implicit Theism", by Eric Luis Uhlmann (Northwestern U), T. Andrew Poehlman (Southern Methodist U), and John A. Bargh (Yale)
http://www.socialjudgments.com/docs/Final Theism Chapter.pdf

These guys are making the argument that children are born "implicit theists" by default. I only skimmed through it, but they really have put in quite a bit of support from other research to make this claim. Do I agree with them? I don't know, but one thing is for certain, I'm not the first one to think of this.

Just a fun read for anyone interested. (It's an excerpt from some book they wrote. Don't know much about it, it was just a fun find.)

The work is reaching and pathetic and not something that would be peer reviewed for any credibility


Bering and Bjorklund (2004) presented kindergartners, elementary school


children, and adults with a puppet show during which an alligator ate a mouse.

Kindergartners believed that the dead mouse no longer needed food or water

and that its brain had stopped functioning. But they thought that the mouse still

possessed emotions, desires, and epistemic states such as thinking and knowing.

Kindergartners were signifi cantly more likely than elementary school children

and adults to believe that the mouse still had certain psychological states.

For example, kindergartners were twice as likely as elementary school children

to believe that the mouse retained epistemic states. Thus, a belief in the afterlife

appears a psychological default rather than a culturally acquired notion



Here the severity of their mistake is that children not having complete knowledge of death is perverted into a assumption of belief in the afterlife.

How can a child have knowledge of an afterlife when they don't fully understand death?


They make obvious assumptions that remain rhetorical and unsubstantiated. the whole article is rhetorical base assumptions.

Children this age watch cartoons at home like puppet shows that do not represent reality, and the kids now something that is not really alive did not die to begin with.

Not many people teach a 4 or 5 year old about what death actually is and means.

 

[Sees]

Good to hear.

Which means that "implicit theism" is a valid position, just as much as "implicit atheism". Babies are born just as much implicit atheism as they are implicit theism. Both positions are simultaneous true (since babies don't believe anything.)

Most believe in a great Goddess called mommy She is all-wise, all-powerful, ever-loving.

 

[Curious George]

Most believe in a great Goddess called mommy She is all-wise, all-powerful, ever-loving.

I tried that one in a different thread, lol. People were not happy. Mighthave had something to do with calling her immortal and infallible though...lol

 

[outhouse]

Most believe in a great Goddess called mommy She is all-wise, all-powerful, ever-loving.

Agreed.

 

[Ouroboros]

The work is reaching and pathetic and not something that would be peer reviewed for any credibility
Bering and Bjorklund (2004) presented kindergartners, elementary school

Bering and Bjorklund (2004) was published here: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-11032-008

Which is APA (American Psychological Association). From APA: "The American Psychological Association is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 122,500 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members."

I'm not sure how that is not a credible source regarding psychology.

 

[Pudding]

Good to hear.

Which means that "implicit theism" is a valid position, just as much as "implicit atheism". Babies are born just as much implicit atheism as they are implicit theism. Both positions are simultaneous true (since babies don't believe anything.)

Don't believe anything =/= believe in deity.
Don't believe anything =/= implicit theism.

I can't understand where have my post agree/support "implicit theism" is a valid position, can you elaborate where/why/how?

 

[Ouroboros]

Most believe in a great Goddess called mommy She is all-wise, all-powerful, ever-loving.

I suspect the research is going beyond suggesting that.

I'd like to see some research showing support for "implicit atheism" in babies. It's not good enough just to sit and guess that babies must be "implicit atheists" and then just reject any research showing the opposite.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't believe anything =/= believe in deity.
Don't believe anything =/= implicit theism.

I can't understand where have my post agree/support "implicit theism" is a valid position, can you elaborate where/why/how?

All four positions are valid.

Do understand that you responded to my post that was one in a long chain of posts (dialogue) between me and another member. I'm not sure what your position is. I only assumed that you picked up from where we (the other participants) ended.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A deist believes in a god who does not interact with mankind. Anyone who is not a deist (And any other god-faith) is an atheist (opposite of a theist)

So one can be an atheist and believe in god, making the term essentially meaningless as well as inherently incoherent.

 

[outhouse]

It's not rhetoric. It's research

It is rhetoric that uses weasel words, they even tell you how they define implicit leaving a lot of wiggle room for artistic freedom



In addition to implicitly distinguishing between bodies and souls, humans are


predisposed to perceive agency not only in ourselves ( Wegner & Wheatley, 1999 ;

Wegner, 2002 ; Aarts et al., 2004, 2006 ) but also in the world around us ( Guthrie ,

1993 ; Barrett, 2000 ). Because the costs of failing to perceive a predator are much

higher than perceiving a predator when none is there, humans have a hypersensitive

agency detection device ( Barrett, 2000 ) that leads us to perceive lurking

danger in the woods and faces in the clouds (not to mention the Virgin Mary in a

potato chip and Mother Teresa’s face in a cinnamon roll; Guthrie, 1993 ).



These are known survival traits, that have nothing to do with theism, but that of primates surviving by seeing faces in the jungle or brush, as they even state.

But they are trying to imply implicitly distinguishing between bodies and souls, when its not viewed that way, and exist in primate with no theism.

Rhetorically adding people who are theist who use this agency in theistic applications [mary and Teresa]

 

[Curious George]

So one can be an atheist and believe in god, making the term essentially meaningless as well as inherently incoherent.

After a discussion with Copernicus, I have to ask what you mean by "meaningless?"

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Hi, Carlita. Your argument would seem to be valid, but it is actually a type of genetic fallacy called an etymological fallacy. That is, you are arguing that we ought to use a word in a certain way because of the way the word is structured--in this case, with a negative prefix--and its etymological origin.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on what an etymological fallacy is:

The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, and is sometimes used as a basis for linguistic prescription. An argument constitutes an etymological fallacy if it makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on its etymology. This does not, however, show that etymology is irrelevant in any way, nor does it attempt to prove such.

A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies, or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology. Notable examples include the terms antisemitism and philosemitism, which were coined to refer to Jews specifically, rather than to Semites in general.​

From a purely linguistic perspective, the "a-" prefix in "atheism" is not actually as productive as you think. In modern English, we tend to use it productively to form adjectives, not nouns. The word originally came into English from French, although its origin was ultimately Greek. When it came into use, it was used to refer to people who rejected belief in the Christian concept of God. In modern usage, it refers to anyone who generally rejects or denies belief in gods, although the dispute in this thread is over whether it can refer to anyone who, for whatever reason, lacks a belief in gods. That includes people who do not even have a concept of what a god is. Anyway, the basis for any definition is always going to be in how people actually use the word, not necessarily how the word is structurally composed or what its meaning was when people historically started using it.

I have attempted (and failed) to explicate the fallacies/deficiencies inherent in using preposition & postposition or affixation to derive meaning. I assert that the above more than adequately addresses what I didn't even realize is called the etymological fallacy. More simply, I wish I'd said the above myself.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is rhetoric that uses weasel words, they even tell you how they define implicit leaving a lot of wiggle room for artistic freedom

Ok. Well, that's your opinion.

In addition to implicitly distinguishing between bodies and souls, humans are
predisposed to perceive agency not only in ourselves ( Wegner & Wheatley, 1999 ;
Wegner, 2002 ; Aarts et al., 2004, 2006 ) but also in the world around us ( Guthrie ,
1993 ; Barrett, 2000 ). Because the costs of failing to perceive a predator are much
higher than perceiving a predator when none is there, humans have a hypersensitive
agency detection device ( Barrett, 2000 ) that leads us to perceive lurking
danger in the woods and faces in the clouds (not to mention the Virgin Mary in a
potato chip and Mother Teresa’s face in a cinnamon roll; Guthrie, 1993 ).

Have you looked into the supporting documents and source material? Wegner & Wheatley for instance was published in American Psychologist. These aren't just garden variety guys writing their opinions but researchers in psychology.

I'd like to see some articles with the same amount of source material and backing for the "implicit atheist" position. It's not good enough just to say they're using weasel words and rhetorics. They're not.

These are known survival traits, that have nothing to do with theism, but that of primates surviving by seeing faces in the jungle or brush, as they even state.
But they are trying to imply implicitly distinguishing between bodies and souls, when its not viewed that way, and exist in primate with no theism.
Rhetorically adding people who are theist who use this agency in theistic applications [mary and Teresa]

Implicit theism is a survival trait. That's fine with me. Which means that "implicit atheism" has to now be supported with some research to respond.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

After a discussion with Copernicus, I have to ask what you mean by "meaningless?"

In this case, I mean that if we adopt the definition I have opposed, then there exists no usage of atheism that communicates anything more than a tautology and therefore communicates nothing more than that "given that A=A, A ~=B" or something of similar ilk.

 

[Sees]

I suspect the research is going beyond suggesting that.

I'd like to see some research showing support for "implicit atheism" in babies. It's not good enough just to sit and guess that babies must be "implicit atheists" and then just reject any research showing the opposite.

I actually think it is part of the implicit theism, or you could say implicit religiosity, that we have. Mommy is simply the first form we associate with and she is the world itself at first. Later on the world encompasses more and more and it can go anywhere from there. I'm sure it's a part in the prevalence of the Venus statues.

 

[outhouse]

Implicit theism is a survival trait. That's fine with me.

I did not say that, I showed an example where they imply a survival trait shows evidence towards implicit atheism.

I also showed an example of their assumptions a 4 year old fully understand death after watching cartoon characters all day.

Do 4 year olds fully understand death ?


Please don't load words on me.

Which means that "implicit atheism" has to now be supported with some research to respond

False. non sequitur.

You would first have to prove a child is born an implicit theist, it is not proven.

One has to first prove implicit theism is real, the article is not peer reviewed, and is only one study done. It holds no credibility as defining anything.


LAST, their study was done for the majority on children not babies, the one study that used in infant, a theistic conclusion was reached because a child showed excitement with yellow and red dots

 

[outhouse]

that we have. Mommy

Parental love, I have always viewed the connection to theism.

The father concept, afterlife to see loved ones, mother earth ect ect ect

 

[Bunyip]

I am attacking a flawed definition. It does not matter what the correct definition is when the flaw is in the logic.

There is no 'correct' definition. You still don't get that?

Then refrain from making such statements as I have linked.

Why? I can employ whatever usage I please, as can everyone.

If the definition has a failure in logic in order to claim X holds a position, or lacks, then the argument is undermined completely.

Nope, the argument is not even effected.

More so you are ignoring part of your own objection which is language. You attempt to mix definition and coherence of meaning of a word based solely on the context of the one making the claim. Ouroboros made this objection, which I cited, already. Only this is taken one step further by removing the second person and just assuming a position for them based on the one making the claims lack of date and/or capability to gather date. Thus the argument switches from deductive to inductive. This is then used as a basis to infer a logical deduction when it is not. However no one bothers to include the language context nor the thoughts of subject at all. These are dismissed completely as if of no concern.





Thus the difference between informal language and formal language. However if the topic is grounded in a word which has a philosophical context, formal language, then people are obligated in using this context not their personal subjective one. Thus is exposed to my scrutiny and found wanting.




Education in specific fields in which words have contextual definition based on a consensus of peers, people are obligated to use follow this consensus. Otherwise it become the typical anti-evolution phrase, "It's just a theory" followed by the refutation of "scientific context". Which is all I am asking people to do. I find it amusing that many people would leap at the "theory" example yet dance around my point by sticking with their subjective definition in this case. In my view both example show how people are invested in an ideology thus need the bandwagon to grow larger.



I am attacking a probable solution to the question in the OP. This solution is based definition of a word alone which is illogical and an inaccurate description of the idea. I have no need to attack the idea if said idea is misrepresented to begin with, Again based on a definition.

You attack a phantom, drawn from a misconception I am clearly unable to express to you.

Under some definitions of atheism and God, and in some contexts the statement that Babies are atheists is true.
People call that 'implicit atheism'.
Under other definitions of atheism and God, and in some contexts the statement that Babies are atheists is meaningless, or even false.

The same goes for pretty much all statements Shad.

There is no correct definition of atheism, just a variety of imperfect definitions picked up by lexicographers listening in on how people are using words. There is no authoritative definition for any common term in all contexts - people use terms to describe ideas, and dictionaries record the many ways in which they do so. This is an informal conversation, we are using informal language. Formal language is for law and math. Even in formal English by the way - there is still no 'correct' definition for these terms.

 

[Bunyip]

So one can be an atheist and believe in god, making the term essentially meaningless as well as inherently incoherent.

Of course. You need to ask a few more questions before the term has any useful meaning.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not sure how that is not a credible source regarding psychology.

lets look at your boy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bargh

controversy has emerged because several recent studies failed to replicate the finding.

Starting in 2013 and 2014, many additional reports began to emerge of failures to replicate findings from Bargh's lab.

In March 2015 yet another paper from Bargh lab was reported to be unreproducible:


he is a known quack