Atheism is not a default position

[ArtieE]

Sorry. Kids are born with a brain wired to believe in God. That better?

"For the sake of discussion, take “born believers” to mean “born with such propensities that under ordinary developmental conditions—biological, social, and cultural—belief will typically arise."

"Let us take “God” to mean an intentional being or agent with mental states and a will, who can and does act in the natural world. Let us also understand “God” to designate such an agent who has played some role in designing or ordering the natural world, has superhuman access to information about what is the case in the world, and is immortal. With these definitions in mind, then, the big question is: Are typical humans born with such propensities that, under ordinary developmental conditions, belief will likely arise in the existence of at least one God (i.e., an intentional agent who has played some role in ordering the natural world, has superhuman access to information about the world, and is immortal)? If that is our question, then we have reason to think the answer is yes."

Notice that it says "belief will likely arise" and "belief will typically arise" and not born with belief. The headline of the article is just a typical sensationalist headline written to draw attention.
Are We Born with Belief in God?

 

[Willamena]

"For the sake of discussion, take “born believers” to mean “born with such propensities that under ordinary developmental conditions—biological, social, and cultural—belief will typically arise."

That's what a default is: what would occur if nothing intervened.

"Let us take “God” to mean an intentional being or agent with mental states and a will, who can and does act in the natural world. Let us also understand “God” to designate such an agent who has played some role in designing or ordering the natural world, has superhuman access to information about what is the case in the world, and is immortal. With these definitions in mind, then, the big question is: Are typical humans born with such propensities that, under ordinary developmental conditions, belief will likely arise in the existence of at least one God (i.e., an intentional agent who has played some role in ordering the natural world, has superhuman access to information about the world, and is immortal)? If that is our question, then we have reason to think the answer is yes."

It is unlikely that such a specific and complex image of God is what is meant. I would leave off immortal, for instance, which requires a concept of mortality, and intelligent design, which requires arguments about predestined orderliness. To the child, though, there is no concept of not being safe, no concept of a wrongness about the world or themselves, and certainly no concept that their experience of and participation in the world could be faulted or doubted. It is not a strech to understand that this safety, perfection and belonging can be spun as "someone looking out for me."

Notice that it says "belief will likely arise" and "belief will typically arise" and not born with belief. The headline of the article is just a typical sensationalist headline written to draw attention.
Are We Born with Belief in God?

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Well, there is only a statistical explanation. Do you know another explanation?

And I would not use the word "never". "Extremely improbable" is more appropriate.

Ciao

- viole

Viole,

Molecules with higher kinetic energy transfers they energy to other with less of it. Statistical is used to quantified such phenomenon, I'm wrong?

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Viole,

Molecules with higher kinetic energy transfers they energy to other with less of it. Statistical is used to quantify such phenomenon, I'm wrong?

 

[marcosmasliaev]

I didn't mean scientific evidence. Just evidence in general. What supports your belief about souls?

I didn't write soul, but spirits, it's just mere nomenclature, we know. There's so many examples in modern literature related to it, make a search, you'll find it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why we are born to believe in God: It's wired into the brain, says psychologist | Daily Mail Online

 

[ArtieE]

Put it this way, let's go with the implicit atheism for the unborn and the children yet not having mental faculties. But then, as soon as the cognitive abilities start, they're by default theists. Then they have to unlearn this to become explicit atheists.

That good enough?

Put it this way, let's go with the implicit atheism for the unborn and the children yet not having mental faculties. But then, as soon as the cognitive abilities start, we are naturally inclined to reason about the world in such a way that a God concept fits like a key in a lock. But also belief in reincarnation and ghosts and all kinds of other supernatural stuff seems to fit.

 

[leibowde84]

I didn't write soul, but spirits, it's just mere nomenclature, we know. There's so many examples in modern literature related to it, make a search, you'll find it.

What kind of literature are you referring to that could be used as supporting evidence? In other words, what should I search for specifically?

 

[marcosmasliaev]

What kind of literature are you referring to that could be used as supporting evidence? In other words, what should I search for specifically?

Something like reincarnation evidences. In India this subject is very common, there's a good movie called Yesterday's Children, 2.000 (USA). There's a good book called "Hands of light", by Barbara Ann Brennan. It's a good start. She's MSc in atmospheric physics by Wisconsin university. You can refer to Allan Kardec book's: spirit book, genesis, hell and heaven, so on. In Brazil we have an extended literature wrote by Chico Xavier (already dead), and Divaldo Franco, to mention some. In England there's william Crockes, a chemist. Helena blavatsky, Russian. There's a lot of people who studied seriously it around the world, mainly after 19 century middle.

 

[leibowde84]

Something like reincarnation evidences. In India this subject is very common, there's a good movie called Yesterday's Children, 2.000 (USA). There's a good book called "Hands of light", by Barbara Ann Brennan. It's a good start. She's MSc in atmospheric physics by Wisconsin university. You can refer to Allan Kardec book's: spirit book, genesis, hell and heaven, so on. In Brazil we have an extended literature wrote by Chico Xavier (already dead), and Divaldo Franco, to mention some. In England there's william Crockes, a chemist. Helena blavatsky, Russian. There's a lot of people who studied seriously it around the world, mainly after 19 century middle.

Cool. Thanks. I'll check these out. Appreciate the help.

 

[leibowde84]

Why we are born to believe in God: It's wired into the brain, says psychologist | Daily Mail Online

This doesn't make the claim that you are. It doesn't claim that children believe in God before being instructed on the concept. It merely shows that children's brains are predisposed for belief of this nature, which only speaks to the easiness of convincing a child to believe in God.

 

[Ouroboros]

This doesn't make the claim that you are. It doesn't claim that children believe in God before being instructed on the concept. It merely shows that children's brains are predisposed for belief of this nature, which only speaks to the easiness of convincing a child to believe in God.

I changed that I said to mean it's hardwired. The default position the kids has before he can even believe or disbelieve anything is the faculties to believe there is a God. It's like having a computer with a default BIOS. It's there, even if the computer is turned off. You can claim that the BIOS doesn't exist until you start the computer, but in actuality, the BIOS is there, just not active, until you start. So the default boot procedure of your computer will be through that BIOS. In other words, the default is this, not the absence.

There are two sides to this coin. One is, what is the state of a system before start, and what is its state after start. A kids state before start is non-belief, agree, because it's like a rock. Rocks are atheists, it is said, which I don't find to be a useful distinction of anything. But, if we look at the state after the start, which is the default setting of the chips in the kids brain, the default configuration is to believe. It's easier for the kid to begin believing from the very beginning rather than the opposite. The default setting in BIOS of a kid is belief.

Also, you have to separate what claims I make and what I don't make. The claims I'm making are the interpretations of what these researchers are saying. I might be misunderstanding what they're saying, but if by chance my interpretation of what they're saying is right, it's their claim, not mine.

 

[Ouroboros]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/

...
Newberg calls religion the great equalizer and points out that similar areas of the brain are affected during prayer and meditation. Newberg suggests that these brain scans may provide proof that our brains are built to believe in God.
...
Some atheists saw these brain scans as proof that the emotions attached to religion and God are nothing more than manifestations of brain circuitry.
...

So it's only brain circuitry. That's all okay with me. Brain circuitry that we have from childhood because our genes have evolved that way. That's the default setting made by evolution.

---

What some people here don't understand. I do consider myself partially an atheist (naturalistic pantheist "atheist"). I believe in nature and the reality of things, and not in supernatural agents. I don't believe that these things prove any mysterious God's existence. And I surely don't suggest that any particular religion would be the "True(tm)" one because of it. But if science show what it shows, then to fight it is useless.

 

[`mud]

evolutionary progression into everything heavenly !
~
'mud

 

[ArtieE]

Something like reincarnation evidences. In India this subject is very common, there's a good movie called Yesterday's Children, 2.000 (USA). There's a good book called "Hands of light", by Barbara Ann Brennan. It's a good start. She's MSc in atmospheric physics by Wisconsin university. You can refer to Allan Kardec book's: spirit book, genesis, hell and heaven, so on. In Brazil we have an extended literature wrote by Chico Xavier (already dead), and Divaldo Franco, to mention some. In England there's william Crockes, a chemist. Helena blavatsky, Russian. There's a lot of people who studied seriously it around the world, mainly after 19 century middle.

I used to be interested in the supernatural and reincarnation and all kinds of weird stuff and read loads of books and saw a lot of tv shows on the subject but the more I learned the more discouraged I got. There was no consistency, books constantly contradicted each other, it was obvious they didn't describe any objective reality. In the end I just gave up.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

I used to be interested in the supernatural and reincarnation and all kinds of weird stuff and read loads of books and saw a lot of tv shows on the subject but the more I learned the more discouraged I got. There was no consistency, books constantly contradicted each other, it was obvious they didn't describe any objective reality. In the end I just gave up.

I know, this is common in this subject, the better to do to investigate it is looking at serious studies, like those I mentioned. Nothing that is real can be supernatural. Everything's possible is natural. There's no miracle anytime at all.

 

[atanu]

So if at a soccer match a person says that he believes team A will win and I reject that belief it means I believe team B will win? Why can't I go for a draw?

Sure why not?

We have Win, Draw, and Loss. Clear three words corresponding to three clear cases.

OTOH, we have two words: Theism and Atheism ...... and some are trying to impress upon us that the "Atheism" stands for the middle position also.

 

[leibowde84]

I changed that I said to mean it's hardwired. The default position the kids has before he can even believe or disbelieve anything is the faculties to believe there is a God. It's like having a computer with a default BIOS. It's there, even if the computer is turned off. You can claim that the BIOS doesn't exist until you start the computer, but in actuality, the BIOS is there, just not active, until you start. So the default boot procedure of your computer will be through that BIOS. In other words, the default is this, not the absence.

There are two sides to this coin. One is, what is the state of a system before start, and what is its state after start. A kids state before start is non-belief, agree, because it's like a rock. Rocks are atheists, it is said, which I don't find to be a useful distinction of anything. But, if we look at the state after the start, which is the default setting of the chips in the kids brain, the default configuration is to believe. It's easier for the kid to begin believing from the very beginning rather than the opposite. The default setting in BIOS of a kid is belief.

Also, you have to separate what claims I make and what I don't make. The claims I'm making are the interpretations of what these researchers are saying. I might be misunderstanding what they're saying, but if by chance my interpretation of what they're saying is right, it's their claim, not mine.

I completely disagree. A baby or child isn't "off" until they are provided with the concept of God. And, holding a predisposition for belief is not holding a belief. Thus, no matter what a child's predisposition to belief is, they still lack the specific belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sure why not?

We have Win, Draw, and Loss. Clear three words corresponding to three clear cases.

And also, cancelled play, and we also have forfeit (one team not playing giving the other team an automatic win).

OTOH, we have two words: Theism and Atheism ...... and some are trying to impress upon us that the "Atheism" stands for the middle position also.

The funny thing is, we begin first with: Theism and Atheism to be the exact, binary, polar opposites. There's no middle ground. It's either True or Not-True (which is False). Binary. Two values only.

Then... we start having the discussion about "implicit", "explicit", "weak", "strong", or perhaps half-*** version of atheism. It's half-atheism, barely-atheism, much-atheism, etc. In other words, now suddenly there's values between the state of T and F. It's not just 0 and 1, but 0.5, 0.25, 0.75, and so on. This means that a-theism isn't the opposite of theism, but just another type of descriptor that's kind'a opposite to theism. Oh, and then we also have anti-theism which is 1.5*atheism. It's even stronger than the strongest opposite. And theism are somewhat atheists, so we can never really reach zero, except for implicit atheism because that's what belongs to rocks.

All in all, it just means that the term "atheism" have no real function or value to describe anything. It's just a word to describe what's missing. Sometimes, somewhere, here and there, the "God belief" is missing. We call this property "atheism". So what? Everyone has it. It's everywhere. It's just to different degrees.

So in the end, it's more valuable for a person to identify him/herself with what he/she is rather than this identification of what he/she is not. We're all this *not* anyway. It doesn't tell me anything about a person if he/she is *not* believing in Santa or God or pixies or moon landing or global weather change or chocolate pudding. It doesn't mean anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

I completely disagree. A baby or child isn't "off" until they are provided with the concept of God. And, holding a predisposition for belief is not holding a belief. Thus, no matter what a child's predisposition to belief is, they still lack the specific belief.

Before the brain start. These articles suggest that belief comes naturally when the brain starts working. It's the default behavior of the brain.

The brain before it starts, of course it doesn't believe. It can't. It's off.

The moment is starts, it starts believing things.