Atheism, or theism, which is by-default among human beings ?

[Gnostic Seeker]

Human being turns from theists -to- atheist, or atheist -to- theists ? Which thing is by-default among human beings ? Atheism, or Theism.

Polytheism, seeing as that's what the whole world was prior to monotheistic wars and coercion.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is a bit like asking which language is the "default among human beings".

I would disagree. Language is an ingrained portion of our brain. We evolved for language and although we have never taken a child and had them raised in an environment devoid of language I feel they would compensate somehow. We can even have that portion of our brain damaged and loose the capability.

But belief in god, unless I have missed a recent discovery, doesn't have its own developed portion of the brain and remains a concept only. It is highly ingrained in our societies but not necessarily our brain.

So even language might not be a good example to compare it to.

 

[Orbit]

If you google "theory of mind evolution" what you will find is universal is agency attribution bias. Example: the grass rustles. Humans attribute agency (something is responsible for that). It had evolutionary value because it kept you from being eaten by an unseen lion.

People tend to attribute agency even where the agent is unseen (supernatural beliefs arise). Human religions piggyback on that innate tendency. So, no, theism is not innate, but the underlying tendency to attribute agency to actions without an actor is.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Perhaps humans are default pantheists.

 

[Quintessence]

According to me.. it is, the Ism which is by-default.

That's why I started this thread.

Wait... what? You... you realize this opens up the definition of theism to things that have nothing to do with god(s) right?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I would disagree. Language is an ingrained portion of our brain.

Decades ego, Chomsky posited that language was innate based largely on nothing. He later adopted the "poverty of stimulus" argument to support his view that language is somehow "hard-wired" in the brain. Especially since the 80s, this view has been challenged at every level, creating a wide-ranging field or research that goes under the nomenclature "embodied cognition". More interestingly, everyone would disagree with the above. The "language module" (the newer term for Chomsky's "language faculty") isn't considered by anybody to actually exist physically as some portion of the brain like the PFC or substantia nigra.

We evolved for language

We didn't.

and although we have never taken a child and had them raised in an environment devoid of language

This has happened often enough that there is a term for such a child (feral children). Scientists who study cognition (including language) have developed far more sophisticated theories about the inability for children to ever learn to speak once they have passed a "fuzzy" age threshold.

I feel they would compensate somehow.

So far, not only have they shown known ability to do so, but are incapable of learning language.

We can even have that portion of our brain damaged and loose the capability.

Wrong, but not I a simplistic way. There is evidence that loss of certain perceptual/sensory portions of the brain result in specific language deficits, as well as high level parts of the brain that also result in specific deficits and the way in which damage in any area can be compensated for (with restrictions).

But belief in god, unless I have missed a recent discovery, doesn't have its own developed portion of the brain and remains a concept only. It is highly ingrained in our societies but not necessarily our brain.

It is more ingrained in us than language by all relevant research in evolutionary sciences, as (apart from everything else) the differences between languages is vast compared to the differences between religious beliefs.

So even language might not be a good example to compare it to.

I've spend much of my life studying language in one form or another and have dedicated my graduate studies to the brain, including the ability to process and produce language. The above is quite simply wrong.,

 

[Copernicus]

I would disagree. Language is an ingrained portion of our brain.

Decades ego, Chomsky posited that language was innate based largely on nothing. He later adopted the "poverty of stimulus" argument to support his view that language is somehow "hard-wired" in the brain. Especially since the 80s, this view has been challenged at every level, creating a wide-ranging field or research that goes under the nomenclature "embodied cognition". More interestingly, everyone would disagree with the above. The "language module" (the newer term for Chomsky's "language faculty") isn't considered by anybody to actually exist physically as some portion of the brain like the PFC or substantia nigra.

As a cognitive linguist, I think I'll have to disagree with much of what you have been saying about linguistic theory. It is true that we learn language instinctively, but probably not by any use of a "universal grammar" in Chomsky's sense. Rather, we come equipped with a large number of mental faculties that more or less support language. Chomsky is a very influential linguist--much more so for those who view the field from the outside--but his ideas on linguistic "innateness" have not yielded very productive results.

We evolved for language...

We didn't.

I think that it's fair to say that language evolved in the ancestors to our species. Certain parts of the brain that control specialized linguistic abilities definitely have grown under evolutionary pressure.

and although we have never taken a child and had them raised in an environment devoid of language

This has happened often enough that there is a term for such a child (feral children). Scientists who study cognition (including language) have developed far more sophisticated theories about the inability for children to ever learn to speak once they have passed a "fuzzy" age threshold.

Well, the phenomenon has still been quite rare. What we know is that failure to expose infants and children to language can impair their ability to fully acquire a language, but that is true of most instincts in animals. Environmental triggers are very important in the acquisition of instinctive patterns of behavior. It's also true that puberty is another "critical age" threshold for language acquisition. After puberty, one's ability to master a new language decreases dramatically.

I feel they would compensate somehow.

So far, not only have they shown known ability to do so, but are incapable of learning language.

That's an overgeneralization. The ability of such unfortunates to acquire language is impaired, not destroyed. Even adults can acquire some mastery of foreign languages, even though they cannot acquire perfect mastery. It depends on the individual.

We can even have that portion of our brain damaged and loose the capability.

Wrong, but not I a simplistic way. There is evidence that loss of certain perceptual/sensory portions of the brain result in specific language deficits, as well as high level parts of the brain that also result in specific deficits and the way in which damage in any area can be compensated for (with restrictions).

I think that what he is saying is basically correct. Brain damage can cause different types of linguistic aphasia, but different areas of the brain affect different linguistic functionality.

But belief in god, unless I have missed a recent discovery, doesn't have its own developed portion of the brain and remains a concept only. It is highly ingrained in our societies but not necessarily our brain.

It is more ingrained in us than language by all relevant research in evolutionary sciences, as (apart from everything else) the differences between languages is vast compared to the differences between religious beliefs.

I agree with the Monk on this point. Language is a highly complex skill, and it is affected by one's stage of maturation. That is a hallmark of the acquisition of an instinct. I do not believe that any such effect has been shown for religious belief. Brain damage to specific areas of the brain does not seem to have a great impact on religious belief. I don't see the relevance of linguistic theory to any of this argument.

So even language might not be a good example to compare it to.

I've spend much of my life studying language in one form or another and have dedicated my graduate studies to the brain, including the ability to process and produce language. The above is quite simply wrong.,

That's an appeal to authority--your own authority as an expert on language--not a reason to accept your argument. And you are not a linguist. I have been a professional linguist for over 40 years now. I think that you've misapplied linguistic theory to this specific question. If you want to show that theism is instinctive in humans, then you need to show similarity between how religion is acquired and how language is acquired. You have not done so here.

Here is my take on why theism is so widespread among humans. It has nothing at all to do with an innate "God pod" in the head. It comes from the nature of how we understand things--by relating new experiences to old experiences. Our earliest memory is that of parents and family. We are social beings that are programmed from the first to obey authority. The transition to adulthood means "leaving the nest", so to speak, and gods are perfectly natural, but imaginary, substitutes for parental authority. Just as you did not question parental advice and instructions in your early years, you obey God's authority on morality, etc., in your adulthood. God is omniscient and all powerful, just as we believed our parents to be until we came to discover the flaws in that assumption over time.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, you know sometimes people try to kill two birds with a single arrow, but here, you are trying to haunt three birds with a single arrow.

What can I say? I have developed a hear for your birds.

Firstly, you are directly answering me NO,

Right.

Secondly, covering your first point you are saying that "My memory of early childhood is particularly bad, quite below average" (If this is so, than why you answered me NO ?)

Because while it is true, it is also suspect and IMO unimportant in any case. I believe the usual idiom to describe my intent here is "full disclosure". It would be tempting, but rude or even disrespectful, to just say "No" and call it a day.

Also, I do want to make things clear, and among other things that means avoiding giving statements that I find unfounded my tacit support by way of silence.

Thirdly, covering your second point you are saying that.. Yet, it is unclear to me what you mean by "Greater-Power" (If this is so.. than why are you answering and talking about memories and all that ?

Truth be told, maybe I should not. I am not certain this habit of mine to answer your very directed questions is healthy. But I am like that: given to answer questions which I do not necessarily see as reasonable.

Very Smart !

Thanks, I guess.

 

[InChrist]

I believe humans are theists by default with an awareness of a Creator/God and this lines up with the scriptures...

...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:19-21

 

[Parsimony]

There are people on this discussion board who say that they never believed in God, even when they were young children. I believe Revoltingest is one of them (if you wished to ask one of them personally). As for me, I don't know what my "default" belief setting is because I was indoctrinated with Christianity very early in my life. I can't remember what my beliefs were prior to that (if I even had any).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are people on this discussion board who say that they never believed in God, even when they were young children. I believe Revoltingest is one of them (if you wished to ask one of them personally). As for me, I don't know what my "default" belief setting is because I was indoctrinated with Christianity very early in my life. I can't remember what my beliefs were prior to that (if I even had any).

I don't remember ever believing in God, to be honest, but memories are tricky things. I would think I was probably an agnostic most of my youth, and my atheism came a little later (mid teens maybe)?
I was raised Christian, to some degree, and attended church at times. Could recite various prayers, etc. But attendance and recital never matched belief that I can remember.

I do remember when I lost belief in Santa. So, not sure how informative early belief is in any case. Don't remember ever believing in the Easter Bunny, but I very well may have for a while. Just seemed very improbable.

 

[Bunyip]

My experiences are similar to Lewis. I was raised Catholic, but resonated far more with the Greco/Roman mythology that my father recited on the way to and from church. I do recall some sort of sense of the divine, but when I compare that feeling looking back as best I can - that sense that there is some greater power bears very little resemblance to the Christian god.

Deism and some forms of pantheism and paganism appear to have been more innate to my young self than the theistic notion of God. The feeling that nature contained deeper mysteries may lead to a conception of god, but I am not sure if that constitutes an awareness of God.
The fascination with deist, pagan and pantheist concepts persists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is true that we learn language instinctively, but probably not by any use of a "universal grammar" in Chomsky's sense.

Usually, cognitive psychologists adopt Fodor's terminology rather than Chomskyan and speak in terms of modules (rather than UG, or at the very least refer to the language faculty), especially in evolutionary psychology where massive modularity allows evolutionary psychologists to look at the possible evolution of particular modules.

Chomsky is a very influential linguist--much more so for those who view the field from the outside--but his ideas on linguistic "innateness" have not yielded very productive results.

Certainly not from a linguistic standpoint (especially considering the original goals of TGG). However, within the cognitive sciences more generally, theories such as massive modularity which include the language module and are based upon the very parts of the brain you refer to here:

Certain parts of the brain that control specialized linguistic abilities definitely have grown under evolutionary pressure.

have been more successful (see e.g., the works of Pinker, Caramazza, Shapiro, Mahon, Jackendoff, Hauser (before Harvard fired him), etc.; some of those names, such as Jackendoff & Pinker, I'm sure you are well-acquainted with, while perhaps Kevin Shapiro's or Alfonso Carmazza's works perhaps less so). An interesting contrast between the narrow, Chomskyan "language faculty" and a more widely accepted (or simply a less narrow) version within the cognitive sciences may be found in the two contrasting papers you have perhaps read:
The evolution of the language faculty:Clarifications and implications
vs.
The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky)
(again, knowing your background I'm sure you are familiar with Jackendoff and if you haven't read Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty (No. 28). MIT Press. or the more recent, simple, and all-encompassing Foundations of Language (probably to elementary for your level), the second of the two papers above describes the kind of language module more common in the cognitive sciences than the UG of Chomsky (see also e.g., the PNAS paper “Restrictions on biological adaptation in language evolution", "Neural specificity for grammatical operations is revealed by content-independent fMR adaptation", & “The biological basis of language: insight from developmental grammatical impairments” for more recent work on the evolution of language within the neurosciences and evolutionary psychology)

What we know is that failure to expose infants and children to language can impair their ability to fully acquire a language

That’s downplaying the evidence by more than a little.

but that is true of most instincts in animals

How so? There is no equivalent of the POS argument for “most instincts” (although I consider the argument flawed, it isn’t because there exists no mapping between the kind of environmental cues required and the resulting behavior, and no such mapping is comparable for “most instincts” in animals).

That's an overgeneralization. The ability of such unfortunates to acquire language is impaired, not destroyed.

As far as actual ability to acquire “language” is concerned, the difference between impairment and an inability to ever acquire language doesn’t differ by much. This isn’t comparable to most linguistic impairments outside of severe neurological deficits caused by lesions, surgical removal of massive brain tissue, etc.

Even adults can acquire some mastery of foreign languages

But I’m not talking about acquiring L2 acquisition.

Brain damage to specific areas of the brain does not seem to have a great impact on religious belief.

See e.g.,
Urgesi, C., Aglioti, S. M., Skrap, M., & Fabbro, F. (2010). The spiritual brain: selective cortical lesions modulate human self-transcendence. Neuron, 65(3), 309-319.
For a more thorough treatment, see e.g.,
McNamara, P. (Ed.). (2006). Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion (Vols. I-III)(from the series Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality). Praegor.
There are also numerous studies linking religiosity & spirituality to specific neurological disorders, from Alzheimer’s to certain epilepsies, as well as specific brain regions (e.g., Wuerfel, J., Krishnamoorthy, E. S., Brown, R. J., Lemieux, L., Koepp, M., Van Elst, L. T., & Trimble, M. R. (2004). Religiosity is associated with hippocampal but not amygdala volumes in patients with refractory epilepsy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 75(4), 640-642.)

I don't see the relevance of linguistic theory to any of this argument.

I didn’t begin the comparison as other than "a bit like", but rather refuted the idea that there doesn’t exist evidence that religiosity is an adaptive evolutionary trait because we lack the kind of evidence for its neurophysiological/neurobiological basis that we “have” for language:

Language is an ingrained portion of our brain.

The above is wrong.

And you are not a linguist.

Which would matter, if I had brought up the comparison as more than a minimal comparison rendering irrelevant all such questions beyond whether or not language is actually to be found in "an ingrained portion of our brain" and if I required linguistics rather than evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology rather than linguistics to make a case that religiosity is an evolutionary adaptation (as shown in the various studies I’ve cited here and elsewhere specifically on the evolution of religion). I didn’t bring up linguistics, and as linguistics isn’t the study of the evolution of language nor a matter of neuroscience, your expertise as a linguist is at best tangential.

If you want to show that theism is instinctive in humans, then you need to show similarity between how religion is acquired and how language is acquired.

This is patently absurd. I need only show that if I were making the argument that because religiosity and language are so similar and language is innate, therefore this suggests religiosity is. However, as language is utterly irrelevant to my argument and was not even brought up in the various studies I cited on the evolution of religion, there is no good reason to address the above.

 

[Copernicus]

Legion, I'm not going to engage you in a debate over academic authorities and try to impress folks with the depth of my scholarly background. Most people here have no idea what is in any of those papers or what to make of the academic references, so it is a bit silly to drag all of that out here. Chinu presented us with a straightforward question, and I felt that you drifted far away from it with all the fire and smoke surrounding linguistic theory.

As someone thoroughly familiar with the area you were discussing, I felt that you had misapplied its relevance to this issue. Your lengthy, detailed reply seemed to meander into rough agreement about its irrelevance, but I honestly can't be sure. What I will say is that there is no serious controversy over whether linguistic ability is innate in humans, but there is a lot of debate over precisely which aspects of it are dedicated to linguistic functionality alone and which fall out of our general cognition. I do believe that our brains are "wired" for language acquisition--that that aspect of human existence is so important as to have affected how the species evolved. It may also be true that some parts of our brain have been modified by evolution to favor belief in gods, but I think that evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was probably more correct in thinking that it had more to do with what he calls an "evolutionary misfire". A sizable portion of the human species is averse to belief in gods, and they seem to function just fine. By way of contrast, every normal human being raised in contact with other humans speaks a language. Religion does not seem to be quite the same kind of biological imperative.

If you want to show that theism is instinctive in humans, then you need to show similarity between how religion is acquired and how language is acquired.

This is patently absurd. I need only show that if I were making the argument that because religiosity and language are so similar and language is innate, therefore this suggests religiosity is. However, as language is utterly irrelevant to my argument and was not even brought up in the various studies I cited on the evolution of religion, there is no good reason to address the above.

Again, this is not a debate about the content of studies you have read. If you think those studies are significant, then your challenge is to explain the arguments as clearly as you can here, preferably without a lot of academic posturing to make them sound more authoritative. If you really study such things, you know that there are extremely intelligent people arguing both sides of these issues, so a laundry list of authors from your favorite side in academia isn't really a cogent argument. Yes, I know who Jackendoff and Fodor and Chomsky are. I've met them, and I've even sat on a dissertation committee with Jerry Fodor. So everyone should be terribly impressed with me.

Now, let's address the real issue here. Religion and language are not similar enough to each other to sustain the argument that theism, let alone religion in general, is a specialized trait of human cognition. Language is, but religion isn't. Why? Because instinctive behavior is characterized by stages of maturation. Language is deeply affected by one's level of maturation. Religion, OTOH, does not develop in humans in the same way. Unlike language, religion is almost always acquired through conscious instruction. Children acquire language regardless of instruction. And not everyone actually acquires religious belief. Many people end up changing or dropping religious belief these days. It seems to depend on the way people model reality. If you believe in a spiritual world that is independent of brains--which most people do--then you are more prone to belief in the existence of gods. If you believe that the mind is something that fully depends on a physical brain for its existence, then you are less likely to believe that bodiless spirits such as gods and ghosts exist. That is not the only point of view that separates the religious from the non-religious, but it is a point of view that tends to support one mental framework or the other. As Richard Dawkins once said, we are all prone to dualism--the mind/body dichotomy--so it is easy to see why there is such widespread belief in immaterial spirits, including angels, demons, and gods.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, I'm not going to engage you in a debate over academic authorities and try to impress folks with the depth of my scholarly background.

I'm also not interested in academic authority so much as I am tired of this topic, given the number of threads on it either quite recent or ongoing now (let alone in the past, when the topic finally progressed to the point at which I decided it was best to leave the forums entirely).
I don't know how many of these recent threads and the posts within you've read. So perhaps I am coming off as way too strong and antagonistic because I have repeatedly addressed the same claims in multiple different ways.

The several other recent threads on this topic have involved numerous claims, some re-made here, that I've already addressed both without and with all the lengthy, technically-oriented posts you object to.

Chinu presented us with a straightforward question

Then why the three or so other, ongoing discussions on the exact same topic (or near enough)?

Most people here have no idea what is in any of those papers or what to make of the academic references, so it is a bit silly to drag all of that out here.

That's why I like to link to them.

Spoiler: An apology (in the apologist sense)

I felt that you drifted far away from it with all the fire and smoke surrounding linguistic theory.

I'm not sure I really brought up much in the way of linguistics at all, but rather that (as a linguist) you interpreted a single post I made as being about linguistics rather than language as it is studied in other fields. However, that’s rather trivial to your point, and I think you are mostly right here. The problem, though, is that I would rather avoid rehashing arguments already made in the other 2-3 threads ongoing threads on this topic which didn’t involve citations or references but merely the use of logic and reason. I would rather avoid having to re-address claims such as the arguments that the adfixation “poly” in “polytheism” necessarily means “theists” are “subset” of the “set” which contains all “theists” and similar arguments involving misuse of technical terms, especially when my requests for such technical specifics be avoided (or at the very least correctly used) were unsuccessful.

As someone thoroughly familiar with the area you were discussing

Rather, you are thoroughly familiar with a field that I wasn’t actually discussing, but the overlaps were enough to explain your mistake. If you go back and review the post you responded to, you’ll note a distinct lack of the word “linguistics”, little apart from a reference to Chomsky’s outdated view to suggest I was talking about linguistic research, and a great deal to indicate I never intended to talk about linguistics (e.g., references to the brain, the statement “scientists who study the cognition”, mentioning “the evolutionary sciences”, etc.).

Your lengthy, detailed reply seemed to meander into rough agreement about its irrelevance, but I honestly can't be sure.

On the other hand, had you not misunderstood the much shorter, less detailed, and explicit post you responded to, I wouldn't have written the lengthy one.

In retrospect, it would have been easier to say “I am not using linguistic theory, and to the extent I am comparing the innateness of religiosity to the innateness of language it is based on research outside of linguistics.”

What I will say is that there is no serious controversy over whether linguistic ability is innate in humans

There is a comparable claim about the evolution of religion. Namely, “nobody” doubts the evolutionary basis/bases for religion (excepting those who don’t believe in evolution or who reject evolutionary psychology and related evolutionary sciences). The debate, rather, is between adaptationists and those who argue that it was a by-product.

A sizable portion of the human species is averse to belief in gods

There is some interesting research on the extent to which atheists views are only “skin-deep” (not my wording). For example, several studies have involved explicit and implicit measures of self-described atheists and believers after they were asked to respond to questions about death/mortality. While this “priming” increased the belief of believers and disbelief of disbelievers explicitly, it increased implicit measure of belief across the board. One particularly interesting study measured physiological indications of stress among atheists and religious individuals while they were asked to “dare” god to harm them (and similar things; both groups read aloud from a list of prepared statements).

The point is that atheism is rather a new phenomenon, religiosity is ubiquitous, and yet as you say there are those who seem quite clear about their disbelief in god(s) (among other religious beliefs) and have zero qualms with this. Researchers interested in why this is so (what mitigating factors play a role in whether a person espouses religious beliefs or not) approach the matter in different ways and with different results, but an over-arching result is “The relative unnaturalness of atheism” (borrowed from the title of Barrett’s paper). The research I described suggests that some atheists “function just fine” because they actually believe more than they say or realize (for those interested in reading the actual studies: “Foxhole atheism, revisited: The effects of mortality salience on explicit and implicit religious belief” & “No atheists in foxholes: Arguments for (but not against) afterlife belief buffers mortality salience effects for atheists”; I couldn’t find a freely available copy of Lindeman, M., Heywood, B., Riekki, T., & Makkonen, T. (2014). Atheists become emotionally aroused when daring God to do terrible things. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 24(2), 124-132.). Others have explained relative novelty of atheism and its continued relative scarcity in part by findings that disbelief is “harder”. That is, studies with children and adults indicate universality of central underlying cognitive/reasoning bases for religiosity.

Religion does not seem to be quite the same kind of biological imperative.

.

It doesn’t now. However, the biological imperatives which dictated our evolutionary history are not those of today but tens of thousands of years ago. Religiosity is complex, multifaceted, and involves various cognitive and neurophysiological processes/mechanisms. There are central components to religious and in particular the belief in “god(s)” that seem to be not only the result of universal cognitive biases/tendencies, but also that these were selected because of religion’s evolutionary advantages. The literature on the health benefits of religious belief is vast in and of itself, without having to think about the ways in which the environment for humans tens of thousands of years ago may have added benefits to religious beliefs that were selected for and remain despite their current irrelevancy.
You may find the following interesting: Inzlicht, M., Tullett, A. M., & Good, M. (2011).The need to believe: A neuroscience account of religion as a motivated process. Religion, brain & behavior, 1(3), 192-212.

If you think those studies are significant, then your challenge is to explain the arguments as clearly as you can here, preferably without a lot of academic posturing to make them sound more authoritative.

To summarize hundreds of diverse studies across several fields in a post rather than refer/link to them or to some review papers seems a waste of time, at least until something I argue is challenged, in which case I’m happy to explain the arguments for it.
Also, the post you responded to didn’t contain citations or particularly detailed explanations and you fundamentally misunderstood it. Nor am I obligated to adapt my responses to your liking. I find it important not only to cite references but to provide others with an opportunity to read them. My posts are generally long, and you are more than welcome to ignore them.

Religion and language are not similar enough to each other to sustain the argument that theism, let alone religion in general, is a specialized trait of human cognition.

Got it. If I ever hear someone making that argument, I’ll be sure to let them know.

 

[Tiapan]

Atheism, or theism, which is by-default among human beings ?

Definitely theism as a child initially, then atheism as one gains wisdom.

 

[Copernicus]

...To summarize hundreds of diverse studies across several fields in a post rather than refer/link to them or to some review papers seems a waste of time, at least until something I argue is challenged, in which case I’m happy to explain the arguments for it. Also, the post you responded to didn’t contain citations or particularly detailed explanations and you fundamentally misunderstood it. Nor am I obligated to adapt my responses to your liking. I find it important not only to cite references but to provide others with an opportunity to read them. My posts are generally long, and you are more than welcome to ignore them...

Well, you managed to once again carpet-bomb me with more references and links to reading assignments that you must know most I have no time and little interest in plowing through. I know it's your style, but trying to give out homework is not really an effective method of argument here. For one thing, not everyone who reads an academic discourse comes away with the same understandings and impressions, so just pointing and making an assertion that the argument is in there is something of a non-starter for me. In an academic setting, that kind of thing makes more sense, because people are familiar with the literature already or will take the time to go study it. In an internet discussion forum, it either shuts down debate or comes off as hand-waving and posturing, even though you may well have very good reasons for thinking all of those references and names support your position. The proper way to respond (in academia) is to cite counter-studies, but this isn't academia. There are certainly lots of studies you did not cite.

If you say that I've totally misunderstood your point, then maybe I have, although I have yet to understand how. I simply felt that you were attacking Monk of Reason's post a little unfairly, and you were, in fact, making references to linguistics in the course of your reply. I weighed in, because I thought your points were not as relevant as you seemed to think they were. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but still puzzled as to what I misunderstood.

And I'm really sorry that you've had this same discussion over and over in other threads. It certainly isn't the first time I've discussed it. I'm assuming that you, like me, freely choose to participate in this thread despite all those past discussions. I don't bother to read every thread in the forum, although I have read every post in this thread.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, you managed to once again carpet-bomb me with more references and links to reading assignments that you must know most I have no time and little interest in plowing through.

They aren't mainly for you. My main point to you was simply to explain something of where I was coming from and why my posts were as they were (I actually had to cut out a lot of apologies and so forth just to get the post as "short" as it is) and to explain something of why I wasn't making any arguments about linguistics such that your criticisms were valid (at least to the extent that you assumed I was making use of linguistic theory; arguments about UG and whether language is innate in the Chomskyan sense or embodied and domain-general in the cog. ling. sense weren't really relevant).

For one thing, not everyone who reads an academic discourse comes away with the same understandings and impressions, so just pointing and making an assertion that the argument is in there is something of a non-starter for me.

I described the content of the studies with the exception of one, which I used as an example just to back up points I'd already made. In other words, I didn't simply use citations to back up statements but gave you explanations and in some cases the option to go beyond my own. Again, though, they aren't really for you. For one thing, I've found that those who have been in a field for 40 years tend to have beliefs about their fields or related to their fields that are unlikely to change. For another, you aren't the one posting the kind of arguments I've been addressing in the various threads on this topic for the last few weeks. And, finally, I assume that you have your own access to sources and I know you are more than capable of researching these questions yourself were you interested. I go out of my way to try not to cite (that's easy) but to link to freely accessible content which I have to search for out of the content available to me so that I can find something to make available to others. This is often a non-trivial task.

In an internet discussion forum, it either shuts down debate or comes off as hand-waving and posturing, even though you may well have very good reasons for thinking all of those references and names support your position.

1) They aren't just references. If I wanted to list references my life here would be vastly easier (and even more pointless). I try to find material for others who do not have access to the databases I do or the libraries I do and who are not used to finding review papers or research papers.
2) I provide such sources to supplement statements only insofar as I don't like to rely solely on my authority.
3) Providing references, and even citing sources, has yet to shut down debate but it has allowed the debates to turn around in various ways (good and bad).
4) I rarely depend on the sources any more than I would Wikipedia when it comes to explaining an argument or position. For that I rely on very long, detailed posts that bore the crap out of me (and occasionally perhaps something better written).

The proper way to respond (in academia) is to cite counter-studies, but this isn't academia.

Which sort of explains the very limited citations and why the tend to have links.

I'm assuming that you, like me, freely choose to participate in this thread despite all those past discussions. I don't bother to read every thread in the forum, although I have read every post in this thread.

Actually more because of those current discussions. I'm terrible when it comes to just letting well-enough alone, especially as I tend to go on this forums when I can't sleep. Hence the last several hours I spent trying to write (and in a sufficiently succinct way) a post to explain measurement in QM here from about midnight to 6:00 AM.

 

[Copernicus]

OK, Legion. Sorry if I reacted to your comments too harshly. Let's just let it rest on a positive note, then. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are people on this discussion board who say that they never believed in God, even when they were young children. I believe Revoltingest is one of them (if you wished to ask one of them personally). As for me, I don't know what my "default" belief setting is because I was indoctrinated with Christianity very early in my life. I can't remember what my beliefs were prior to that (if I even had any).

That's the whole enchilada there. It just means nothing has been introduced or manipulated yet. Default is neutrality imo which I think we all started from at one point, and with the first bit of information, leads us to where we are right now.