"Lack of belief"

[ArtieE]

Now you are getting confused. That it is possible god could exist and babies could have no concept is completely irrelevant to the point that if an omnipotent god exists then babies could have a concept of god.

That's why I wrote in post 739:
"A baby may or may not have a concept of some god and the god may or may not actually exist. All combinations are possible."

 

[Augustus]

That's why I wrote in post 739:
"A baby may or may not have a concept of some god and the god may or may not actually exist. All combinations are possible."

So why do you think the 'default' is not to believe if you say all combinations are possible?

Why not 'we don't know what the default is'?

 

[Acim]

Yes, that's my whole point.

Just to be clear, does you point say that babies are nothing like atheists? Or that babies are like atheists because they lack a belief in God?

If the latter (for anyone), it does seem like it allows the inverse to be up for discussion, that atheists are like babies. To the degree that is unacceptable, is pretty much the same degree that I see this whole side debate as not relevant to the discussion regarding what does it really mean to be lacking a belief about the existence of God(s).

 

[Acim]

Not believing, an absence of belief isn't based on anything. I have no belief in the existence or non-existence of everything I have no concept of or haven't heard of. It's my default until I get a concept of it or hear of it. Whatever I have no belief in may or may not exist.

I know of no adult atheist that is unfamiliar with the concept of gods.

So if going with absence, then babies may be atheists (if that is what it truly means to be atheists). But no adult atheist would actually be atheists, if being rigid in this understanding.

If being less rigid, then default position is going to need further explanation as it would seem pretty clear that adult atheists are no longer at the default position.

 

[Willamena]

Not believing, an absence of belief isn't based on anything. I have no belief in the existence or non-existence of everything I have no concept of or haven't heard of. It's my default until I get a concept of it or hear of it. Whatever I have no belief in may or may not exist.

Is nothing, then, the default of something?

 

[ArtieE]

Of course. Why then are you assuming anything about babies if you agree with this?

Because we have no evidence that babies actually do believe in the existence of gods when they are born so the default is that they do not until shown beyond a reasonable doubt they do.

 

[ArtieE]

So why do you think the 'default' is not to believe if you say all combinations are possible?

Because some combinations are more likely than others given what we know about the brain and we have no evidence that babies do believe in the existence of god(s) when they are born.

Why not 'we don't know what the default is'?

We assume "no belief" until a belief has been shown to exist.

 

[ArtieE]

Just to be clear, does you point say that babies are nothing like atheists? Or that babies are like atheists because they lack a belief in God?

All atheists lack a belief in gods. Babies lack belief in gods as far as we know. Babies are atheists by definition. Implicit atheists. If babies are born with a belief in the existence of gods then they are born theists. Muslims think we are born Muslims.

 

[ArtieE]

If being less rigid, then default position is going to need further explanation as it would seem pretty clear that adult atheists are no longer at the default position.

Maybe it's better if you read online about weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism etc. Can't explain it in "sound bites" requires deeper understanding.

 

[ArtieE]

Is nothing, then, the default of something?

Of course. No belief is the default until you can show belief. Innocent (of being a theist) until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a theist. Not guilty until you can show guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Willamena]

Of course. No belief is the default until you can show belief. Innocent (of being a theist) until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a theist. Not guilty until you can show guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I guess it is no surprise.

 

[idav]

Well since belief in god takes faith then I don't see how any belief would be default. Though belief can be defined a bit more broadly, belief in a concept such as god is a bit different. God would have to come down and talk to us, and then it would be knowledge and a stronger sort of belief.

 

[Acim]

All atheists lack a belief in gods. Babies lack belief in gods as far as we know. Babies are atheists by definition. Implicit atheists. If babies are born with a belief in the existence of gods then they are born theists. Muslims think we are born Muslims.

Maybe it's better if you read online about weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism etc. Can't explain it in "sound bites" requires deeper understanding.

Not going to read about it online because you are clearly using absence of all beliefs as a way to wedge babies into the atheism category. I see that as borderline pathetic and surely desperate, for no reason other than to raise numbers. It doesn't help the argument for atheism. As I noted earlier, it plausibly hinders it, because babies could arguably be the true atheists (absent of belief) while adult atheists actually do have comprehension of gods, but are disbelieving the conceptual understandings. Not lacking belief as if the concepts are completely unfamiliar to adult atheists, but lacking acceptance at the level of willing to allow that concept to have any meaningful role in their life. Even that is debatable, but is closest I can come to being fair if babies are added to the mix and their absence of beliefs (in all things, including existence) is deemed fair game for the discussion.

Adult atheists wish they could be like babies. They'd stand more of a chance at being consistent.

 

[Acim]

Well since belief in god takes faith then I don't see how any belief would be default. Though belief can be defined a bit more broadly, belief in a concept such as god is a bit different. God would have to come down and talk to us, and then it would be knowledge and a stronger sort of belief.

Even if God (magically) came down, whatever that means, and talked to babies and all adults observed that, babies would still be absent of beliefs in God. Given the parameters of the discussion, there is nothing that could conceivably make babies into believers. They are, by default, absent of all beliefs. They have zero idea that we call them babies. No beliefs about existence, therefore for all babies know, they don't even exist.

Since we adults do presume babies exist and are at some level aware of their existence, then I would think a pantheist would realize god(s) are 'down' and all around babies. Therefore, the argument that babies perceive/experience reality, is also the same argument that babies perceive/experience pantheism. But ask the baby about either and it'll be full absence of beliefs.

 

[ArtieE]

Not going to read about it online because you are clearly using absence of all beliefs as a way to wedge babies into the atheism category.

They've never been out of the "atheism category". "As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

 

[Willamena]

Even if God (magically) came down, whatever that means, and talked to babies and all adults observed that, babies would still be absent of beliefs in God. Given the parameters of the discussion, there is nothing that could conceivably make babies into believers. They are, by default, absent of all beliefs. They have zero idea that we call them babies. No beliefs about existence, therefore for all babies know, they don't even exist.

Since we adults do presume babies exist and are at some level aware of their existence, then I would think a pantheist would realize god(s) are 'down' and all around babies. Therefore, the argument that babies perceive/experience reality, is also the same argument that babies perceive/experience pantheism. But ask the baby about either and it'll be full absence of beliefs.

"No belief" is not a default of [a state of] belief (nor is it a default belief, since it is not a belief). The "default of something" doesn't refer to what came before it existed.

Even the idea of 'something from nothing' (such as beliefs arising from ignorance, people spawning from a womb, the world starting up from the Big Bang) is extremely debatable. It is a fundamentally religious idea.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Guy,

wow, thanks for the detailed response, I didn't even know there was a limit!
That definitely deserves a reply so I'm sorry I'm so slow, work is not nearly as much fun!

When you find the limit, you know you've droned on for way too long. No worries about time, I'm far too busy to get on here regularly as well (as you can tell).

nothing to do with the subjective feelings of "atheist"

you could have argued that assertion with the atheists like Hoyle, It was THEY who complained of what THEY saw as overt theistic implications in a creation event, proposing the exact opposite explicitly for the opposite rationale (no creation = no creator)

On Lematire... that's EXACTLY my point, he followed the actual scientific evidence, not his own preferences

In stark contrast to atheists, he went out of his way to disassociate his personal beliefs from his science, even telling to Pope to stop gloating, that's how science is supposed to work.
But how does an atheist separate a belief, that he refuses to even acknowledge as such!?

i.e. it was not Lemaitre's faith in God that lead him to the truth, but his skepticism of atheism.

I think it's clear that Lemaitre's penchant for good science led him to the truth. His his views on theism and atheism alike were, frankly, irrelevant to his science. As he himself indicated. Iow, neither his faith in God nor his feelings about atheism were relevant to his science.

I will answer more later, you make lots of good points. This is an important one though, there has been a very strong atheist ideology leading a large part of this area of science for a long time, right up to Hawking today.
Leading in popularity, peer pressure review, books, TV documentaries, but not confirmed evidence for their theories, which have all been debunked where testable.

The only 'cosmogenic' theory that was ever supported by evidence- was the one atheists mocked and rejected as 'too religious for their liking' a unique specific absolute creation event of the entire universe as we know it. If atheists thought this suggested a creator, I agree with them.

(Wikipedia)
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[48] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest

Remember that in the early to mid 20th century, the Big Bang theory had not yet garnered sufficient evidence to support it as the clear superior to competing models. If some wondered about Lemaitre's potential for having faith-based motives, it was understandible. In any event, clearly cosmologists put aside their reservations for both Lemaitre and his theory when the evidence mounted to support the Big Bang theory.

 

[Kartari]

I'm going to keep my responses short for lack of time, but can elaborate another time on one or more points if challenged...

These are all questions that can, and do, take up entire threads, so I'll answer some separately to avoid confusion, mainly my own!

And many of these very interesting questions, unfortunately get mired in semantics, definitions, and the original substance gets lost.

So If we can set the word 'supernatural' aside for now, my point was that the human mind has a capability that sets it aside from the process of purely natural, automated, cause and effect,
and of course we really don't know how this works, consciousness, free will. It's an enduring mystery. But that aside, the capability itself is there.

Very well... but right off the bat, I have to wonder what you mean, exactly, by the human mind's contents being beyond or "aside" the scope of nature.

Outside of a creative mind, natural mechanisms are limited by their own laws, they lack creativity, the capacity to genuinely create something genuinely novel.

Where did you get this idea from? Clearly the contrary is the case. I'd argue that nature is quite creative. Just look around!

The key element here is purpose, desire, will, that's ultimately what makes something entirely NEW happen that is not already predetermined by laws, processes.

New things happen all the time without forethought. Genetic mutations, for instance. Or the fusion of new elements in stars in the formative universe. Not to mention the evolution of the mind and its creative power.

The creative mind can create it's own new laws, new 'natural mechanisms' like software or a mechanical device, with functionality that nature alone could never produce without the help of creativity.

So that's one rationale for God, if we do not forbid the involvement of creative intelligence, we have a unique power of explanation, a hypothetical solution to what is otherwise a paradox of infinite regression of automated cause and effect.

To put it another way, if the origins of nature itself are not supernatural, do not transcend nature, then we are saying that the laws of nature were created by those same laws.
Semantics yes, but in this sense, the origins of nature by definition must be supernatural- whether automated/spontaneous, or creative/intelligent right?

Your point does not stand up, I'm afraid. You place unsound restrictions of the capacity of nature as a creative force.

 

[Acim]

They've never been out of the "atheism category". "As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

From Wikipedia on "implicit atheism"

Smith defines "implicit atheism" as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists). Children are also included, though, depending on the author, it may or may not also include newborn babies. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[2] Smith is silent on newborn children, but clearly identifies as atheists some children who are unaware of any concept of any deity:

Before I dissect, I fully expect someone to come along and suggest Wikipedia is hardly a source for understanding these things.

I first wish to dispute the assertion: "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. I don't think that is possible. That absence encompasses all forms. Just the way it is phrased is questionable, but as I get what it is trying to assert, I'll overcome the doubts about that. If I lack belief in Thor as Creator God, and assert that, for me, Thor is a mythological being - that is not (remotely) absence of belief. While it is plausibly absence of specific theistic belief in Thor as God, it does not encompass, for me, non-belief in all deities.

Because babies are, from our understanding of babies, unable to communicate beliefs (in anything), then I do see it as fair to suggest they have absence of theist belief that does encompass all forms of non-belief in deities. They would be unique in all of atheism. An adult atheist is highly likely (I have never heard of an exception) familiar with conceptions of at least one deity. Whereas a baby is understood as having zero conceptions of any deity (or anything at all). Thus, for the adult atheist, it would be very challenging (I'd argue not possible) to maintain absence of beliefs that encompass all forms of non-belief in deities. For once the concept is introduced the level of belief-acceptance begins. Introduce same thing to a baby, who is understood to be incapable of belief-acceptance, incapable of conception, and the absence of belief is able to be maintained.

So, I reject the assertion: "This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration."

I reject the idea of any adult who has never heard of the concept of deities. If it is a specific deity, and only that one up for discussion, I think the point has some merit, but not equivalent to absence as a wholly encompassing position. Such that if I run into an adult who has never heard of Flying Spaghetti Monster, they would be (prior to meeting me), absence of belief in FSM. Once we meet, and I introduce the concept of FSM, they are no longer absent of the belief. I realize that may have counterpoints, and I feel prepared to have that discussion if and when it arises. But wish to be clear that for the baby, they are understood as incapable of conceiving of FSM after I have verbally explained it to the infant.

I am therefore rejecting this questionable notion of "adults who have not given the idea any real consideration." Rejecting it based on logic. For it to be logically consistent with absence, it would be ANY consideration. The real part would be confusing. Who determines that? How? For all we know, babies are experiencing real consideration when the concepts are communicated to them from .... wherever.

 

[Acim]

"No belief" is not a default of [a state of] belief (nor is it a default belief, since it is not a belief). The "default of something" doesn't refer to what came before it existed.

Even the idea of 'something from nothing' (such as beliefs arising from ignorance, people spawning from a womb, the world starting up from the Big Bang) is extremely debatable. It is a fundamentally religious idea.

Isn't the idea that babies are atheists the assertion that the default position of atheism is "no belief?"

I see you telling what the default of something is not, but not what it is. As the default position of atheism is pertinent to implicit atheism, I find it matters to this discussion. As I just wrote a post refuting the Wikipedia version of Implicit Atheism, I'm up for exploring the understanding for what it is.