Are newborn babies atheist?

[CFLarsen]

I saw nothing there that needed a reply.

Allow me, then:

Why choose to call it innate belief, when you have a natural explanation?

Who has said anything about throwing that meaning away?

 

[Beth]

Wow. Ten pages on whether or not a baby should be considered an atheist or not based on his (this baby's) beleif sysem or lack of it. I haven't read the entire thead, so I'm curious to know - has anyone brought up the issue of the parent's beliefs or lack of them? I skimmed about a third of the posts, but I've missed it if anyone has mentioned it.

In my opinion, a baby is an atheist if the parents are. The same way the baby of jewish parents is jewish and the baby of muslim parents is muslim and the baby of christian parents is christian.

Yeah, I know, Dawkins thinks is abusive to label a baby with the religion of it's parents. To me, it seems no more abusive than labeling the baby of Chinese parents Chinese or the baby of German parents German. Sure, the baby might grow up to become something else, but that's always true. In the meantime, until the baby is old enough to make choices for himself, the default is that the child has the religion of the parents, just as he has the citizenship of the parents.

 

[EGarrett]

Irrelevant. Cognitive aspects of babies are under discussion, not behavioral. ##yawn##

Actually, it is relevant, because you're trying to claim that a baby looks upon it's mother as a theist looks upon god. But a baby's actions toward it's mother could just as easily (and in fact, are far more likely to) be due to instinct, which is separate from belief and faith. So no, a baby's actions towards its mother are not evidence of theism.

 

[Tricky]

(Sigh) All right. I will answer your questions, even though you have repeatedly refused to answer mine.

Why choose to call it innate belief, when you have a natural explanation?

The "natural explanation" could just as easily be for "innate beliefs" as it could for "instinct". Indeed, you could reasonably describe instincts as "hard-coded beliefs".

Who has said anything about throwing that meaning away?

It has been my observation from your posts that you appear to believe that DPA should be the preferred definition. I could be wrong. In my opinion, you have not been "crystal clear" on this, contrary your self-evaluation.

Now perhaps you'll answer my question which I have politely posed numerous times.

First, the established points:
***
Q to Claus: Do you think it is correct to call a zygote an atheist?
A from Claus: No.
Q to Claus: Do you think it is correct to call a baby an atheist?
A from Claus: Yes.
***
We have established two points where an organism goes from not being an atheist to being an atheist (in your opinion, Claus).

Next, the question:

When in the sequence between zygote and baby do you think it becomes correct to call the organism an atheist? I'm just trying to establish that you are aware that such a reclassification must occur. Again, it is an easy question. I am only asking what you think.

 

[CFLarsen]

(Sigh) All right. I will answer your questions, even though you have repeatedly refused to answer mine.

No, I have not "refused". I just don't have anything else to say.

The "natural explanation" could just as easily be for "innate beliefs" as it could for "instinct". Indeed, you could reasonably describe instincts as "hard-coded beliefs".

They are not beliefs. Instinct is a natural impulse. If you say that belief is also a natural impulse, then you are arguing that a belief in God is hereditary.

Are you?

It has been my observation from your posts that you appear to believe that DPA should be the preferred definition. I could be wrong. In my opinion, you have not been "crystal clear" on this, contrary your self-evaluation.

There is nothing in my posts where I indicate that "undeclared atheist" - lack of belief - should be the preferred one, and the other discarded. You are free to show one post that made you think otherwise.

 

[Beleth]

There is nothing in my posts where I indicate that "undeclared atheist" - lack of belief - should be the preferred one, and the other discarded. You are free to show one post that made you think otherwise.

Post 315. You literally discard the other definitions in that one.

 

[Tricky]

No, I have not "refused". I just don't have anything else to say.

I ask a question and you say nothing? You don't consider that a refusal? My you have some odd word usage.

They are not beliefs. Instinct is a natural impulse. If you say that belief is also a natural impulse, then you are arguing that a belief in God is hereditary.

Again, we get into semantics here. As Merc points out, in order to say that no belief in God is hereditary, you would have to examine each of the possible kinds of belief in god(s) and prove that none of them is hereditary. So you can assert that babies have no beliefs in any kinds of gods, but you cannot prove it. Neither can any of us prove that they do have a belief in any kind of god, so it just goes round and round.

But I submit that you would have a hard time distinguishing a belief that it was wise to run from a predator from an instinct to run from a predator.

There is nothing in my posts where I indicate that "undeclared atheist" - lack of belief - should be the preferred one, and the other discarded. You are free to show one post that made you think otherwise.

I have don't have anything else to say.

 

[Tricky]

Post 315. You literally discard the other definitions in that one.

Actually, I prefer this one.

The question is: Are newborn babies atheist?

The answer is: Yes.

Not, "By some definitions," not "In the privative sense," not "Technically", not "Depending on context," but "Yes".

 

[T'ai Chi]

If a newborn baby atheist was on a plane with a gun, what would you know woo do to it?

The mind boggles..

 

[CFLarsen]

Post 315. You literally discard the other definitions in that one.

Read again. I am doing the exact opposite: I am pointing out that there is another definition than the one Upchurch points to.

I ask a question and you say nothing? You don't consider that a refusal? My you have some odd word usage.

This thread is about newborn babies.

Again, we get into semantics here. As Merc points out, in order to say that no belief in God is hereditary, you would have to examine each of the possible kinds of belief in god(s) and prove that none of them is hereditary. So you can assert that babies have no beliefs in any kinds of gods, but you cannot prove it. Neither can any of us prove that they do have a belief in any kind of god, so it just goes round and round.

The two claims are not equal: If you want to claim that a newborn baby has supernatural beliefs, that's an extraordinary claim.

But I submit that you would have a hard time distinguishing a belief that it was wise to run from a predator from an instinct to run from a predator.

Not at all: A belief is learned, while an instinct is hereditary. A good example of the difference is the dodo. Most animals avoid humans from birth, but not the dodo, because it hadn't evolved along with humans.

I have don't have anything else to say.

Obviously not.

 

[Beleth]

Read again. I am doing the exact opposite: I am pointing out that there is another definition than the one Upchurch points to.

The point is that you literally discarded the other three.

The challenge you put forth was:
"There is nothing in my posts where I indicate that "undeclared atheist" - lack of belief - should be the preferred one, and the other discarded. You are free to show one post that made you think otherwise."

And I have done so.

Your rebuttal has not changed the fact that post 315 makes me think that you indicated that "lack of belief" should be the preferred definition. If you wish me to think otherwise, you can do so by answering this question in the negative: Do you believe that "lack of belief" should be the preferred definition of "atheist"?

 

[Tricky]

The two claims are not equal: If you want to claim that a newborn baby has supernatural beliefs, that's an extraordinary claim.

The claim that newborn babies have no beliefs is pretty extraordinary too.

Not at all: A belief is learned, while an instinct is hereditary. A good example of the difference is the dodo. Most animals avoid humans from birth, but not the dodo, because it hadn't evolved along with humans.

I have looked at several definitions of "belief" and I see nothing about requiring that they be learned. You could obviosly say, some animals believe that humans are dangerous, and others don't.

Obviously not.

Actually, I did answer it in the next post, (even though your question was not about newborn babies). If you think that you can hide behind that lame excuse for not answering, then you must think an elephant can hide beind a sapling.

 

[CFLarsen]

The point is that you literally discarded the other three.

No, I didn't.

The challenge you put forth was:
"There is nothing in my posts where I indicate that "undeclared atheist" - lack of belief - should be the preferred one, and the other discarded. You are free to show one post that made you think otherwise."

And I have done so.

Nonsense.

Your rebuttal has not changed the fact that post 315 makes me think that you indicated that "lack of belief" should be the preferred definition. If you wish me to think otherwise, you can do so by answering this question in the negative: Do you believe that "lack of belief" should be the preferred definition of "atheist"?

Of course not.

The claim that newborn babies have no beliefs is pretty extraordinary too.

How would they come about these beliefs, if they are not hereditary?

I have looked at several definitions of "belief" and I see nothing about requiring that they be learned. You could obviosly say, some animals believe that humans are dangerous, and others don't.

Exactly: Some do, some don't. The question is, when do they discover that humans - or threats in general - are dangerous? Do they have to experience - and build a belief, or do they fear from the get-go?

Actually, I did answer it in the next post, (even though your question was not about newborn babies).

Nonsense. I was talking about one of the cases: The newborn babies.

 

[Beleth]

Nonsense.

Do you understand your own question?

You asked what made me think a certain way, I told you, and you reply "nonsense"? Are you a mind-reader now?

Of course not.

Glad to finally have you give a clear answer to that. Maybe now we can proceed.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If the baby lacks atheism, is that itself a form of atheism? The mind boggles...

My keyboard... it is an atheist! So are the crickets outside chirping right now, and the aphids, and the birds, and the dog over there. Wow! Something to add to nontracts.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you understand your own question?

You asked what made me think a certain way, I told you, and you reply "nonsense"? Are you a mind-reader now?

It is nonsense. I pointed to one example, but never said it should be the only definition.

Glad to finally have you give a clear answer to that. Maybe now we can proceed.

I have always been clear about that. As evidenced by your own example.

 

[Beleth]

I have always been clear about that. As evidenced by your own example.

Demonstrably false, but since you only posted that for brinksmanship purposes, I'm going to let it drop.

 

[tmackean]

Claus,

I've got two questions for you, which I pose [almost] without an agenda. I invite other contributors of the thread to comment, too.

Question 1

Do you think it is potentially confusing for there to be two words which can be used in the same context, but which mean different things?

I make my living in a linguistic discipline which involves the use of Word Sense Disambiguation algorithms. When considering how a computer can derive meaning from a term, context is all important.

For instance, when I say; "I stood on the plant today", was I trampling your cherished aspidistra or spending some time on the roof of a factory? To establish the correct meaning, all that is required is the context of the preceding conversation.

However, the two materially different definitions of the term 'atheist' argued over in this thread would be applicable in the same context. In my opinion, this allows the possibility of linguistic ambiguity.

What do you think?


Question 2

I appreciate that you define a baby as an atheist, due to their lack of belief, but would you consider that the baby is therefore practising atheism or should that term be reserved for those who categorise themselves as atheists from an ideological or doctrinal viewpoint, rather than by birth?

 

[Mercutio]

Yes. I understand that the C&R atheism does not survive dissection. Nevertheless, it is the more common understanding of the word. Unless you allow some usage of the C&R version, then, as you point out, nobody can correctly call themselves "atheist".

No. The C&R version is commonly understood. There may be a bit of tweaking (as a large number of people think atheists hate God), but it is much more commonly understood than the DPA version. Since I am in favor of mutual understanding, I feel that gives C&R a great superiority.

If a "common understanding" contains an inherent flaw, wouldn't it be more correct to call it a "common misunderstanding"? It would be wonderful definition if (but only if) there was only one understanding of "god", but the irony of implicitly verifying the "one true god" aspect of their belief in defining someone who does not share that belief is too much for me.

Do you think so? Try telling someone their baby is an atheist. You will have a great deal of explaining to do.

Funny thing--other than the occasional threads here, I can think of no occasions where I would do this. This is what I meant by "contrived"; how would such a conversation go? "Congratulations, Mrs. McGillicutty, on your beautiful baby daughter! I love what you have done with the room--the stencils are adorable--and is that crib an heirloom? Does little Melinda have your dimples?--I see she has your red hair... Oh, by the way, did you know she is an atheist? It's true!"

Oddly enough, the only people (again, this forum excepted) I have ever heard of discussing the religious beliefs of newborns has been the anabaptist issue among christian churches. There, of course, the folks who argued that babies are incapable of religious belief term these babies "innocent" rather than "atheist" (and I would agree--it is, as I said, the very rare occasion when one would need to be technical about a baby's beliefs or lack therof).

Here, we disagree.

Perhaps your social situations differ from mine.

LOL. This illustrates my point perfectly. Even, as a reasonably educated person, I feel that if I said "beautiful earth rotation" to describe the light that appears in the morning, other reasonably educated people would say, "huh?" I would then have to explain what would otherwise be a perfectly comprehensible statement. "Beautiful sunrise". Calling DPA "atheism" is like calling sunrise "earth rotation". Technically correct, but bad for communication.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Why on earth would you speak of "atheist babies" any more than of "earth rotation"? The fact that babies are atheist (by DPA) in no way requires one to confront moms on the street and alert them of this. These situations are rare, contrived, and yes, silly. If they are the best reason not to use a DPA definition, then you are shooting blanks.

 

[Mercutio]

The claim that newborn babies have no beliefs is pretty extraordinary too.

It is also not a necessary thing to demonstrate, but that is not my major point here.

You are once again being very circular--your "But I submit that you would have a hard time distinguishing a belief that it was wise to run from a predator from an instinct to run from a predator" implies that you are willing to multiply your hypotheticals in a manner that would make Occam blush. Surely you remember the threads where we Iacchus claimed that, say, a bird could not fly without first possessing the ability to fly. Of course, the only evidence for "ability" was the flying it allegedly caused, and of course we could posit a bird that had the ability but not the will to fly, or the ability and the will, but not the desire, or the will, the ability, the desire, but not Upchurch's Permission (tm).

Your C&R definition is a separate issue from your circularity in infering baby belief, but if you use the latter to support the former, you might want to rethink.