Are newborn babies atheist?

[Tricky]

Claus, do you remember where you said this?

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.

Have a look at your most recent post. It should be clear even to you.

Nope. You are born atheist, regardless of what your neighbor says.

On the contrary, the privative usage of atheist is the only meaningful one, when it comes to newborns. It completely surpasses any religious interpretation, thus giving none the advantage of being the accepted one.

Quite clearly, the "Considered and Rejected" definition of athiest also applies to newborns, indicating that they are not atheists, since they haven't considered it. You can deny this to your heart's content (as I am quite sure you will), just as you can deny that you have ever shown that you have a preferred definition, but its right here in black and white for everyone to see.

I tossed you a bone, but you want the whole ham. Well forget it. You have proved that you were not being truthful when you said you had no preferred definition. And again, you are doing nothing more than asserting that the privative definition is the only correct one in this scenario. Sorry Mr. Larsen, but your sayin' so don't make it so.

 

[Mercutio]

On the contrary, the privative usage of atheist is the only meaningful one, when it comes to newborns. It completely surpasses any religious interpretation, thus giving none the advantage of being the accepted one.

If it is "the only meaningful one", then there is no meaningful way to label a baby an atheist. Nor a theist, nor anything else. You are making the same mistake Tai Chi did, in reverse: He applied the infant standard of bowel habits to adults, and you are applying the adult standards of belief to infants. In neither case is the misapplication helpful, apt, or even honest. The only way we have been able to argue about it in this thread has been by projecting our opinions of what a baby thinks. If we have to assign beliefs to a baby in order to categorize the baby's beliefs, we are engaged in a useless pursuit.


I am reminded of an old B.C. comic, from the "before" days...B.C. and Peter are leaning on a rock, watching a line of ants....

B.C.: "Ever wonder whether ants think?"

Peter: "Don't be stupid--ants can't think; only people can think!"

B.C.: "Oh...well...Ever think whether ants wonder?"

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, do you remember where you said this?

Have a look at your most recent post. It should be clear even to you.

Quite clearly, the "Considered and Rejected" definition of athiest also applies to newborns, indicating that they are not atheists, since they haven't considered it. You can deny this to your heart's content (as I am quite sure you will), just as you can deny that you have ever shown that you have a preferred definition, but its right here in black and white for everyone to see.

I tossed you a bone, but you want the whole ham. Well forget it. You have proved that you were not being truthful when you said you had no preferred definition. And again, you are doing nothing more than asserting that the privative definition is the only correct one in this scenario. Sorry Mr. Larsen, but your sayin' so don't make it so.

Sorry, but you sayin' I have a preferred definition don't make it so.

If it is "the only meaningful one", then there is no meaningful way to label a baby an atheist. Nor a theist, nor anything else. You are making the same mistake Tai Chi did, in reverse: He applied the infant standard of bowel habits to adults, and you are applying the adult standards of belief to infants. In neither case is the misapplication helpful, apt, or even honest. The only way we have been able to argue about it in this thread has been by projecting our opinions of what a baby thinks. If we have to assign beliefs to a baby in order to categorize the baby's beliefs, we are engaged in a useless pursuit.

That's exactly what I am not doing: I am not applying the adult standards of belief to infants. I am saying that, while adults consider, the babies do not.

I am reminded of an old B.C. comic, from the "before" days...B.C. and Peter are leaning on a rock, watching a line of ants....

B.C.: "Ever wonder whether ants think?"

Peter: "Don't be stupid--ants can't think; only people can think!"

B.C.: "Oh...well...Ever think whether ants wonder?"

I have an urge to sing an old hit by Dion and the Belmonts....

 

[Tricky]

Sorry, but you sayin' I have a preferred definition don't make it so.

I didn't say it. You did.

On the contrary, the privative usage of atheist is the only meaningful one, when it comes to newborns.

That's exactly what I am not doing: I am not applying the adult standards of belief to infants. I am saying that, while adults consider, the babies do not.

If they do not consider, then by the C&R definition, they are not atheists, which is a perfectly legitimate conclusion, based on the context. You're asking an adult if something is an atheist, and that adult is quite likely to reply correctly, based on the C&R understanding of the meaning of "atheist", that it is not. Or are you seriously trying to tell us what is meaningful to the baby?

 

[Mercutio]

Quite clearly, the "Considered and Rejected" definition of athiest also applies to newborns, indicating that they are not atheists, since they haven't considered it.

But we cannot know that they have or have not considered it. In this thread, we have people arguing that babies have no beliefs, or that they believe their parents are gods, or that their instincts are beliefs of a sort... I think a decent case could be made limiting C&R to individuals able to communicate their beliefs clearly. Otherwise, it is an excercise in question-begging.

 

[Mercutio]

That's exactly what I am not doing: I am not applying the adult standards of belief to infants.

Except, of course, in your very next sentence:

I am saying that, while adults consider, the babies do not.

It is as meaningless to say that babies do not consider as to say that they do. Yes, it is trivially true, but that does not make it meaningful. "Considering" is something that we define by adult (or at least communication-able) standards.

 

[CFLarsen]

I didn't say it. You did.

If they do not consider, then by the C&R definition, they are not atheists, which is a perfectly legitimate conclusion, based on the context. You're asking an adult if something is an atheist, and that adult is quite likely to reply correctly, based on the C&R understanding of the meaning of "atheist", that it is not. Or are you seriously trying to tell us what is meaningful to the baby?

Newborn babies don't apply to the C&R definition.

But we cannot know that they have or have not considered it. In this thread, we have people arguing that babies have no beliefs, or that they believe their parents are gods, or that their instincts are beliefs of a sort... I think a decent case could be made limiting C&R to individuals able to communicate their beliefs clearly. Otherwise, it is an excercise in question-begging.

We have no reason to think that they do consider it, precisely the same way they don't consider the differences of Hegel and Bergson.

 

[Tricky]

But we cannot know that they have or have not considered it. In this thread, we have people arguing that babies have no beliefs, or that they believe their parents are gods, or that their instincts are beliefs of a sort... I think a decent case could be made limiting C&R to individuals able to communicate their beliefs clearly. Otherwise, it is an excercise in question-begging.

It doesn't matter if the baby has considered it or not. As you point out, the baby can't really be said to have or have not considered. But if you are asking some adult if the baby is an atheist and they are using the C&R
definition (as they are likely to be) then it is perfectly legitimate to say that they are correct in saying that the baby is not an atheist by the definition they are using and by their evaluation. You obviously cannot ask the baby this question.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Your example is iacchian in its circularity.

To put the E into JREF, what in the Sphincter of Hell does Iacchian mean? I got privative, neat word of the day, thanks, but looking up Iacchian, I got four refs to JREF, six to Dionysus web page, and no dictionary refs.

My guess is that it refers obscurely to a "chicken and egg" infinite loop type of inquiry of idea, but that is as close as I can get.


ETA:

While the hair splitting was modestly entertaining, by you and Tricky both, your arguments and rathole diving ignore a simple, parsimony based solution, previously offered, in that agnostic is a better descriptive, on the reasonable premise that the baby (note the stage of development of the baby in the OP) quite simply doesn't kow . . . yet.

The OP begs the question by framing it within the "theist" root assumption, which point you and Tricky almost seem to agree upon. If the answer is, as you say, trivial, and it took about six pages of discussion to arrive there, I'd hate to see a complex matter under discussion.

DR

 

[Mercutio]

To put the E into JREF, what in the Sphincter of Hell does Iacchian mean?
[snip]
If the answer is, as you say, trivial, and it took about six pages of discussion to arrive there, I'd hate to see a complex matter under discussion.

DR

Two birds with one stone, then...

"Iacchian" refers to the arguments Tricky and I have had with Iacchus. He used to post here, and the Dionysus website is his. If you search for threads started by Iacchus, you will find more complex matters under discussion--things like Free Will, the nature of the Self, and such BS. Iacchus has but one note--his reasoning is unfailingly circular; Tricky knows this very well, and thus I thought to use that description as a bit of a taunt/love letter to Tricky.

I had not considered the confusion it would cause for onlookers. My sincere and humble apologies.

 

[Tricky]

Two birds with one stone, then...

"Iacchian" refers to the arguments Tricky and I have had with Iacchus. He used to post here, and the Dionysus website is his. If you search for threads started by Iacchus, you will find more complex matters under discussion--things like Free Will, the nature of the Self, and such BS. Iacchus has but one note--his reasoning is unfailingly circular;

Iacchus was an interesting but ultimately annoying person. He was quite literate, and had even written a book (unpublished). He wasn't really demented, but he was obviously scarred from some childhood and romantic traumas.

And yes, his reasoning was, for the most part, circular, but he understood and responded to questions. It always seemed like he was just on the edge of rationality, but could never quite make the leap.

Merc knew that it would be one of the greatest possible insults (and funniest) to compare me to him. Bastard.

I had not considered the confusion it would cause for onlookers. My sincere and humble apologies.

Yeah, don't you hate it when you start telling your war stories and the kids say, "But Grandpa, why didn't you just tell Franko about the fallacy of composition?"

(Another inside joke for the oldies here)

 

[Beleth]

It sounds like the answer to the four questions:

1) Is the newborn a C&R atheist?
2) Is the newborn a C&R theist?
3) Is the newborn a privative atheist?
4) Is the newborn a privative theist?

are "no", "no", "mu", and "mu", respectively. 1 and 2 are not true because the newborn hasn't considered anything yet, and 3 and 4 are as irrelevant as asking if a zygote is a privative (a)theist.

I still maintain, however, that as soon as a baby's brain is capable of handing sensory information, they start directly experiencing input that, were the same level of unfamiliar input applied to an adult, would be considered supernatural... and that there are powerful controlling beings in this supernatural input that, to a baby, qualify as gods. But since babies in this state no longer technically qualify as "newborns", that's a totally different topic.

 

[Mercutio]

It sounds like the answer to the four questions:

1) Is the newborn a C&R atheist?
2) Is the newborn a C&R theist?
3) Is the newborn a privative atheist?
4) Is the newborn a privative theist?

are "no", "no", "mu", and "mu", respectively. 1 and 2 are not true because the newborn hasn't considered anything yet, and 3 and 4 are as irrelevant as asking if a zygote is a privative (a)theist.

Interesting analysis. I lean toward agreeing, although i also think it possible that the answers to 1 and 2 might also be "mu', given that "considered" is used differently with the infant than with an adult C&R atheist or theist. We know that an adult does consider stuff (whether religious stuff or other), but we really don't know that a baby is even capable of consideration, let alone consideration of theism. So the question of whether a baby has considered and rejected or accepted is not really defined in terms appropriate to an infant--thus (arguably) "mu".

I still maintain, however, that as soon as a baby's brain is capable of handing sensory information, they start directly experiencing input that, were the same level of unfamiliar input applied to an adult, would be considered supernatural... and that there are powerful controlling beings in this supernatural input that, to a baby, qualify as gods. But since babies in this state no longer technically qualify as "newborns", that's a totally different topic.

Just to play devil's advocate, one could argue that in order to consider something supernatural, one must have a concept of natural which is violated. For a baby, it is the natural order of things to be presented with food, to be changed, to be held. Nothing supernatural about it.

--note, I am not advancing this as a firmly held position. I present it to say that your (or any of our) suspicions about what or how a baby experiences are assigned to the baby by you (or any of us). Given how notoriously bad we are at introspective report about our own private thoughts, I won't put great weight in any secondhand account of a non-verbal, barely communicative other.

 

[Beleth]

Just to play devil's advocate, one could argue that in order to consider something supernatural, one must have a concept of natural which is violated. For a baby, it is the natural order of things to be presented with food, to be changed, to be held. Nothing supernatural about it.

Note the time frame I am talking about. For a baby whose eyes have just opened and who is hearing his own cries for the first time, the natural order of things is to not need food, for the world to be totally dark, and for the only sounds to be a heartbeat and muffled voices. Then, bam, everything changes. The world is full of light, and crisp voices, and hunger. If that sudden change of everything in the Known Universe doesn't qualify as supernatural, I don't know what does.

 

[The Atheist]

455 posts.

Are newborn babies atheist?

Thank god for internet fora. No trees were harmed in the making of this thread.

Now that the question's been dispensed with, can we move on to:

"Are newborn babies socialist?"

Thanks. Catch you all at 1000.

 

[Beleth]

455 posts.

Are newborn babies atheist?

Thank god for internet fora. No trees were harmed in the making of this thread.

Indeed. It's been a fascinating discussion, on a topic which hadn't been beaten to death years ago. I have enjoyed it tremendously. I don't often end up interacting with minds of the caliber of Tricky and Mercutio, and I treasure the times I do.

 

[The Atheist]

Indeed. It's been a fascinating discussion, on a topic which hadn't been beaten to death years ago.

Can't say I'm too surprised. Newborn babies' socialism hasn't been either, so I'm looking forward to that one.

I have enjoyed it tremendously. I don't often end up interacting with minds of the caliber of Tricky and Mercutio, and I treasure the times I do.

Yep, that's fair. Not related to Hokulele are you?

 

[Beleth]

Can't say I'm too surprised. Newborn babies' socialism hasn't been either, so I'm looking forward to that one.

When you start that thread up, I suggest starting it up in the Politics section.

Not related to Hokulele are you?

Not that I know of, although if that's her picture in her avatar, she has features reminiscent of features in my own family.

 

[The Atheist]

When you start that thread up, I suggest starting it up in the Politics section.

LOL! How many pages do you reckon that's going to be worth?

Not that I know of, although if that's her picture in her avatar, she has features reminiscent of features in my own family.

Her current one certainly is - I'd be consulting a genealogist.

 

[Mercutio]

Note the time frame I am talking about. For a baby whose eyes have just opened and who is hearing his own cries for the first time, the natural order of things is to not need food, for the world to be totally dark, and for the only sounds to be a heartbeat and muffled voices. Then, bam, everything changes. The world is full of light, and crisp voices, and hunger. If that sudden change of everything in the Known Universe doesn't qualify as supernatural, I don't know what does.

I am perfectly content with "I don't know what does". While I find your description quite reasonable, it is quite clearly couched in conscious adult terms; we don't (and I would say we can't) know whether those terms are appropriate for the infant.