Are newborn babies atheist?

[Beleth]

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

Right. Moving on ...

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.

That is the roadblock I came to with this line of reasoning as well. I quite literally don't know what does either, which is the reason I started this thread. If fetuses just before birth aren't capable of being aware of their surroundings (i.e. the conditions inside the womb), then I agree that my questions 1 and 2 in post 452 are answered with "mu" as well.

 

[Herzblut]

When you tell me how it is that people here have come to their conclusions about a baby's cognitive capacity without reference to their behavior, I will recognize this distinction. In this thread, though, people have asserted that a baby believes this or that, but these are mere assertions. (To be fair, the same circularity problem is present for "instinct".)

Very well spotted. This tells me again that talking about infants in religious terms make no sense. Cause whether you deploy these terms one way or the other does not make a measurable difference.

I just prefer to build real arguments (which then can be attacked of course) instead of waisting time on semantics.

Another empirical fact is that foundlings have no notion of a supernatural. This famous guy named Kaspar Hauser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser

had no idea whatsoever about "God" when he was found at the age of 17.

I leave it to the reader to debunk the fallacy in the conclusion (Claus will thankfully draw) that thus atheism is the "default" for human beings.

Herzblut

 

[CFLarsen]

Very well spotted. This tells me again that talking about infants in religious terms make no sense. Cause whether you deploy these terms one way or the other does not make a measurable difference.

I just prefer to build real arguments (which then can be attacked of course) instead of waisting time on semantics.

Another empirical fact is that foundlings have no notion of a supernatural. This famous guy named Kaspar Hauser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser

had no idea whatsoever about "God" when he was found at the age of 17.

I leave it to the reader to debunk the fallacy in the conclusion (Claus will thankfully draw) that thus atheism is the "default" for human beings.

Herzblut

If anything, Hauser confirms that newborns are atheists - they have a total lack of belief in god(s). They are undeclared atheists.

What is interesting about the Hauser case is, why didn't he think of his captors as "gods"?

 

[Mercutio]

They are also flightless - they have a total inability to fly. And it is every bit as meaningful to tell that to a parent.

 

[Tricky]

They are also flightless - they have a total inability to fly. And it is every bit as meaningful to tell that to a parent.

Depends on what you mean by "fly". All I know is that if I see an atheist baby on a plane, I'll kill him.

 

[CFLarsen]

They are also flightless - they have a total inability to fly. And it is every bit as meaningful to tell that to a parent.

But, do people view newborn babies - or anyone - as being able to fly?

Think about it. We are so quick to label newborn babies as belonging to a particular religious belief. But we are much more reluctant to designate them the ability to fly.

Dawkins' point about babies being without a religion was spot-on. Babies aren't born religious. And, if they aren't born religious, and if a person is an atheist, if he doesn't have a religious belief....

...yes, then, newborn babies are atheists.

 

[Mercutio]

But, do people view newborn babies - or anyone - as being able to fly?

This is precisely my point.

Think about it. We are so quick to label newborn babies as belonging to a particular religious belief. But we are much more reluctant to designate them the ability to fly.

Who is this "we" you speak of, Kimo Sabe? Even within religious traditions, the anabaptists do not claim that a baby can belong to a particular religious belief. And you will note, if you read this thread, that "our" labeling is based on our projections about the baby's belief or lack therof. Just as it is meaningless (though technically true) to call babies flightless, it is meaningless (and unfalsifiable) to use adult terms to speak of babies' belief or lack therof.

Dawkins' point about babies being without a religion was spot-on. Babies aren't born religious. And, if they aren't born religious, and if a person is an atheist, if he doesn't have a religious belief....

...yes, then, newborn babies are atheists.

As I said, in precisely the same sense that they are flightless.

 

[Herzblut]

Think about it. We are so quick to label newborn babies as belonging to a particular religious belief.

Strawman.

Dawkins' point about babies being without a religion was spot-on. Babies aren't born religious. And, if they aren't born religious, and if a person is an atheist, if he doesn't have a religious belief....
...yes, then, newborn babies are atheists.

Wrong. Having no religious belief does not imply atheism. Having a religious belief neither implies theism. You're mixing up different categories.

Herzblut

 

[CFLarsen]

Who is this "we" you speak of, Kimo Sabe?

"Kemosabe", Silver. "Kimo Sabe" won the Japanese national cabbage eating contest in 1956.

Even within religious traditions, the anabaptists do not claim that a baby can belong to a particular religious belief. And you will note, if you read this thread, that "our" labeling is based on our projections about the baby's belief or lack therof. Just as it is meaningless (though technically true) to call babies flightless, it is meaningless (and unfalsifiable) to use adult terms to speak of babies' belief or lack therof.

As I said, in precisely the same sense that they are flightless.

We can say with quite a lot of certainty that babies lack a belief in deities. There is absolutely no evidence that they do have such a belief, and if they do, it would require a complete re-evaluation of what we know of how humans develop.

Strawman.

How is that a strawman?

Wrong. Having no religious belief does not imply atheism.

Yes, it does.

 

[Herzblut]

Yes, it does.

No.

Herzblut

 

[Mercutio]

"Kemosabe", Silver. "Kimo Sabe" won the Japanese national cabbage eating contest in 1956.

I stand corrected.

We can say with quite a lot of certainty that babies lack a belief in deities. There is absolutely no evidence that they do have such a belief, and if they do, it would require a complete re-evaluation of what we know of how humans develop.

We can say with equal certainty that babies lack flight.

I do not dispute that babies do not possess the adult concept of belief in deities. I dispute its relevance. Until you (or Dawkins, for that matter) can demonstrate what babies do believe, in order to make the concept of infant belief a meaningful one, then atheist babies and flightless babies are equally meaningful.

That Simpsons episode ("Brother, can you spare two dimes?") where Homer's brother Herb invents the "baby translator"? It was fiction, you know. They are cartoons. In the real world, we are still making inferences about belief from baby behavior, and we do know that they think differently than adults. The vocabulary for the latter may not be suited for the former.

 

[Beleth]

What is interesting about the Hauser case is, why didn't he think of his captors as "gods"?

We are talking about newborns, remember. Hauser was 17 when found. Hauser's case is therefore utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[CFLarsen]

I stand corrected.

That's OK: Not many people know the intimate details of the noble art of competitive cabbage consumption.

We can say with equal certainty that babies lack flight.

I do not dispute that babies do not possess the adult concept of belief in deities. I dispute its relevance. Until you (or Dawkins, for that matter) can demonstrate what babies do believe, in order to make the concept of infant belief a meaningful one, then atheist babies and flightless babies are equally meaningful.

The comparison is not particularly valid: Humans will always lack flight, regardless of how old they are.

That Simpsons episode ("Brother, can you spare two dimes?") where Homer's brother Herb invents the "baby translator"? It was fiction, you know. They are cartoons. In the real world, we are still making inferences about belief from baby behavior, and we do know that they think differently than adults. The vocabulary for the latter may not be suited for the former.

I didn't see the episode.

Sure, it may not be suited. But until we know that it is different, we have to go with what we have. Unless, of course, we simply want to throw our hands in the air and not do anything about babies, until they can speak for themselves.

 

[The Atheist]

Unter, have you actually spent any time with newborn babies?

Simply put, your posts in this thread are the biggest load of manure I've yet seen. Pretty funny though.

Are newborns Socialist?

Do they think?

Do you?

 

[Mercutio]

The comparison is not particularly valid: Humans will always lack flight, regardless of how old they are.

Right, brother.

And it may be the case that some day we will know, in a meaningful way, what babies think about such things. As yet, we do not.

Sure, it may not be suited. But until we know that it is different, we have to go with what we have. Unless, of course, we simply want to throw our hands in the air and not do anything about babies, until they can speak for themselves.

In science, we are comfortable saying "I don't know" when we do not know. What's the thing where, when we don't know, we make up a story and stick with it no matter what? I forget...

 

[CFLarsen]

Right, brother.

And it may be the case that some day we will know, in a meaningful way, what babies think about such things. As yet, we do not.
In science, we are comfortable saying "I don't know" when we do not know. What's the thing where, when we don't know, we make up a story and stick with it no matter what? I forget...

Nobody is making up stories here. At least, I'm not. We can come to a conclusion, based on what we know about how babies develop: Newborn babies are not capable of having religious beliefs.

What would you say was required before someone could have religious beliefs?

 

[The Atheist]

Nobody is making up stories here. At least, I'm not.

I've saved that to put in my sig if I ever tire of the one I have. Classic!

Given that you've expended another 200 posts discussing something you clearly have no personal experience of, that is just delicious in its irony.

Unter, me old china, it is as clear as daylight to me that your experience with newborn babies could be written on the back of a small-denomination postage stamp, since the only way to learn about newborn babies is to spend a lot of time around them, because they don't communicate well. (or at all, in fact)

Marvellous stuff. Some [most] people would find this the most boring thread imaginable, but the tedium of the subject matter has just been blown away by your utter bollocks.

Have you ever actually touched a newborn baby? Just like to re-emphasise that is a YES/NO answer required. "YOU" in this instance meaning CFLarsen, just so there's no confusion at all; and touching does actually mean touching, skin to skin, not just picking up a bundle of blankets with a baby inside.)

If so, please state your experience, because you've admitted somewhere that you aren't a father and I have the very strong suspicion that you've indulged in a whole lot of opinion based on....

....um.

..nothing at all!

EGarrett, I can understand positing such a lame thought to begin with, he's a very young man, but you're a man of the world; a bloke who, if he is a father, has been so carefree that he isn't aware for sure whether he is or not!

Now's your chance, baby: cv on newborns and neonates.

Cheers.

P.S. When you've answered my question about babies and socialism/Marxism, can you get back to me on whether puppies are atheist as well? I'm debating a tree on that very subject tonight. Trees are all atheist, btw. Hard to live for thousands of years without discovering the answers to all of life's verities.

 

[Mercutio]

Nobody is making up stories here. At least, I'm not. We can come to a conclusion, based on what we know about how babies develop: Newborn babies are not capable of having religious beliefs.

Not as we adults are capable, I agree fully. It is thus every bit as appropriate to call them atheists as it is to call them flightless. How many other things are babies incapable of? Shall we call them non-drivers? Speak of their inability to play violin? Taunt them for their lack of metal parts? Remind them that they are incapable of solving algebraic equations? Are babies illiterate?

Each of these are true, of course. Are any of them meaningful?

 

[CFLarsen]

Unter, me old china, it is as clear as daylight to me that your experience with newborn babies could be written on the back of a small-denomination postage stamp, since the only way to learn about newborn babies is to spend a lot of time around them, because they don't communicate well. (or at all, in fact)

My point exactly: They are not capable.

Have you ever actually touched a newborn baby? Just like to re-emphasise that is a YES/NO answer required. "YOU" in this instance meaning CFLarsen, just so there's no confusion at all; and touching does actually mean touching, skin to skin, not just picking up a bundle of blankets with a baby inside.)

If so, please state your experience, because you've admitted somewhere that you aren't a father and I have the very strong suspicion that you've indulged in a whole lot of opinion based on....

....um.

..nothing at all!

Your "very strong suspicion" is based on ignorance. My friends and family have had plenty of babies, of which I have more than enough experience with.

What does that prove? Are we to ignore scientific studies of babies, in favor of personal experience?

EGarrett, I can understand positing such a lame thought to begin with, he's a very young man,

Why, thank you!

P.S. When you've answered my question about babies and socialism/Marxism, can you get back to me on whether puppies are atheist as well? I'm debating a tree on that very subject tonight. Trees are all atheist, btw. Hard to live for thousands of years without discovering the answers to all of life's verities.

I have no doubt that you talk to trees.

Not as we adults are capable, I agree fully. It is thus every bit as appropriate to call them atheists as it is to call them flightless. How many other things are babies incapable of? Shall we call them non-drivers? Speak of their inability to play violin? Taunt them for their lack of metal parts? Remind them that they are incapable of solving algebraic equations? Are babies illiterate?

Each of these are true, of course. Are any of them meaningful?

Again, it isn't particularly meaningful to compare an ability to an inability: We grow up to be able to become declared atheists, but we will never grow up to be able to fly. At least not on our own.

 

[The Atheist]

Your "very strong suspicion" is based on ignorance. My friends and family have had plenty of babies, of which I have more than enough experience with.

Thanks for confirming my thoughts. None at all.

What does that prove? Are we to ignore scientific studies of babies, in favor of personal experience?

Sorry, I was completely unaware that any scientific studies had been done into newborn babies' religious beliefs.

Can you cite the study, please?

I have no doubt that you talk to trees.

Compared to your good self, they are models of clarity and perspicacity.