Are newborn babies atheist?

[The Norseman]

I would like to suggest that the whole of existence is like a quantum computer and God both exists and not exists, and babies are both theists and atheists at the same time.

Sounds intriguing, if only because it seems prima facie false. What evidence can you show to demonstrate the possibility of this?

 

[tsig]

I would like to suggest that the whole of existence is like a quantum computer and God both exists and not exists, and babies are both theists and atheists at the same time.

As long as they remain succulent.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Almost nothing you say makes any real or practical sense


.-. Yeah, right.

What makes sense is this incredibly smart, practical and meaningful assertion:

a ROCK is an ATHEIST.

But

The FACT that no reputable Dictionary, Academy, University, Encyclopedia, Philosophy Encyclopedias etc. NOT A SINGLE ONE has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist” is just false and ridiculous.

Yet another proof that Atheism and Reason are not necessarily together.

Yes, you're right, it's time for me to go home.

Carry on with your futile and useless crusade to make Atheism look stupid.

It's your unalienable right.

Charlie, didn't you present a post in which you made the case that the suffix 'ist' indicates a person? I was convinced by you. Do you no longer think the suffix 'ist' implies a person?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Are babies atheists? Unknown.

The mind of a baby can only be an unknown, unless we learn to read minds. We can argue that before a baby has the capacity to believe they lack a belief in god though sheer lack of ability to believe, except for the -ist.

The suffix -ist, denotes a person who believes something, or hold's some opinion if you prefer, so no, rocks and trees and dark matter are not ists of any kind, unless they think and we just haven't noticed it. While I am not a badger, I am also not an abadgerist.

What can be said about babies is that when they grow into children they show a pronounced tendency towards belief in the supernatural, and determinism in general. While it is true that few, if any, children come into the idea of the major religions with a super god daddy and angels and hell and add your favorite fairytale here, that is not so say they are without religion.

The boogy man is a god. So are supernatural shadows and monsters under the bed. There have been gods of basket weaving with worshipers. If a baby believes that their parent is infallible, will always come will never let them down, they have rendered the parent into a god concept.

Skepticism though, rationalism, these are disciplines and must be fought for.

So why would anyone want to shrug and say, "Oh yeah, babies and rocks are totally atheists." It cheapens the entire concept and the intellectual lifting that goes into removing ones self from supernatural silliness. Not to mention anyone claiming to be a skeptic and claiming to know the mind of a baby had better have some very impressive data behind them.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Are babies atheists? Unknown.

The mind of a baby can only be an unknown, unless we learn to read minds. We can argue that before a baby has the capacity to believe they lack a belief in god though sheer lack of ability to believe, except for the -ist.

The suffix -ist, denotes a person who believes something, or hold's some opinion if you prefer, so no, rocks and trees and dark matter are not ists of any kind, unless they think and we just haven't noticed it. While I am not a badger, I am also not an abadgerist.

What can be said about babies is that when they grow into children they show a pronounced tendency towards belief in the supernatural, and determinism in general. While it is true that few, if any, children come into the idea of the major religions with a super god daddy and angels and hell and add your favorite fairytale here, that is not so say they are without religion.

The boogy man is a god. So are supernatural shadows and monsters under the bed. There have been gods of basket weaving with worshipers. If a baby believes that their parent is infallible, will always come will never let them down, they have rendered the parent into a god concept.

Skepticism though, rationalism, these are disciplines and must be fought for.

So why would anyone want to shrug and say, "Oh yeah, babies and rocks are totally atheists." It cheapens the entire concept and the intellectual lifting that goes into removing ones self from supernatural silliness. Not to mention anyone claiming to be a skeptic and claiming to know the mind of a baby had better have some very impressive data behind them.

The 'ist' you refer to is part of the noun theist. The construction is a-theist not a-the-ist (to the best of my knowledge)

Therefore a-badger and a-theist are comparable. A-badger-ist would compare to a-theist-ist (and I'm not quite sure what that term would mean)

 

[Mister Agenda]

So why would anyone want to shrug and say, "Oh yeah, babies and rocks are totally atheists." It cheapens the entire concept and the intellectual lifting that goes into removing ones self from supernatural silliness. Not to mention anyone claiming to be a skeptic and claiming to know the mind of a baby had better have some very impressive data behind them.

Whether it 'cheapens the concept' does not affect the meaning of the word. Words don't always mean what we would like them to.

What data would you require in order to concede it is reasonable to conclude that babies aren't theists?

 

[The Norseman]

Are babies atheists? Unknown.

The mind of a baby can only be an unknown, unless we learn to read minds.

Here's where I disagree. The term 'atheism' is the null hypothesis; i.e., that the default is that there is no belief in god/gods. Thus, the term can be applied to babies, even with no input (or output for that matter from fMRIs for example) from the babies themselves.

I do not need to know the mind of a baby in order to say that there first must be evidence in order to support belief in the existence of a god or gods.

In fact, I go one step further back and say that the term 'god' must first be defined in a rational, coherent manner before one can say whether or not one is an atheist or a theist. You yourself further in this post (which I've snipped for brevity) even state this as a given -- that 'god' can mean just about anything. When one thing can mean anything, it actually means nothing at all.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Replies

The 'ist' you refer to is part of the noun theist. The construction is a-theist not a-the-ist (to the best of my knowledge)

Therefore a-badger and a-theist are comparable. A-badger-ist would compare to a-theist-ist (and I'm not quite sure what that term would mean)

I've heard that argument before, and so I checked the etymology of atheist. There is a good deal of philosophical debate over lack of belief vs belief in the negative, but the etymology is pretty clear that it's a-theos (greek) for not god (or without god) and then ist so Person who believes not god, or person who is without god as you like.

What data would you require in order to concede it is reasonable to conclude that babies aren't theists?

I would need to know that the babies have not accepted the existence of a personified supernatural being of any kind. Given the irrationality of young minds and the dominance of parents in babies lives I personally don't think it's possible to be thinking, cognizant and lack belief in some kind of god concept, but it's an unknown so while I think it is likely all babies are theists to some form or another I would not make that claim because I can not demonstrate it empirically and it is an empirical claim. Perhaps as we get closer to decoding the programing language of brains we could monitor a person's development to see what they are thinking, but such a device is science fiction for now.

Here's where I disagree. The term 'atheism' is the null hypothesis; i.e., that the default is that there is no belief in god/gods. Thus, the term can be applied to babies, even with no input (or output for that matter from fMRIs for example) from the babies themselves.

I do not need to know the mind of a baby in order to say that there first must be evidence in order to support belief in the existence of a god or gods.

You have some interesting ideas here, but I'll touch on the last, quoted, first. Billions of people the world over believe in gods completely with out evidence. Are you saying that since they lack belief that the world is peopled with atheists, some of whom are lying about it?

Now on to both of you, if we were using god in the sense of a specific god, like the christian one, then I would agree with you, it is almost impossible to believe in that god without learning about the idea first. However established theistic concepts are not the only ideas which qualify as gods.

At a minimum a god is any personification with a supernatural element. If we can agree to that we can see that all the demons, angels, polytheistic, great spirits, ancestors, emperors and what not have that in common. Some kind of personification, and some kind of supernatural element.

At that point we just need to look at how children develop. Their active minds fill the world with all manner of personified supernaturals. In effect it is even easy to see that a baby could see it's parents in this light. Viewing them as all powerful, or infallible, dare I say omnibenivolent?

That is conjecture, but it seems very valid to me. What is fact is that children report having these ideas far more often than they report an absence of them. That is what I was driving at with atheism, and skepticsm, being learned behavior. Specific theistic ideas can be learned, but we also make up our own on the fly, every time we hear a bump and think, monster/ghost or whatever.

In fact, I go one step further back and say that the term 'god' must first be defined in a rational, coherent manner before one can say whether or not one is an atheist or a theist. You yourself further in this post (which I've snipped for brevity) even state this as a given -- that 'god' can mean just about anything. When one thing can mean anything, it actually means nothing at all.

Emphasis mine. Your argument for the fate of the word god better fits the result of your argument for the meaning of atheist. If you are an atheist until we establish a specific god for you to lack belief in than everyone is an atheist, if only out of ignorance, to the many ideas of gods I've dreamed up and haven't shared. The word would lose all meaning.

However to your point about gods, no not any concept, hopefully my point about needing some personification and a supernatural element will clear that up. There are certainly many, many god concepts, I think it is safe to say that you lack belief in all of them. For myself I'm holding onto hope for one, but functionally there are none acting in any way that would matter to where we are here and now.

 

[The Norseman]

You have some interesting ideas here, but I'll touch on the last, quoted, first. Billions of people the world over believe in gods completely with out evidence. Are you saying that since they lack belief that the world is peopled with atheists, some of whom are lying about it?

I'm not certain about what you're saying at the last. Can you rephrase?

Now on to both of you, if we were using god in the sense of a specific god, like the christian one, then I would agree with you, it is almost impossible to believe in that god without learning about the idea first. However established theistic concepts are not the only ideas which qualify as gods.

Exactly my point.

At a minimum a god is any personification with a supernatural element. If we can agree to that we can see that all the demons, angels, polytheistic, great spirits, ancestors, emperors and what not have that in common. Some kind of personification, and some kind of supernatural element.

Hmmm... sorry, can't agree on that, though it's a far better start than most theists provide. I'm not suggesting that you are a theist, btw.

What is it that has the capacity to be both natural and supernatural and how do you know?

At that point we just need to look at how children develop. Their active minds fill the world with all manner of personified supernaturals. In effect it is even easy to see that a baby could see it's parents in this light. Viewing them as all powerful, or infallible, dare I say omnibenivolent?

This may be a factual enough statement, but it still does not indicate that these dreams and make-believes have some basis in reality.

That is conjecture, but it seems very valid to me. What is fact is that children report having these ideas far more often than they report an absence of them. That is what I was driving at with atheism, and skepticsm, being learned behavior. Specific theistic ideas can be learned, but we also make up our own on the fly, every time we hear a bump and think, monster/ghost or whatever.

Doesn't matter. None of this provides any evidence of whatever's existence.

Your argument for the fate of the word god better fits the result of your argument for the meaning of atheist. If you are an atheist until we establish a specific god for you to lack belief in than everyone is an atheist, if only out of ignorance, to the many ideas of gods I've dreamed up and haven't shared. The word would lose all meaning.

Perhaps it can fit for atheist, but as I said, atheists can identify as such only if they, at the argument's essence, agree on what the theist puts forth. To make clearer this divide, the term igtheist was made. That's how I self-identify. I don't think any kind of rational response of "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist" can be made. Sometimes it's fun for me to argue nonsense words. I do so love Dr. Seuss after all.

However to your point about gods, no not any concept, hopefully my point about needing some personification and a supernatural element will clear that up. There are certainly many, many god concepts, I think it is safe to say that you lack belief in all of them. For myself I'm holding onto hope for one, but functionally there are none acting in any way that would matter to where we are here and now.

I understand, and I appreciate your attempt at providing some sort of coherent definition. It still unfortunately doesn't go far enough.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

I'm not certain about what you're saying at the last. Can you rephrase?

You seem to be arguing that a theist is defined by the actual existence of gods as an independent entity, and not by the idea that some mental construction of a god being believed as real, even when no such thing exists.

So are you claiming that there are no theists? Or am I misunderstanding you and you know that people are theists even though they have no evidence for the existence of any god?

Hmmm... sorry, can't agree on that, though it's a far better start than most theists provide. I'm not suggesting that you are a theist, btw.

What is it that has the capacity to be both natural and supernatural and how do you know?

I'm not sure where you are going with this. The question doesn't make sense. Are you asking me what idea is thought to have these properties or are you asking me to pull a god out of my backside so you can look one over?

This may be a factual enough statement, but it still does not indicate that these dreams and make-believes have some basis in reality.

Doesn't matter. None of this provides any evidence of whatever's existence.

All of your posts seem to come back to the notion that if the existence of whatever can not be empirically identified then no one can believe such a thing exists.

Perhaps it can fit for atheist, but as I said, atheists can identify as such only if they, at the argument's essence, agree on what the theist puts forth. To make clearer this divide, the term igtheist was made. That's how I self-identify. I don't think any kind of rational response of "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist" can be made. Sometimes it's fun for me to argue nonsense words. I do so love Dr. Seuss after all.


I understand, and I appreciate your attempt at providing some sort of coherent definition. It still unfortunately doesn't go far enough.

Why not? What is incoherent about my definition? Reading on igtheism your response to the are babies atheist should be the same as mine, unknown. If god is a nonsense word, a concept I reject, then the presence or absence of a nonsense word can not be determined unless the word is defined. Since a baby can not define the word they can't hold a position on it by igtheist ideology. Of course this discussion is atheism and theism, not igtheism, so I think bringing igtheism in is pretty disingenuous to begin with.

My definition looks for the least common denominator for all god concepts. On what basis are you rejecting it?

 

[Irony]

So why would anyone want to shrug and say, "Oh yeah, babies and rocks are totally atheists." It cheapens the entire concept and the intellectual lifting that goes into removing ones self from supernatural silliness. Not to mention anyone claiming to be a skeptic and claiming to know the mind of a baby had better have some very impressive data behind them.

People would probably want to say that because it is the simplest and most unambiguous way to interpret the word. Since atheist parses as not-theist, trying to interpret it as something other than those who are not theists is needlessly complicated and serves only to muddy the water.

Rocks don't count, by the way, because the term "theist" implies that humans are the set under consideration.

I haven't seen anyone here argue that it is a "meaningful" label in their case, but it is one which applies. And, including yourself, I have yet to see a single objection that doesn't boil down to the objector being upset that such a label goes against their preconceived notion of what an atheist "should" be. "Atheist" is simply not a meaningful label. Circumstances (such as living in a largely theist society) can make it meaningful in some cases, but intrinsically it means practically nothing.

 

[Mark6]

Yes. Yes it does. I am an a-badger, because I am not a badger.

I am an a-fairy-ist because I do not believe in fairies.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in a god.

A human baby is also all three of the above.

You may be an a-badger, but you are not an abadgerist. At least I hope you are not. If you are an abadgerist, I have to assure you badgers are entirely real and neither fictional nor extinct.

However a human baby IS an abadgerist, until he or she learns about existence of badgers.

 

[The Norseman]

You may be an a-badger, but you are not an abadgerist. At least I hope you are not. If you are an abadgerist, I have to assure you badgers are entirely real and neither fictional nor extinct.

However a human baby IS an abadgerist, until he or she learns about existence of badgers.

Badgers? I don't need no stinkin' badgers!





Funny thing. Just like I don't need no stinkin' gods. Whatever those are.

 

[The Norseman]

You seem to be arguing that a theist is defined by the actual existence of gods as an independent entity, and not by the idea that some mental construction of a god being believed as real, even when no such thing exists.

I'm saying that I withhold any positional statement until something rational is first defined. So far, nothing has really been proposed. I can provisionally conclude that when people say they believe in god, they are talking about something they themselves made up for whatever reason or no reason. Because of the equivocation over the term 'god', there is a lot of misunderstanding of what people mean when they say it. The god that members here, for example, believe in, vary. Epix's god is different than Jandale's god is different than punshhh's god. Punshhh's god is different in that he doesn't seem to care what people define as 'god', he's just happy to think that this represents all that humans don't know.

Note that all that is my opinion based solely on posting history. Nevertheless, it demonstrates my point. The question "which god" is sometimes thrown out there as a cynical remark, but ultimately there is truth to it. Dafydd often brings up the fact that the question is rarely answered. I wonder why. Probably because believers really don't actually understand what they think they believe. Gaining comfort from the belief is fine by me.

So are you claiming that there are no theists? Or am I misunderstanding you and you know that people are theists even though they have no evidence for the existence of any god?

The latter.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. The question doesn't make sense. Are you asking me what idea is thought to have these properties or are you asking me to pull a god out of my backside so you can look one over?

The latter. At least, only when you want to talk cogently about 'god'.

All of your posts seem to come back to the notion that if the existence of whatever can not be empirically identified then no one can believe such a thing exists.

Close. Anyone can believe whatever they want. It's when they (sometimes) blather on about what their god believes and behaves and how it somehow interacts with humans by varying degrees... well, that's cool as it is. I don't judge the person. Don't expect me to believe it nor behave as if I did. Also, don't keep making me guess what god it is that you are talking about.

Why not? What is incoherent about my definition? Reading on igtheism your response to the are babies atheist should be the same as mine, unknown. If god is a nonsense word, a concept I reject, then the presence or absence of a nonsense word can not be determined unless the word is defined. Since a baby can not define the word they can't hold a position on it by igtheist ideology. Of course this discussion is atheism and theism, not igtheism, so I think bringing igtheism in is pretty disingenuous to begin with.

My definition looks for the least common denominator for all god concepts. On what basis are you rejecting it?

Null hypothesis. I can reject on either point really. To be clearer, I first measure against the need for some logical, coherent definition. Then I measure against the null hypothesis -- there must be evidence presented for it.

Then -- presto! I will become a believer!! Amen!

By the way, thank you for your questions. I need to have more questions to further deepen my understanding of these issues.

 

[dafydd]

My one month old grandson can make neither head nor tail of this thread.

 

[The Norseman]

My one month old grandson can make neither head nor tail of this thread.

He probably also makes more sense now than most theists do.

 

[dafydd]

He probably also makes more sense now than most theists do.

He doesn't believe in any imaginary beings yet, but in a few years time he will believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy.

 

[ApostateltsopA]

(Apologies I actually didn't see this quote from you until just now so I'm running back to it)

Here's where I disagree. The term 'atheism' is the null hypothesis; i.e., that the default is that there is no belief in god/gods. Thus, the term can be applied to babies, even with no input (or output for that matter from fMRIs for example) from the babies themselves.

The null hypothisis is about empirical reality, not mental concepts. To put it another way, using your null hypothisis on math will invalidate numbers. We are not postulating the existence of gods, but the existence of the idea of gods.

So while the null can tell us it's unlikely that the god exists, we have lots, and lots, of evidence for the existence of ideas about gods.

Similarly

Null hypothesis. I can reject on either point really. To be clearer, I first measure against the need for some logical, coherent definition. Then I measure against the null hypothesis -- there must be evidence presented for it.

Since we have a world populated with people professing belief in gods, and you acknowledge that there are theists, and theist is defined as someone who believes in a god that acts in the world, we have a clear need to be able to talk about what a god is.

Similarly since we are talking about an idea which demonstrably is part of the world, there is no null hypothesis here.

Finally, if you persist on refusing to identify meaning to the word god, then you must also agree with me that no one can be defined atheist or theist, as we can not find the belief or lack of belief in something we can not define. Both statements, "I believe in god," and "I lack belief in god" are rendered meaningless by the lack of allowed meaning for the word god. It becomes gibberish.

"Atheist" is simply not a meaningful label. Circumstances (such as living in a largely theist society) can make it meaningful in some cases, but intrinsically it means practically nothing.

No word has intrinsic meaning, all words are inventions to relate concepts. We absolutely can choose what to mean by them and meanings are chosen, and changed through time and societies. For my part, I have no problem with atheist as a lack of belief in any gods, so long as we acknowledge this is not the same kind of atheist as someone who believes that there are no gods. I'd also like to agree that the ist means person so we are talking about someone and their mindset.

However when it comes to babies, atheist does not apply. That is my main point here in this discussion. Theist does not apply either, babies are an unknown.

You may read the why are we bothering bit as my complete bafflement at why anyone would want to claim that they are.

 

[The Norseman]

(Apologies I actually didn't see this quote from you until just now so I'm running back to it)

No worries, life happens and interest can also wax and wane.

The null hypothisis is about empirical reality, not mental concepts. To put it another way, using your null hypothisis on math will invalidate numbers. We are not postulating the existence of gods, but the existence of the idea of gods.

So while the null can tell us it's unlikely that the god exists, we have lots, and lots, of evidence for the existence of ideas about gods.

Similarly


Since we have a world populated with people professing belief in gods, and you acknowledge that there are theists, and theist is defined as someone who believes in a god that acts in the world, we have a clear need to be able to talk about what a god is.

No problem. I'll throw out the null at this point. Just need something more coherent and logical first.

Similarly since we are talking about an idea which demonstrably is part of the world, there is no null hypothesis here.

Sure, no problem.

Finally, if you persist on refusing to identify meaning to the word god, then you must also agree with me that no one can be defined atheist or theist, as we can not find the belief or lack of belief in something we can not define. Both statements, "I believe in god," and "I lack belief in god" are rendered meaningless by the lack of allowed meaning for the word god. It becomes gibberish.

Yes, but no.

The 'no' part is that I'm not refusing to identify meaning to the word god. I'm simply waiting for those who want to talk coherently and meaningfully about this peculiar concept, to identify what they mean when they say 'god' (or 'spirit' for that matter). If it's simply philosophy, I'm currently struggling to see the use for it, but am still willing to give that to the theists.

However, to virtually every theist, their god is much more than simply a philosophy. That's why I want to have their definition to be rational, coherent, and meaningful.

No word has intrinsic meaning, all words are inventions to relate concepts. We absolutely can choose what to mean by them and meanings are chosen, and changed through time and societies. For my part, I have no problem with atheist as a lack of belief in any gods, so long as we acknowledge this is not the same kind of atheist as someone who believes that there are no gods. I'd also like to agree that the ist means person so we are talking about someone and their mindset.

However when it comes to babies, atheist does not apply. That is my main point here in this discussion. Theist does not apply either, babies are an unknown.

You may read the why are we bothering bit as my complete bafflement at why anyone would want to claim that they are.

You know, I think I agree with this. At least, I can't find anything to argue about. So... thanks for this!

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Well that solved some things nicely then.

When it comes to what god means, I work with the definition I gave as a very basic one that lets me address all god concepts. Even stuff that would be called by another name as well, eg angels and superheros.

However if you want to see some really thoughtful stuff on what god means to people I recommend this lecture by Matt Dillahunty. One of his key points is that the word god isn't an idea to a theist, but a placeholder word for lots of ideas.

Here is the link, titled Belief

(on a side note that's my very first link on JREF.)