Atheism - Obvious Default?

[Thor 2]

Clive James has died.

Clive amused us with comments like: "advertising agencies for a product that doesn't exist" when describing religions, and saw atheism as the obvious default position to take.

Hard to argue against this presumption I think, given that children raised without being indoctrinated in a particular religion, tend to reject them all. Well this has been my observation anyway.

It's interesting that even if kids are sent to religious schools, (as a very high percentage are in Australia), they don't embrace the religion they are exposed to there. Parental shove seems necessary.

 

[8enotto]

Or being raised in a home of two parents always pointing out how the religion of the other is so wrong. And saying why in a a solid manner.

Neither could prove theirs was ever right either. We had to choose an option C.

 

[abaddon]

Clive James has died.

Clive amused us with comments like: "advertising agencies for a product that doesn't exist" when describing religions, and saw atheism as the obvious default position to take.

Hard to argue against this presumption I think, given that children raised without being indoctrinated in a particular religion, tend to reject them all. Well this has been my observation anyway.

It's interesting that even if kids are sent to religious schools, (as a very high percentage are in Australia), they don't embrace the religion they are exposed to there. Parental shove seems necessary.

Seems clear to me at least that "There are no god/s" must be the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. (wiki) And that is generally where atheists are at. And agnostics for that matter.

In general terms, if the claimed god can be demonstrated to exist, then sure. I will believe in it an foot of the evidence provided. No theist has ever been able to do that and thus the null hypothesis stands.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, I think we must really qualify here what kind of god.

The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god of Xianity for example not only isn't a default, but it's a maximally counter-intuitive proposition that not even the xians can really work with. It gets twisted into something that isn't more than one of those at a time, or even none. E.g., god couldn't save those kids from the tsunami because he was busy fixing a football match across the globe. That's denying not just omnipresence, but even omnipotence (if he can't do two things at the same time, he isn't.) Or something happened because God wasn't paying attention. The moment you have to drop most attributes to make it work in any particular situation, it tells you that it's a concept that you can't fully wrap your head around even when you want to, much less have it as a natural a default.

At the other end of the spectrum, though, animism in various forms and to various degrees seems rather natural. And not far away from one of the child mental development stages. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the absence of other information, people would default to some form of it.

 

[theprestige]

If atheism is such an obvious default, why is human history full of societies that settled on some form of theism? Do we even have historical examples of societies defaulting to atheism?

Too, there's the problem of ideologically atheist societies still committing the worst sins of religion. Avoiding the theos doesn't avoid the problem. So atheism probably isn't the solution

 

[Brainster]

Seems clear to me at least that "There are no god/s" must be the null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. (wiki) And that is generally where atheists are at. And agnostics for that matter.

In general terms, if the claimed god can be demonstrated to exist, then sure. I will believe in it an foot of the evidence provided. No theist has ever been able to do that and thus the null hypothesis stands.

The history channel had a survivor-type reality show a few years back, only it was not set in a tropical paradise so we could check out the gals in bikinis. It was set on Vancouver Island in late fall, and the idea was to put these guys who had good survival skills there with minimal equipment and see who could last the longest.

From the looks of it, the weather was terrible; nearly constant rainfall impeded their efforts at anything--hunting, fishing, cooking, staying warm, etc. And it wasn't long before the guys were praying for a break.

And that's how I suspect religion got started--with bouts of nasty weather. We are not exposed to it as much as we used to be, so it has less power over us. And we understand it much better, so most of us don't associate it with God punishing us for our sins.

 

[arthwollipot]

If atheism is such an obvious default, why is human history full of societies that settled on some form of theism? Do we even have historical examples of societies defaulting to atheism?

This is my thought also. It seems to me that some kind of supernaturality has to be the default. This is then shaped by the culture in which the person finds themself born.

Null hypothesis, yes, logically I agree. But evidence suggests otherwise. To me, at least.

 

[Darat]

Clive James has died.



Clive amused us with comments like: "advertising agencies for a product that doesn't exist" when describing religions, and saw atheism as the obvious default position to take.



Hard to argue against this presumption I think, given that children raised without being indoctrinated in a particular religion, tend to reject them all. Well this has been my observation anyway.



It's interesting that even if kids are sent to religious schools, (as a very high percentage are in Australia), they don't embrace the religion they are exposed to there. Parental shove seems necessary.

This has always been what is claimed in the UK, we all get a small dose of religion in school and that inoculates us against a full blown infection.

It's obviously not a very nuanced view and an over generalisation but I think there is a kernel of truth in it.

 

[Darat]

Well, I think we must really qualify here what kind of god.
..snip..



At the other end of the spectrum, though, animism in various forms and to various degrees seems rather natural. And not far away from one of the child mental development stages. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the absence of other information, people would default to some form of it.

I suspect it is an inevitable result of our kind of intelligence, one based on pattern detection and recognition and cause and effect and prediction. We see patterns everywhere and attempt to create models that allows us to predict the world around us, it's only comparatively recent in human history that we've found ways to objectively test our models.

 

[dann]

Hard to argue against this presumption I think, given that children raised without being indoctrinated in a particular religion, tend to reject them all. Well this has been my observation anyway.

Thor 2 makes a mistake that is very similar to the one that American psychologists made in the mid-1900s when they experimented with children and came to the (social-darwinist) conclusion that human beings are competitive by nature and unable to cooperate unless they are forced to do so. When a similar experiment was conducted with children from an Israeli kibbutz, they solved the exercise splendidly by cooperating. So the 'default positition' wasn't natural competitiveness. The kibbutz children had learned to cooperate, the American children had learned to compete! (And in the meantime we have even seen apes cooperate.)

So when Thor 2 makes the claim "this has been my observation anyway", you have to ask: Who exactly was observed? And the answer is obvious: Like the American psychologists, he observed the children that he is familiar with, forgetting how ethnocentric his observation is.
It is a valid objection to his idea that throughout the ages, atheism hasn't been the "obvious default position" at all, but it doesn't tell us why, so let me refer to one of my favourite examples,

the case of the children in Beslan who were held hostage at a school by Chechen rebels:
Carat, 11: "I was hoping that Harry Potter would come. I remembered that he had a cloak that made him invisible and he would come and wrap me in it, and we'd be invisible and we'd escape."
Nine-year-old Laima draws pictures of what she saw when she was held hostage:
"I found a little cross on the gym's floor. I kept it on me for all of the three days. It helped me to survive."

What these children needed was to get the hell out of there! Once they were in safety, you could start telling them about the superstitions that people invent in uncomfortable situations that are out of their control.

Notice that Laima, in her hour of need, resorts to the religion that she is familiar with, whereas Carat invents a religion entirely of his own making by turning a fictitious character from a novel into his personal savior.
Is there any reason to think that he does so because his parents have indoctrinated him? I don't think so. Parental shove isn't necessary at all. The human mind, even the mind of a child, is all it takes to create a religion from scraps. (And in a way, all religions are akin to this: People always choose the parts of the catechism they want to believe in, the angry, vengeful God or the forgiving, merciful God, for instance.)

Nowadays, those of us who live cosy and comfortable lives find religion to be a waste of time, so it's not completely wrong to hope that non-religion will become (and is already well on the way of becoming) the default mode.
But for those of us who live in squalor and whose lives aren't (made!) secure? ... well, not so much!

And then we shouldn't forget the people who choose to believe that they are exceptionally bright and tough because they've found out that there are no gods. Even in their case, their faith is a personal choice.

 

[dann]

At the other end of the spectrum, though, animism in various forms and to various degrees seems rather natural. And not far away from one of the child mental development stages. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the absence of other information, people would default to some form of it.

Even if they did, it still wouldn't be natural. It would be cultural, i.e. people, not nature, came up with it. You don't find gods in nature, not even animistic ones, unless you make them up.

 

[Bikewer]

Seems to me that all the religions of the world, in all their diversity, offer one thing in common.... An afterlife.
This would have been the very early thought of primitive Animists.... That if “spirits” existed there was some sort of “spirit world”..... And since humans had a spirit too they would experience this spirit world and thus cheat death.

To my knowledge, all religions took this particular idea and ran with it, conjuring up everything from some sort of “underworld” to eternal bliss in Heaven... And dozens of other ideas in between.
We humans seem to be the only species that knows they will someday die, and we don’t much like the notion.

 

[dann]

Seems to me that all the religions of the world, in all their diversity, offer one thing in common.... An afterlife.
This would have been the very early thought of primitive Animists.... That if “spirits” existed there was some sort of “spirit world”..... And since humans had a spirit too they would experience this spirit world and thus cheat death.

The 'inventors' of animism were too busy tackling the forces of nature, which they didn't understand, on a daily basis to come up with the idea of heaven. When they were afraid of thunder and ligtning, before the invention of the lightning rod, they invented a god of thunder that could be appeased. In this way, at least they could pretend to have some kind of control of their environment instead of lying scared ****less on the floor of the cave.
And no, not all religions believe in an afterlife. Some of them don't even find it desirable:

The Lucumí religion doesn't share the Christian belief that humans are rewarded for good behavior in the afterlife. The idea that one might live a difficult, painful, and unrewarding life on earth but have eternal glory in Heaven is foreign to practitioners of Santería. Instead, Santeros and Santeras try to have the best life they can have on earth, and to live out their natural life span with the blessings of good health, prosperity, inner peace, and good relationships with others.
About Santeria

I was married to a Cuban santera, who was very religious but explicitly didn't believe in an afterlife. Los Van Van, one of my favourite Cuban salsa bands with many textual references to Santeria, sings: "La vida es una sola / Hay que vivirla y punto / Sin temor" There's only one life, you have to live it, and that's it, without fear

To my knowledge, all religions took this particular idea and ran with it, conjuring up everything from some sort of “underworld” to eternal bliss in Heaven... And dozens of other ideas in between.
We humans seem to be the only species that knows they will someday die, and we don’t much like the notion.

Many religions are much more concerned with attaining some kind of imaginary control of events that are actually out of their control. That's the point of both all the saints of Catholicism and all the orishas of Santeria/Lucumi.

 

[Apathia]

In rational thinking, yes, Atheism is default. What isn't empirically and rationally there doesn't count for anything.

But empirical/rational thinking as the basis of decision making and belief is somewhat a new thing for our species. We are rooted in, and most people operate from (see the politics section of the Forum) mythopoetic, emotional narratives and a anthropocentric paradigm for relating to nature and the universe.

So called "primitive man" takes hir environment personally, approaching other creatures and natural features as if they were Human and communal. Personality and spirit are projected onto things that don't objectively behave like Human persons. Relating to nature this way was the default for tens of thousands of years. And it's still very much with us.

Most of us navigate the world through stories, especially those narratives that are integral to our personal identities. So we have a strong tendency to think in terms of protagonists. History is made of special people, heroes, extraordinaires. And when it comes to our natural environment, if we aren't finding dyads in trees, or the Great Spirit of the forest, we want to posit a tinkerer, artist, or inventor to account for the existence of trees.

So, as a child, I didn't question the obvious, the Great Protagonist.

If you throw reasons and facts at a Theist, you know what happens. it's a whoosh. Or as is the case for a very intelligent and educated Theist I know it's the occasion to quote Kierkegaard, "Truth is subjectivity."

We Humans have an emotionally felt sense of transcendence that we fill with stories and their protagonists, so I'd wager that if androids birthed Human embryos from artificial wombs on a planet far, far away from Animists and Theists, those Humans would shortly begin yearning for the Great Spirit, as quickly as they'd be making of their own self-consciousnesses supernatural spirits.

 

[dann]

Or as is the case for a very intelligent and educated Theist I know it's the occasion to quote Kierkegaard, "Truth is subjectivity."

Oh boy, that's a Dane I really can't stand. (And I used to teach at a high school where he had been both a student and a teacher.) One of the most overrated philosophers of all time. Always good for an aphorism that pretends to be clever but never is.
What makes you think that the theist you know is very intelligent?

 

[Thor 2]

Thor 2 makes a mistake that is very similar to the one that American psychologists made in the mid-1900s when they experimented with children and came to the (social-darwinist) conclusion that human beings are competitive by nature and unable to cooperate unless they are forced to do so. When a similar experiment was conducted with children from an Israeli kibbutz, they solved the exercise splendidly by cooperating. So the 'default positition' wasn't natural competitiveness. The kibbutz children had learned to cooperate, the American children had learned to compete! (And in the meantime we have even seen apes cooperate.)

When in doubt throw in an analogy - even if it's not a good one.

In this case your thesis that cooperation/competitiveness is learned is discredited by that final bit about apes cooperating. Did they learn this?

 

[Apathia]

Oh boy, that's a Dane I really can't stand. (And I used to teach at a high school where he had been both a student and a teacher.) One of the most overrated philosophers of all time. Always good for an aphorism that pretends to be clever but never is.
What makes you think that the theist you know is very intelligent?

It would be convenient if I could characterize him as less intelligent than myself, but it isn't the case. Certainly compared to my family, he has intellect.
But degrees of IQ don't really say much about what kind of beliefs one finds plausible. We use our rationality most often for rationalizing. He does so to his own satisfaction. And I do as well.

(A BTW if necessary, I'm not a Theist.)

 

[dann]

When in doubt throw in an analogy - even if it's not a good one.

In this case your thesis that cooperation/competitiveness is learned is discredited by that final bit about apes cooperating. Did they learn this?

Thor 2 got it wrong again by staring himself blind on the beginning of a post instead of reading the whole thing:
1) My 'thesis' was that Thor 2 didn't consider his sample size, present day Australian children, when he came up with his thesis that atheism is the obvious default. He didn't consider other parts of the world or other periods of time, i.e. basically all of human history.
2) U.S. psychologists made a similar mistake when they concluded that human nature is to be competitive instead of cooperative - based on studies of American children only.
3) Do apes learn to be cooperative? I don't know. Is it important in the context to know if they do or not? Not really. How would you go about trying to find out if it is learned or innate behaviour? Well, you could have chimps grow up without any kind of parenting, but that tends to screw up primate babies, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

What we do know is that chimps cooperate - whether by nurture or nature. And we know that "social learning pervades primate ontogenetic development, importantly shaping locally adaptive knowledge and skills that span multiple aspects of the behavioral repertoire." So it's not unlikely that they learn to cooperate.
But we also know that in the case of the genus homo sapiens, many are very unwilling to do so, i.e. to cooperate as well as to learn.

 

[dann]

(A BTW if necessary, I'm not a Theist.)

I never suspected that you were.

 

[Thor 2]

Thor 2 got it wrong again by staring himself blind on the beginning of a post instead of reading the whole thing:
1) My 'thesis' was that Thor 2 didn't consider his sample size, present day Australian children, when he came up with his thesis that atheism is the obvious default. He didn't consider other parts of the world or other periods of time, i.e. basically all of human history.
2) U.S. psychologists made a similar mistake when they concluded that human nature is to be competitive instead of cooperative - based on studies of American children only.
3) Do apes learn to be cooperative? I don't know. Is it important in the context to know if they do or not? Not really. How would you go about trying to find out if it is learned or innate behaviour? Well, you could have chimps grow up without any kind of parenting, but that tends to screw up primate babies, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

What we do know is that chimps cooperate - whether by nurture or nature. And we know that "social learning pervades primate ontogenetic development, importantly shaping locally adaptive knowledge and skills that span multiple aspects of the behavioral repertoire." So it's not unlikely that they learn to cooperate.
But we also know that in the case of the genus homo sapiens, many are very unwilling to do so, i.e. to cooperate as well as to learn.

Well I did read read the whole thing dann although inspiring it was not. The above elaborate attempt at re-enforcing you thesis seems a little desperate also. I have some problem with the following from said post:

Nowadays, those of us who live cosy and comfortable lives find religion to be a waste of time, so it's not completely wrong to hope that non-religion will become (and is already well on the way of becoming) the default mode.
But for those of us who live in squalor and whose lives aren't (made!) secure? ... well, not so much!

In the OP I was quoting the words of Clive, who I imagine was talking about people in the West, not about those without education and living in squalor elsewhere. Another piece of fiction you might enjoy and use to re-enforce your thesis, apart from the one you quoted, would be "The Lord of the Flies". An entertaining story but not one I found convincing. Perhaps you would.

Then we have the following:

And then we shouldn't forget the people who choose to believe that they are exceptionally bright and tough because they've found out that there are no gods. Even in their case, their faith is a personal choice.

If choosing is something you do in order to believe or not believe something ...... I am puzzled. I really don't think I do this but instead feel compelled to believe something as a result of evidence.