Atheism - Obvious Default?

[ynot]

This is the part I disagree with. While it is, as I have said, trivially true that babies are born without belief systems, there is a very good argument to be made that religion is a by-product of agency detection and therefore innate to human psychology.

I should add that not everybody agrees with this argument, but it does make a lot of sense to me.

Are you still self-identifying as being an atheist? If so how so given you seem to be claiming everyone is a theist by default?

 

[arthwollipot]

Are you still self-identifying as being an atheist? If so how so given you seem to be claiming everyone is a theist by default?

Because theists can choose to become atheists. I thought that would be obvious, but apparently it needs to be said.

 

[ynot]

Because theists can choose to become atheists. I thought that would be obvious, but apparently it needs to be said.

How can you choose not to have a god belief if you innately have a god belief (your words)? Are you claiming that your atheism is denying that you actually believe in a god?

Forget babies. People adopt beliefs when they develop the ability to adopt beliefs, but they don’t automatically adopt all possible beliefs. There’s a process of adopting a belief that takes time. Regardless of how short that time is they are atheists during that time when considering adopting god beliefs.

ETA - Theists can choose not to be theists, they revert to being atheist if they do.

 

[Tassman]

Maybe 'default' is the wrong word then, default does not mean correct choice, but preselected choice. IOW, given human neurophysiology, or given known evolutionary pressures - is atheism or theism the preselected choice?

I’m not using 'default' in terms of “choice” at all, but rather as the position one has when there is no reason to believe anything to the contrary.

 

[Pixel42]

How can you choose not to have a god belief if you innately have a god belief

By educating yourself about cognitive biases and understanding they're why the scientific method was invented. You can then choose to overrule your own instincts in favour of reason.

 

[Tassman]

Most adults are theists, the evidence strongly suggests that religion is one of first things societies invent for themselves. I think that strongly suggests the default for humans is theism.

Not at all.

What most societies developed first was an understanding of how the world around them functions – i.e. where danger lurks, how best to hunt animals and forage for edible plants etc. etc. etc. It was a survival thing. Gods or spirits were invoked to explain the otherwise inexplicable natural occurrences. Now we have scientific methodology, which serves the same function more effectively - and without the need to keep the gods on side via offerings, sacrifices and grovelling.

 

[Thor 2]

Because theists can choose to become atheists. I thought that would be obvious, but apparently it needs to be said.

Like ynot I have an issue with the 'choose' word. I don't think we choose to belief anything. We are compelled by evidence, or lack of it, and in some cases for some, by spirit whisperings* in their heads.


* I have met a number thus deluded.

 

[ynot]

Like ynot I have an issue with the 'choose' word. I don't think we choose to belief anything. We are compelled by evidence, or lack of it, and in some cases for some, by spirit whisperings* in their heads.


* I have met a number thus deluded.

Well actually I’m willing to accept that belief is a product of choice based on limited (insufficient to qualify as knowledge) or lack of evidence. Tell me you have a pet dog and I might choose to believe you do, but I’m not compelled to believe you do. Tell me you have a pet dragon however and I’m compelled to believe you don’t .

Woo beliefs are a choice based on woo evidence and knowledge gap filling with paranormal/supernatural woo like “spirit whisperings”. I’m not willing to accept however that no belief or lack of belief has to be the product of choice (which is what Arth seems to be claiming).

 

[arthwollipot]

How can you choose not to have a god belief if you innately have a god belief (your words)? Are you claiming that your atheism is denying that you actually believe in a god?

Okay, we are having a failure to communicate here, and it's probably my fault.

What I mean is that agency detection is inherent in the brains of humans. It is possible that this tendency towards agency detection is one of the factors that led to the development of religions. I am not intending to say that every human is inherently religious.

Forget babies. People adopt beliefs when they develop the ability to adopt beliefs, but they don’t automatically adopt all possible beliefs. There’s a process of adopting a belief that takes time. Regardless of how short that time is they are atheists during that time when considering adopting god beliefs.

Again, you are vastly overestimating the age at which beliefs can be adopted. A child of religious parents does not choose to adopt beliefs, they have the beliefs that are taught to them by their parents as they develop from infant to toddler to child. There is no point at which a child says "I will become a Christian now". They are brought up in a Christian tradition. They have the beliefs that their parents, their community, and their teachers - formal and otherwise - tell them are true.

ETA - Theists can choose not to be theists, they revert to being atheist if they do.

No argument there.

 

[ynot]

By educating yourself about cognitive biases and understanding they're why the scientific method was invented. You can then choose to overrule your own instincts in favour of reason.

I guess the question is could we actually overrule a “hard-wired” innate belief in favour of reason? Theists claim we merely choose to deny/ignore our innate god belief in favour of wanting to sin.

Regardless, it’s connotative dissonance to claim we aren’t born with an ability to believe anything and simultaneously claim we are born with an innate god belief.

 

[arthwollipot]

I guess the question is could we actually overrule a “hard-wired” innate belief in favour of reason? Theists claim we merely choose to deny/ignore our innate god belief in favour of wanting to sin.

The answer is obviously yes. Atheists exist, after all. Just because there is a tendency for humans to have active agency detection doesn't mean that every human is a slave to it.

Regardless, it’s connotative dissonance to claim we aren’t born with an ability to believe anything and simultaneously claim we are born with an innate god belief.

Again, I am not claiming that anyone is born with an innate god belief. That's the second time I've said that.

 

[ynot]

Okay, we are having a failure to communicate here, and it's probably my fault.

What I mean is that agency detection is inherent in the brains of humans. It is possible that this tendency towards agency detection is one of the factors that led to the development of religions. I am not intending to say that every human is inherently religious.

A difficulty to communicate for sure, but hardly failure. We don’t need to apportion fault.

I'm sure that agency detection is inherent in the brains of humans and is one of the factors that led to the development of religions. But I don't see what this has to do with disagreeing with "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god". That babies begin with a possible future ability to have belief in a god doesn't mean babies begin with belief in a god.

Again, you are vastly overestimating the age at which beliefs can be adopted.

And I think you are vastly underestimating the age at which beliefs can be adopted.

A child of religious parents does not choose to adopt beliefs, they have the beliefs that are taught to them by their parents as they develop from infant to toddler to child. There is no point at which a child says "I will become a Christian now". They are brought up in a Christian tradition. They have the beliefs that their parents, their community, and their teachers - formal and otherwise - tell them are true.

Bit semantic to argue over adopt, inherit, gain, indoctrinate, etc. The only important thing is they begin without a god belief and over time they end up with a god belief. Whether they’re aware they have a god belief or know when they “get it” is irrelevant to my claim that “All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god“.

 

[ynot]

The answer is obviously yes. Atheists exist, after all. Just because there is a tendency for humans to have active agency detection doesn't mean that every human is a slave to it.

Don't tell me, tell Christians.

Again, I am not claiming that anyone is born with an innate god belief. That's the second time I've said that.

Yet you disagree with - "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god". Then you contradict yourself with "beginning with the position of not having belief in a god is only trivially true" (whatever that means).

 

[arthwollipot]

Yet you disagree with - "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god". Then you contradict yourself with "beginning with the position of not having belief in a god is only trivially true" (whatever that means).

Babies have to learn to be theists because they have to learn everything including how not to **** themselves. Saying that babies are born atheist is trivially true and not a very interesting observation, in my opinion.

 

[ynot]

Not your words verbatim, but saying "beginning with the position" of not having belief in a god" is essentially the same as saying "babies are born atheist".

Actually what I just said is wrong because "beginning" doesn't refer to birth as being the beginning. Your "This is the part I disagree with. While it is, as I have said, trivially true that babies are born without belief systems". As I said, "forget babies". All I'm saying is all people are atheists (don't have a god belief) before they're theists (do have a god belief).

 

[arthwollipot]

Not your words verbatim, but saying "beginning with the position" of not having belief in a god" is essentially the same as saying "babies are born atheist".

Actually what I just said is wrong because "beginning" doesn't refer to birth as being the beginning. Your "This is the part I disagree with. While it is, as I have said, trivially true that babies are born without belief systems". As I said, "forget babies". All I'm saying is all people are atheists (don't have a god belief) before they're theists (do have a god belief).

And that is a proposition that is trivially true, and that I agreed with ages ago!

 

[ynot]

And that is a proposition that is trivially true, and that I agreed with ages ago!

If you agree with "all people are atheists (don't have a god belief) before they're theists (do have a god belief)" .

Why do you disagree with "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" which is essentially saying the same thing?

 

[Delvo]

It's not the same thing. Most people's starting point is having no position on the subject at all. You can't have a position on a subject you've never heard of or considered.

 

[LarryS]

It's not the same thing. Most people's starting point is having no position on the subject at all. You can't have a position on a subject you've never heard of or considered.

I think this is the point in contention: Is a belief in luck, or a higher power, belief in a soul, etc. - are these beliefs a learned coping mechanism, or, are the seeds of these beliefs baked into our physiology due to evolutionary pressures, or, are they tempered by a reality where luck, higher power, soul, etc. actually have some real basis. [I'm simply opening up the question to all possibilities.]

 

[ynot]

It's not the same thing.

Here they are with less of those confusing words . . .

“All people don't have a god belief before they do have a god belief"
(is the same as saying . . .)
“All people begin with having no god belief”

Most people's starting point is having no position on the subject at all.

Seems you’re talking about chosen position and I’m talking about default position (unchosen). Default position is what the thread is about.

You can't have a position on a subject you've never heard of or considered.

Yes you can, the unchosen position of never having heard of or considered (the default position of ignorance). But I’m not necessarily talking about that position. I’m talking about having heard about god beliefs and the process of considering having god beliefs. That process takes some time and during that time the person knows about god beliefs but doesn’t have a god belief (is an atheist).