Atheism - Obvious Default?

[xterra]

I have just started the e-book version of Lewis Wolpert's Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief, 2006.

Here is a short excerpt from the introduction:

A tool that I try to use is evolutionary biology, as this is a topic I am familiar with, though mainly in relation to the development of embryos. It is mainly evolutionary psychology that is relevant here, and I am aware that this is quite a controversial field. There are those who do not wish to believe just how much our genes determine our behaviour. [...] Culture is important, as is nurture, but they both interact in and on a very complex biological system.

The key evolutionary idea related to our minds is that of adaptiveness; that is those behaviours, thoughts and beliefs that help us humans to survive better.

Is anyone familiar with this work, and if so, can you say how it relates to the topic of this thread?

 

[arthwollipot]

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?

I don't! Why on earth do you think I do?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

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.

Even if that is true, it doesn't equate to a 'tendency' to believe in God.

What we do all have is a 'tendency' to believe what our elders tell us. As a child everything I learned came from one of two sources - direct experience, or what other people told me. I was skeptical of my peers of course (what would a kid know?) but adults were unquestionable authorities. When they told me the Earth was round and the stars billions of miles away I believed them, even though my own eyes said otherwise. And when they told me God made the Universe and everything in it I accepted the idea - even though there was no direct evidence for it. Their word was enough.

This is how religion infects society. The stronger the conviction and the more authoritative the teller, the more people are inclined to believe it. The vast majority don't come to the conclusion that God exists by themselves, but because they are told he exists. If this wasn't the case then every believer would have their own unique idea of what the 'active agency' was. But In practice they all tend to have the same beliefs - a sure sign that they did not get their beliefs from 'active agency detection'.

 

[ynot]

I don't! Why on earth do you think I do?

Because of these posts in this thread on Earth . . .

All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god.

to which you replied . . .

This is the part I disagree with. While it is, as I have said, trivially true that babies are born without belief systems

Then . . .

All I'm saying is all people are atheists (don't have a god belief) before they're theists (do have a god belief).

to which you replied . . .

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

To be fair I’ve include the “trivially true” content in both posts in case you think that might have some importance (I don't).

So which is it? Do you agree with “All people begin* with the position of not having belief in a god” or not? I’m not interested in the “trivially true" bit as you applied it to when you both disagreed and agreed and it has no relevance anyway.

*"begin" doesn't necessarily mean from birth (that was your assumption). It means the position before becoming a theist (default position).

 

[arthwollipot]

So which is it? Do you agree with “All people begin* with the position of not having belief in a god” or not? I’m not interested in the “trivially true" bit as you applied it to when you both disagreed and agreed and it has no relevance anyway.

"All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" is the trivially true bit.

 

[ynot]

"All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" is the trivially true bit.

So what?

Does being "trivially true" make it false? If not why do you "disagree with" it? . . .

This is the part I disagree with.

 

[arthwollipot]

If not why do you "disagree with" it? . . .

Ah, I see what's happening here...

Because at that point in the conversation we were still talking past each other and I wasn't really understanding the argument that you were making. I subsequently corrected my understanding and you're still trying to hold me to something I said that is no longer true.

 

[ynot]

Ah, I see what's happening here...

Because at that point in the conversation we were still talking past each other and I wasn't really understanding the argument that you were making. I subsequently corrected my understanding and you're still trying to hold me to something I said that is no longer true.

Simple and honest explanation. Thanks for that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Simple and honest explanation. Thanks for that.

It was obvious in hindsight, really.

I'd still much rather be talking about the idea that agency detection makes it more likely for humanity to develop ideas of religion, but that's okay.

 

[ynot]

It was obvious in hindsight, really.

I'd still much rather be talking about the idea that agency detection makes it more likely for humanity to develop ideas of religion, but that's okay.

To you perhaps.

I've already agreed that agency detection is a factor in humans inventing and believing in gods. Don't see there's much else to say. There are other factors like fear of death that I think are stronger "reasons".

 

[arthwollipot]

To you perhaps.

I've already agreed that agency detection is a factor in humans inventing and believing in gods. Don't see there's much else to say. There are other factors like fear of death that I think are stronger "reasons".

It's clear that there must be multiple factors. The open question is about which of them had greater influence. Unfortunately there's remarkably little contemporary evidence for the origin of religions, so we have to rely on modern evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, which is a fascinating idea.

To me.

 

[ynot]

"All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" is the trivially true bit.

Before moving on I’d like to address your “trivial” claim.

To someone claiming atheism is the default position (original, starting, unchosen), "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" isn’t trivial at all. It is in fact the very basis on which the claim is made.

You don't need to respond.

 

[ahhell]

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.

Or even have the cognitive ability to contemplate.

Before moving on I’d like to address your “trivial” claim.

To someone claiming atheism is the default position (original, starting, unchosen), "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" isn’t trivial at all. It is in fact the very basis on which the claim is made.

You don't need to respond.

Which is why its trivially true that all babies are atheists. You may as well say, all babies are born as flat earthers. Its trivially true because they don't have the cognitive capacity to think of the world in more complex terms.* The list of things that babies don't believe in is infinite.


*Probably not the best analogy, I'm sure it will be picked apart.

 

[ynot]

Or even have the cognitive ability to contemplate.

Which is why its trivially true that all babies are atheists. You may as well say, all babies are born as flat earthers. Its trivially true because they don't have the cognitive capacity to think of the world in more complex terms.* The list of things that babies don't believe in is infinite.


*Probably not the best analogy, I'm sure it will be picked apart.

*Well I'll have a go so I don't disappoint you

As I've explained more than once, the claim "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" doesn't require that "begin" refers to the beginning of life (i.e. babies). I'm claiming all humans at any age are atheists before they're theists. Therefore atheism is the default position (as in - original, starting, unchosen position).

Is the claim that the Earth isn't flat merely trivially true?

ETA - The pick apart - Flat earther is a position that makes a claim. Atheism makes no claims .

 

[arthwollipot]

Before moving on I’d like to address your “trivial” claim.

To someone claiming atheism is the default position (original, starting, unchosen), "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" isn’t trivial at all. It is in fact the very basis on which the claim is made.

If that is the only meaning intended for the OP, then it is. And by the way, I didn't say it was "trivial", I said that it was "trivially true". There's a slight difference there. The fact itself isn't trivial, but the fact that it's true is.

It's a subtle distinction that I'm sure would go unnoticed by most people.

You don't need to respond.

I did anyway.

 

[theprestige]

If atheism is such an obvious default for people with wealth and privilege how do you explain Osama Bin Laden's theistic crusade?

 

[ynot]

If atheism is such an obvious default for people with wealth and privilege how do you explain Osama Bin Laden's theistic crusade?

Oh dear!

Wealth and privilege don't stop atheists from becoming theists. Bin Laden was an atheist before he became a theist.

 

[LarryS]

As I've explained more than once, the claim "All people begin with the position of not having belief in a god" doesn't require that "begin" refers to the beginning of life (i.e. babies). I'm claiming all humans at any age are atheists before they're theists. Therefore atheism is the default position (as in - original, starting, unchosen position).

This is an observation . . . but the rise in atheism is more of a rebellion against organized religion and a heavy-handed personal God, Many who fall in atheist category still believe in a higher power, or life having a spiritual component, life has meaning, etc. And it's not so much that believers make a 'claim' as much as they simply believe in a higher power and fully admit there's no evidence to back it up.
IOW, there are a few atheists and believers who make 'claims', but the vast majority of people stumble into believing in something magical because they want to be happy and it seems to work.

 

[rockysmith76]

Its an angry child's reaction out of resentment towards the perceived authority of "organized religion". It is not the automatic default.

 

[Cosmogenes]

What is a god?

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.

Ask any believer and they will say there is a deity. Ask non-believers, and they will say there is not one. Why? Because the believers create a god-figment in their own minds, and it cannot be denied that those figments exist. My conclusion is there have been and are still created billions of such figments throughout history, and, being individual creations, they are all different. That is why I find the tern "atheist" too ambiguous and prefer to be just a "non-believer" while accepting the fact of there being such "gods" as created by individual minds.