In your previous thread I tried to understand your position and you did not bother to give me a substantive reply. But I will try again
Sorry to hear that, I'm trying my best.
Later it seemed that you were founding on the premise that theism is a biological trait.
This would be a simplification. My premise is that humans, in general, have a predisposition to explain things with supernatural elements, one of these elements is actions by deities. There is a percentage of the population who are less prone to explains phenomena in supernatural terms.
You also listed a number of possible commonalities which many people would see as positive; and in doing both of those things it seems to me you sought to distance yourself from those theists who characterise atheists as amoral or immoral and all of that negative stuff we hear about as typical views in some parts of the united states.
I'm not interested in this aspect at all. I'm interested in the idea of how the brain functions and the effects of this functioning. I think it is very interesting to consider what is different (brain wise) from people who are more skeptical overall and than those who readily accept the supernatural. I understand there is this argument that the explanation is completely environmental. I don't buy that because it would be the only exception of how we explain behavior. When studying any human trait (a specific individual's trait) biology and environment are both taken into consideration.
What is the evidence for a biological basis for theism? I think you are proposing that it is possible to infer that from a high incidence of theism over many cultures. I often see that kind of reasoning, and I do not think it necessarily holds. In this instance what seems to me to be true is that most people accept the narrative they are given by their parents and their society.
You are saying you go for the environment only explanation. I object to it based on the idea that it would be the exception. I said I wanted to start a thread with a subject like that: What is the evidence for a biological basis for theism? I continue to insist that it is a very interesting matter to consider, specifically because it brings up all these side issues and questions.
You have pointed out that some people who describe themselves as atheists are not necessarily right. And you have also said that some people who describe themselves as catholic are not necessarily right. Think about that for a moment.
This has been one of the most controversial aspects of my argument. I understand why. It is just that my communication abilities are lacking, so I need to expand on what I mean (or refute more effectively).
If a person says they are catholic what does it mean? In my experience it means that they identify with a particular cultural group, quite often: it is a form of tribalism.
You are saying that the criteria for belonging to a group or tribe is subjective and dependent on the person's criteria. This might be true for some groups, not most. I might identify myself as being from the Jewish religion or member of Mensa, I still need to fulfill certain objetive criteria to actually be part of said groups.
That is quite different from what the pope might think (though I suspect the pope is very well aware of the value of such tribalism) or what a catholic theologian might think: they might think that catholicism consists in a series of beliefs such as transubstantiation or the immaculate conception or whatever. But they are just plain wrong. Some catholics subscribe to those things and many do not. They don't reject them either: they just don't think about them at all. I have had met many catholics who take the view that if you are born a catholic you die a catholic and it really does not matter what happen in between. They don't go to church regularly: they don't confess regularly: they don't do any of the things conventionally supposed to indicate membership of the religion they say they espouse. But they support celtic football club: not rangers. They make sure their kids go to catholic schools: and they make sure the kids go to church so that they can participate properly in the tribe.
I understand your train of thought. You have to consider that there has to be at least a minimun of "objective parameters" that makes someone a Catholic. Otherwise, all people who say they are Catholic would be (including the con man who mans to get the money, the girl, etc.)
I am not so arrogant as to ignore what they say and I conclude that that is what it is to be a catholic: it is not something you do: it is something you are by your own lights and affirmation. At least for some that is the way it is, and there seems to be a great many of them. It boils down to group identification "we are the people who put dirty smudges on our heads on Ash Wednesday" etc is not about the practice of religion: the normal view of that practice (belief in god etc) is secondary to the tribal markers.
No, I disagree. Group identification is not enough. I identify with many groups in different ways and I'm sure don't belong to any of them.
This is where I think some of the miscommuncation is coming from. You are trying to establish that atheism is a tribe.
If you consider left-handed people a tribe, ok.
For me you appear to be doing what many theist do: you are assuming that the way you slice the world is inherently important. You further assume that since that is the case then everybody must grant that same importance to your tribe or category system that you do yourself. What some of the people here are trying to tell you is that you are wrong in that assumption
I'm doing what is natural to the brain: create categories. I think it is interesting to consider whether atheism comes from resistant brains to the natural tendency to explain things via the supernatural.
I do not reject the notion of a god: I blandly assume there is no deity and I get on with my life because it does not matter.
You are saying that whether or not there deities exists does not matter? I don't think you mean this.
Not. At. All. I enjoy thinking about various belief systems and also tribal groupings and what they lead people to do and say and think. But it is merely a discussion. It has nothing at all to do with the price of fish. I do not slice the world into religious and non-religious: theist or non-theist. It is not a construct that makes a difference in any way I find important. It is true that on Ash Wednesday I see people with dirty marks on their foreheads and I realise they identify as catholic: often that is how I find out. Does it make any difference to my views of those people? Not even slightly. It is wholly irrelevant to how I see the world.
There is a big difference if there are deities compare to if there are none. The implications of one or the other is important.
But the phenomenon you choose to see as a construct with theism at one end and atheism at the other does not strike me that way at all. What I see is is a construct with individualism at one end and tribalism at the other. I do not share that with all other atheists: I do not identify with them in that way.
What I propose is that you might have other traits in common with other atheists because your brain has mechanical things in common. This is not something so controversial or out there. I could something like (if you were a musician): What I propose is that you might have other traits in common with other musicians because your brain has mechanical things in common. One other common trait would be perfect pitch, (not that all musicians have perfect pitch)
