Challenging The Belief That Atheism Is The Default

[Storm]

Having been a regular reader and occasional poster of this forum for more than a year, I have come to see many different opinions regarding various beliefs and how people have come to understand why the believed things they did for so long. I have come to the conclusion that everyone has come to accept their reality in their own personal ways and that most of the regulars who post on the forums have accepted what they have come to understand about what they currently believe about Christianity or other religions.

 

But one particular idea that gets thrown around from time to time is the belief that if you raised a child in a sterile, religion and science free environment, that they would simply default to Atheism. As I have spent time over the past couple months studying cognitive psychology and in trying to understand the human belief system, I have come to understand that this belief that atheism is the default when no other influence exists is not a true statement or belief.

 

The human brain works in a very particular way and due to the way that it processes and perceives information, it generally, by default, tries to find some systematic way to create a system of order and understanding so that it can process the information in a meaningful and understandable way. Eckart Voland, in the book "Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior" writes the following statement describing the idea of "cognitive imperative" set forth by Eugene D' Aquili and furthered by others:

 

    "The Cognitive Imperative compels a plausible and coherent design of the portrayal of world happenings, without any gaps in explanations, without any islands of irrationality. Human beings obviously cannot stand contingencies, irrationality, or causal uncertainty, because what is not understood generates fear. To avoid this, reasons and causes are seen, even when there aren't any. The brain is a permanently working generator of stories. It not only sees rules where there aren't any, but also makes up stories, which allows these rules to appear more or less plausible. In this context, cognitive psychologists speak of the "need for closure" or "jumping to conclusions". Basically, Francis Bacon already knew this when he wrote in 1620: "The human understanding is of its own nature prone to suppose the existence of more order and regularity in the world than it finds. (Bacon 1620, book 2, aphorism no. 45)" Viewed in this light, the metaphysics of religion are based on errors and false classifications of basically functional cognitive machinery. In this way, the basic metaphysical assumptions are merely unavoidable by-products, with consequences that tend to be biologically harmless, of the biologically evolved psyche that is aimed at coping with adaptive problems..."

 

To summarize, it is simply human cognitive functioning that tries to fill the gaps of what we fail to understand with something that we feel makes some sort of sense to us. So, even if you were raised in an environment without religion and science, you would still default to believing whatever construct your brain would create in order to help you cope with what you don't understand. While it is important to note that it doesn't necessarily mean that humans default to believing in a deity, but I think it is safe to say that most humans would default to believing in a deity or some supernatural entity to help them fill the gaps of what they do not understand. Our understanding of anthropology and the early history of man certainly bears this out. It only makes more logical sense that man eventually created a more systemically logical order to these deistic beliefs and ultimately created religions and other belief systems.

 

It is my belief that if you raised a child in a entirely scientific realm and only taught them scientific methods and taught them that science can provide the answers, then the child might default towards atheism, but even then, that might not be the case since science has certainly not answered everything.

 

Do you agree or disagree? I would like to hear your thoughts.

[florduh]

As in all these discussions, I think we need to differentiate between the "simple atheist" such as an infant or any person never exposed to people claiming that god(s) are real and who therefore have no belief in gods and the (I call it) "thoughtful atheist" who has been presented with assertions of gods and has dismissed them as baseless claims.

 

It is my belief that if you raised a child in a entirely scientific realm and only taught them scientific methods and taught them that science can provide the answers, then the child might default towards atheism, but even then, that might not be the case since science has certainly not answered everything.

 

Do you agree or disagree? I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

 

I think it's clear that children adopt the ways of the people they grow up around. If science and logic were inculcated as strongly and consistently as religious/superstitious beliefs are, kids would be better prepared to deal with reality as adults. Science has more answers than it used to, and it will have more answers to come; but until we have a logical answer for "Mommy, why did my hamster die?" many will wish so hard for magic to be real that for some it will be.

[Storm]

As in all these discussions, I think we need to differentiate between the "simple atheist" such as an infant or any person never exposed to people claiming that god(s) are real and who therefore have no belief in gods and the (I call it) "thoughtful atheist" who has been presented with assertions of gods and has dismissed them as baseless claims.

 

It is my belief that if you raised a child in a entirely scientific realm and only taught them scientific methods and taught them that science can provide the answers, then the child might default towards atheism, but even then, that might not be the case since science has certainly not answered everything.

 

Do you agree or disagree? I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

 

I think it's clear that children adopt the ways of the people they grow up around. If science and logic were inculcated as strongly and consistently as religious/superstitious beliefs are, kids would be better prepared to deal with reality as adults. Science has more answers than it used to, and it will have more answers to come; but until we have a logical answer for "Mommy, why did my hamster die?" many will wish so hard for magic to be real that for some it will be.

I would argue that it really doesn't matter if we differentiate between simple and thoughtful atheist. The way the human mind works automatically produces a "fill the gaps" theory. Even if you teach people science and religion equally, you run into the problem of motivated reasoning. Each person seeks out information to confirm what they already believe. I think you might statistically get more people who would possibly not become a religious person. But I suspect that things would likely stay the same as they are now. You are fighting against something that occurs naturally. While humans can certainly learn to think more critically, a simple examination of a cross section of our current society would show that this is not the case for many people and they continue to believe what they want regardless of what information is presented to them. .

[mymistake]

It is my belief that if you raised a child in a entirely scientific realm and only taught them scientific methods and taught them that science can provide the answers, then the child might default towards atheism, but even then, that might not be the case since science has certainly not answered everything.

 

 

It is true that science cannot answer everything.  However what real answers have come from anywhere other than science?  All the answers we have came from science.

 

 

Kids as they develop reach an age where they reject magical thinking and learn to reason.  If they are not attacked by a religion at that phase they will work out for themselves that religion is false.  It happens again in the mid teens and again in the early twenties.  And it is as these phases when many indoctrinated children leave their faith.

[Storm]

 

It is my belief that if you raised a child in a entirely scientific realm and only taught them scientific methods and taught them that science can provide the answers, then the child might default towards atheism, but even then, that might not be the case since science has certainly not answered everything.

 

 

It is true that science cannot answer everything.  However what real answers have come from anywhere other than science?  All the answers we have came from science.

 

 

Kids as they develop reach an age where they reject magical thinking and learn to reason.  If they are not attacked by a religion at that phase they will work out for themselves that religion is false.  It happens again in the mid teens and again in the early twenties.  And it is as these phases when many indoctrinated children leave their faith.

 

This is what I am challenging. The science does not support your assertion regarding reaching an age where magical thinking stops and reasoning begins. The science says that most humans will rely on some form of cognitive measure, usually attributing the unknown to some supernatural entity or force, to explain gaps in its ability to understand and comprehend its world throughout their entire life, the specific religious "flavor" will be determined by the information that the person has received.

I want to clarify that, in general,  I am not talking about religion, but I am referencing the precursor to religious thought. If you look at primitive human history, there was not really a religion, per se, but just an idea of the supernatural. Religion developed as man developed theories and started asserting itself in a reasoned manner. In my opinion, religion is just part of the evolution of this basic human condition, which is a result of the mind's mental processes and abilities.

[Guest Furball]

. If science and logic were inculcated as strongly and consistently as religious/superstitious beliefs are, kids would be better prepared to deal with reality as adults. 

I know i would have been far better off. Geez that is the truth. -me

[Lucy]

I'm unsure about the set up of this. Particularly the idea of a "sterile, religion and science free environment."

 

What is a science free environment? Do you mean to say if my child asks a question for which scientific discovery has provided a clear answer already, I say I don't know?

 

So if they say, "Where does the sun go at night?"

I reply, "I don't know." Then see what they decide the answer is?

They will either decide it's unknowable, make up some random crazy answer (it went to bed), or come up with some hypothesis (it's going around the bottom side of the earth).

I think the results would vary depending on the child. I think most children won't make up "God put it away so we can sleep at night" unless the idea of god has already been introduced to them.

 

I don't think it's possible to raise a child in a science free environment, unless you just refused to answer questions about commonly accepted scientific discovery.

 

And unless you restrict their access to television and other people you can't raise them free of magical thinking or religious awareness. Most kids get magical thinking from adults and TV encouraging it. Nearly all children's programming is magical.

 

So are you asking if children would have come to magical thinking on their own if raised without being exposed to it?

[midniterider]

It is my belief that if you raised a child in a entirely scientific realm and only taught them scientific methods and taught them that science can provide the answers, then the child might default towards atheism, but even then, that might not be the case since science has certainly not answered everything.

 

Do you agree or disagree? I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

I dont think it's completely predictable since religion has little to do with reason. Emotion sucks people into religion, even if they know it's illogical. It feels good.

 

If a child is encouraged to creatively think then why would it be impossible for a child to think up the idea of imaginary friends, imaginary gods, and supernatural stuff on his own? Do children get their ideas exclusively from their parents or do they also create their own thoughts?

 

I would say that people come up with similar ideas all the time, even though they may never have had exposure to a concept. Where did the idea of deity start in the first place? Someone thought it up, obviously. To say that someone else could not spontaneously generate a similar idea of gods is absurd.

[Storm]

I'm unsure about the set up of this. Particularly the idea of a "sterile, religion and science free environment."

 

What is a science free environment? Do you mean to say if my child asks a question for which scientific discovery has provided a clear answer already, I say I don't know?

 

So if they say, "Where does the sun go at night?"

I reply, "I don't know." Then see what they decide the answer is?

They will either decide it's unknowable, make up some random crazy answer (it went to bed), or come up with some hypothesis (it's going around the bottom side of the earth).

I think the results would vary depending on the child. I think most children won't make up "God put it away so we can sleep at night" unless the idea of god has already been introduced to them.

 

I don't think it's possible to raise a child in a science free environment, unless you just refused to answer questions about commonly accepted scientific discovery.

 

And unless you restrict their access to television and other people you can't raise them free of magical thinking or religious awareness. Most kids get magical thinking from adults and TV encouraging it. Nearly all children's programming is magical.

 

So are you asking if children would have come to magical thinking on their own if raised without being exposed to it?

If a child grew up on a deserted island without any influence of society or family, a la the movie Blue Lagoon. That would be a sterile environment. no media, no churches, no schools, no outside influences.

[mwc]

     I always thought that the "atheism is the default" is that we're not born with beliefs especially beliefs in gods.  These things have to be taught to us.  Likewise we're not born scientists either.  We're blank slates by and large with few basic functions built-in (ie. eat, sleep, potty, learn, etc.).  I would think that there is no "sterile" environment where some sort of bias (internal and/or external) is going to make its way in once things get rolling.

 

     Since kids are usually exposed to religion right out of the gate they usually tend to take-on whatever belief system of the people around them hold.  If there were some "default" religion it seems it would make some appearance before being replaced by whatever else humans invented but that doesn't seem to really be the case (beyond what might be the basic human attempt at trying to explain things through ad hoc means).

 

          mwc

[midniterider]

The Laws of Magical Thinking - Matthew Hutson,

 

Good book that points out that most everyone harbors some type of magical thinking even if they would rather not admit it.

[Storm]

I think my intended discussion is not being played out, mostly because my OP ended with the statement regarding raising children in an entirely scientific household. My final question regarding what the reader thought was intended to be about the entire post, not the last line. That confusion was my fault.

 

What I am trying to present is that the studies of human cognitive psychology have shown that humans in general think a specific way. When information is being processed by the brain has "gaps" due to not able to understand or it doesn't make logical sense, the default by the human brain is to fill the gaps with whatever logical inference the brain can come up with to mend the discrepancy. For the majority of those instances, the supernatural fills those gaps. It is the condition of the human brain to do this.

 

I point this out because I have seen several posts where the writer indicated something along the lines of the default position for a child without having been influenced by religion would be atheism. The science does not support this assertion. MWC just posted the common statement "  I always thought that the "atheism is the default" is that we're not born with beliefs especially beliefs in gods". This is a true statement so far as it mentions gods specifically and because we are not specifically born with beliefs. But humans create the beliefs as they grow and develop, whether or not they are influenced by religion or science. The science shows that humans default to creating a belief that fills the gaps when no specific understanding of a particular piece of information exists in the known data of the individual being confronted with the information. This "fill the gap" idea that the brain creates often involves the belief in the supernatural. The supernatural can involve a deity, or just a source of power or whatever the mind can come up with. I am not saying this is religion.

 

Based on the results of the studies I have read, the default is not atheism, but a belief in something, deity or otherwise. Therefore, my conclusion is that the default is not atheism, but something else.

[florduh]

None of the "gods" make themselves apparent so a child must be introduced to the idea of them. That seems distinct from a general inborn inclination to magical thinking to fill the gaps of knowledge.

[Lucy]

The children in Blue Lagoon spoke English and had exposure to human thought and reasoning. Even growing up outside of society, you have to lay the framework for the human mind to be able to develop any sort of thoughts or they would have just been feral. You have to develop certain concepts in a child or else they will be feral. Teaching them logic and reasoning must come before they can even be inquisitive about the hows and whys of the world. The idea that there is a how and a why is something in and of itself.

 

A child truly without influence of society or family is going to be feral. I'm thinking of someone like Genie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29

 

 

Lets assume that we can raise children capable of thinking about how and why without ever giving them answers. Probably some would come up with magical reasons and some would not. It's really hard to answer this sort of question. For religion to develop in a group, you would only need one influential member to claim a magical being is causing an unexplained phenomena and most of the rest of the group will just agree. Most people don't bother to think that deeply about things when an answer has already been given easily.

[Storm]

None of the "gods" make themselves apparent so a child must be introduced to the idea of them. That seems distinct from a general inborn inclination to magical thinking to fill the gaps of knowledge.

This is true, however, a god is certainly within the realm of possibility to fill that gap. For some people it is, for others it is something else. The specific gods that we have knowledge of are simply someone's interpretation of their natural human "fill the gaps" thinking. They shared what they believed with others who either dismissed it, or agreed with it.

[Storm]

The children in Blue Lagoon spoke English and had exposure to human thought and reasoning. Even growing up outside of society, you have to lay the framework for the human mind to be able to develop any sort of thoughts or they would have just been feral. You have to develop certain concepts in a child or else they will be feral. Teaching them logic and reasoning must come before they can even be inquisitive about the hows and whys of the world. The idea that there is a how and a why is something in and of itself.

 

A child truly without influence of society or family is going to be feral. I'm thinking of someone like Genie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29

 

Exactly. But the situation I described, being raised without any preconceived ideas or notions already happened. In the past. Early humans did the very thing I am describing. Their "fill the gaps" theories and beliefs eventually evolved into what we now know and understand as religion.

 

Lets assume that we can raise children capable of thinking about how and why without ever giving them answers. Probably some would come up with magical reasons and some would not. It's really hard to answer this sort of question. For religion to develop in a group, you would only need one influential member to claim a magical being is causing an unexplained phenomena and most of the rest of the group will just agree. Most people don't bother to think that deeply about things when an answer has already been given easily.

 

Exactly. This is how religion developed into what we know today.

[Lucy]

Early humans developed under very different circumstances than a child who is being raised without religion today. I don't think we can compare the two very well.

 

A group of very early humans, when pondering the question for the first time, "Where does the sun go at night?" would most likely be consulting each other for opinions rather than relying on solely their own opinion. Humans have access to each other's input and we use that to develop our understanding of the world. There were many more questions without proper answers in very olden times than there are now. Cavemen couldn't google up answers. So whoever gives the best sounding answer is considered correct just to put the question to rest and give us an sense of comfort thinking we understand something, even if our understanding was wrong. The thinkers decide these things and most of the people just accept what someone else has already decided on without bothering to think it over themselves.

 

A child trying to understand the world is in a different position although I admit it's similar. They just ask for answers from parents who probably already have an answer. Whether right or wrong, the parents usually already have an answer. Most questions children will ask already have answers at this point. (I didn't say correct answers, just answers. The mind wants an answer first and foremost. It might not ever bother to sort out of that answer is correct or not.)

 

If a child is not permitted to watch TV or interact with superstitious people. And they are always given a scientifically accepted answer for every question they ask. But then some of their questions are answered with "I don't know" answers on questions that we don't have concrete answers to... Then my opinion is that child might come up with a magical sounding hypothesis or just accept that nobody knows. But I don't think they would necessarily create a singular entity to be their god of the gaps for all their unanswered questions out there.

[bornagainathiest]

Hi Storm.

 

I think I follow what you're saying about atheism not being the default position of the human mind.  

Michael Shermer's thinking about evolutionary Patternicity and Agenticity seem to support this.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/agenticity/

 

You'll note that he concludes with the statement, "We are natural-born supernaturalists."

Which prompts me to ask these questions.  

 

"If evolution causes us to think in a certain way, why should we believe this way gives us true knowledge about reality...?"  

 

"If we know that we are predisposed to draw supernatural conclusions where there may be none - doesn't that tell us that our default position should be atheism...until proven otherwise?"

.

.

.

Your thoughts?

 

BAA

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Margee]

This is a very interesting topic Storm. I also love to study the brain.

 

I recall a book I read many years ago called 'Prayers to an Unknown God'' (I believe that was the name of it?) written by a man who investigated extremely remote peoples of the world who had never been introduced to civilization and found that all of them were praying to something. (he journeyed himself) None of them had ever been introduced to any kind of god, so obviously, someone in the 'tribe' thought something was 'god' when they experienced. wind, rain, storms, volcano's, etc.....

 

I had been investigating my own faith while I was reading this book and had come to the conclusion (back then) that we must be geared to believe in a god of some kind. It's also been posted on EX-c, a you-tube called ''The God Helmet''. He generally goes in the same direction as this author's book. 

 

Very interesting topic......

[mymistake]

This is what I am challenging. The science does not support your assertion regarding reaching an age where magical thinking stops and reasoning begins. 

 

I don't think so.

 

http://www.motherforlife.com/child/6-to-8-years-old/psychology/self-esteem-and-knowing-yourself/6821-age-of-reason.thtml

"Around the age of 7, children enter the period of late childhood also called the “age of reason”. This reasonable age, long considered like the first step in the big leagues represents the end of the Oedipal period and the beginning of a new stage of logic and understanding of the surrounding world."

 

http://childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/piaget/

 

"The following information is based on the work of Jean Piaget. He was not a psychologist. He was a developmental biologist who devoted his life to closely observing and recording the intellectual abilities of infants, children and adolescents."

 

Read more: http://childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-development/piaget/#ixzz3M6qVvCxu 

Follow us: @ParentingWeb on Twitter | ParentingTodayCDI on Facebook

[Storm]

Early humans developed under very different circumstances than a child who is being raised without religion today. I don't think we can compare the two very well.

 

I agree and also would point out that the brains of our ancestors worked differently than our brains now.

 

A group of very early humans, when pondering the question for the first time, "Where does the sun go at night?" would most likely be consulting each other for opinions rather than relying on solely their own opinion. Humans have access to each other's input and we use that to develop our understanding of the world. There were many more questions without proper answers in very olden times than there are now. Cavemen couldn't google up answers. So whoever gives the best sounding answer is considered correct just to put the question to rest and give us an sense of comfort thinking we understand something, even if our understanding was wrong. The thinkers decide these things and most of the people just accept what someone else has already decided on without bothering to think it over themselves.

I also agree with this. But I would also say that despite there being a potential group consensus, there would still be outliers. People believe what they want to believe, regardless of what others think, because that is the way the brain works. This is very evident in christianity today. Whatever worldview you come up with, even if it mostly agrees with someone else's, is still different because it only comes about by specific information that your brain processed in its own particular way.  So, the worldviews may be similar, but they are not exactly the same.

 

People are also non confrontational about things they don't understand. So, there is a high probability that no one would challenge the determined status quo.

 

A child trying to understand the world is in a different position although I admit it's similar. They just ask for answers from parents who probably already have an answer. Whether right or wrong, the parents usually already have an answer. Most questions children will ask already have answers at this point. (I didn't say correct answers, just answers. The mind wants an answer first and foremost. It might not ever bother to sort out of that answer is correct or not.)

 

If a child is not permitted to watch TV or interact with superstitious people. And they are always given a scientifically accepted answer for every question they ask. But then some of their questions are answered with "I don't know" answers on questions that we don't have concrete answers to... Then my opinion is that child might come up with a magical sounding hypothesis or just accept that nobody knows. But I don't think they would necessarily create a singular entity to be their god of the gaps for all their unanswered questions out there.

I agree with this in general. I want to clarify that I am not saying that the brain defaults to a singular entity. It just tries to fill the gaps with whatever works best for it to be able to maintain some sense of stability and "normalcy". For some, a deity works, for others, maybe a supernatural force, such as mother nature or karma or whatever. But one thing I would like to say is that just because  someone is given correct, scientifically proven information, that the person is going to accept it and incorporate it into their worldview. We know that this is often not the case for most Christians. When the brain is presented with information that contradicts what it already perceives or understands, the brain works in a couple different ways to protect its worldview. It either dismisses the information altogether, or it changes its meaning by using other information that it already has comfort with and this adjustment satisfies it so that it doesn't create a distortion. An example of this is an unanswered prayer. Christians distort the anomaly of an unanswered prayer by attributing one of three possibilities, yes, no, or not now. To them, the fourth possibility of god not existing is not even a possibility because it fits outside of their worldview. Lastly, the brain can also accept the information at face value and incorporate it into the worldview.

 

So, I contend that even if you raise a child in an environment that you describe, there is no guarantee that the child will ultimately become an atheist. There are still scientists that still believe in god, in spite of what they know about their respective fields. 

[mikey101]

It makes sense that the tendency towards religious/supernatural belief is part of how the human mind works.  Some have said it was integral to human evolution.  Also, I don't think any of us are exempt from this way of thinking. When we don't understand something, when it doesn't align with our logic, we all try to fill in the gaps, which doesn't necessarily have to be supernatural/religous belief.

 

[Storm]

Hi Storm.

 

I think I follow what you're saying about atheism not being the default position of the human mind.  

Michael Shermer's thinking about evolutionary Patternicity and Agenticity seem to support this.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/agenticity/

 

You'll note that he concludes with the statement, "We are natural-born supernaturalists."

Which prompts me to ask these questions.  

 

"If evolution causes us to think in a certain way, why should we believe this way gives us true knowledge about reality...?"  

 

"If we know that we are predisposed to draw supernatural conclusions where there may be none - doesn't that tell us that our default position should be atheism...until proven otherwise?"

.

.

.

Your thoughts?

 

BAA

Yes, the patternicity and agenticity ideas are definitely related topics. So thanks for tying those in with this. His statement ""We are natural-born supernaturalists." is very apt for this conversation.

 

In regards to your questions:

 

"If evolution causes us to think in a certain way, why should we believe this way gives us true knowledge about reality...?"  

 

Without getting into philosophy, which I am not very privy to, I would say that ultimately, we need to boil down everything to its most basic premise. As I think about it, I wonder what purpose reason serves the human race. What evolutionary advantage do we gain by being able to reason? Man could certainly continue to exist without it. Our common modern relations, the apes and monkeys and the like, all continue to function and exist without the capacity to reason as we do. So, to somewhat answer your question with another one, What benefit to we gain by fully understanding what our reality really is? Man has existed for thousands of years without understanding the truth of our reality. Yet we are still here, still thriving and still continuing our species.

 

Instead of evolution being a forward moving, improvement orientated construct in this particular case, maybe evolution has maximized itself and that our brain's use of filling the gaps is simply a protective measure to ensure that it has an understanding and a reason to make a particular decision regarding the information it receives. Just like with computers, there are rules that govern what happens to information that it receives, it has to follow specific protocols set forth by the programmers or else the information is meaningless. The brain works in very much the same way. The brain process so much information and discards a lot of information that we are unaware of, but it also has to decide what to do with that information. And it has to decide what to do with information that we intentionally place in its realm. No human can possibly know all the answers to everything, so the brain has to have some type of system in place to keep it from being overloaded with uncertainty and chaos in regards to the information it receives. The fill the gaps process fixes this issue and maintains general functionality for it.

So, maybe I can ask another question: can we really ever know the truth about our reality? My gut feeling is no.

 

"If we know that we are predisposed to draw supernatural conclusions where there may be none - doesn't that tell us that our default position should be atheism...until proven otherwise?"

 

I like this question and I think it raises good points. But once again, when boiled down to its most basic premise, ultimately the use of the fill the gaps theory is to protect the brains worldview. By the brain using the fill the gaps system, it protects itself from chaos and the discomfort of the unknown. So, I don't think the default could actually be atheism because the brain doesn't comprehend atheism. it comprehends its safety and order. I hope that makes sense. The ultimate goal of the fill the gaps is to protect the brains worldview. If atheism serves that purpose, then that could be the default. But I think that Ellen Glasgow makes a great statement that fits this discussion: "People use their best problem solving strategies to get their needs met, even if those strategies are dysfunctional." I think the brain works like this as well. It uses whatever it has at its disposal to makes sense of its worldview by using whatever means it has at its disposal, even if those means are dysfunctional or not based in reality. So, I contend that atheism is not likely to be a default, at least initially, until it becomes part of the brains worldview and becomes a tool that the brain can use to shape its processing the information it receives.

 

Does that make sense?

[Lucy]

I really liked your blog post Human. I think her response was interesting. I don't think I've seen someone have her opinion before.

 

I think if someone who hasn't been taught Christianity is given a summary of the Bible as a whole, they would not accept it. I think most adults are converted by some cherry picking of the parts that sound good being presented by an enthusiastic believer.  If you tried just picking out the best parts and being enthusiastic that this is true, you might get a different response.

 

 

---

 

I think we are all superstitious by nature. And we are all trusting of confident authority figures. I think that a child raised without religious beliefs will probably gain some magical superstitious thinking, but will probably grow out of it later if it's not enforced. I think it takes groups of people to make "gods" and such. If a child says, "I think there's a spirit living in the waterfall." And nobody agrees, then they will probably grow out of that belief. If others respond, "Really? If you think so then lets make offerings to her to gain her good favor!" then soon the spirit will have a name and backstory and become a goddess.

 

Superstitious beliefs arise from people wanting control over randomness. That's why usually people are praying to the gods for help. They want to randomness of the world to be controlled. So they invent someone who can control it for them. The more random and out of control the world feels, the more you want a god to exist. I think it takes groups of people agreeing with each other to enforce this belief. Usually the beliefs don't hold without agreement from others. I think some external confirmation is required or else the child's magical thinking cannot become a concrete belief.

 

I do think outliers exist. But even in Christianity, the different opinions turn into different sects. If I can get enough Christians believing my version of Christianity then I can make a new branch of it and found my own church. Varying opinions existing within a mostly same worldview is perfectly normal. If someone beliefs something too different from the norm then the group rejects their belief and they can be rejected from the group as a whole. This was very bad for our ancestors and very bad today. If a Christian thinks that demons are living in their basement and they need to throw candy down there to keep them at bay, and nobody else agrees, then that person an outlier and is considered crazy.

 

 

I don't think there is any guarantee towards atheism. I think it is more likely to be the end result in our current world environment if a child wasn't pushed into any belief.

I do think superstitious thinking is going to arise on its own regardless of religion or atheism. You can be an atheist and still be superstitious. It happens. I think most children will grow out of it if it's not being supported by the other people they associate with. We are very much social animals.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Hi Storm.

 

I think I follow what you're saying about atheism not being the default position of the human mind.  

Michael Shermer's thinking about evolutionary Patternicity and Agenticity seem to support this.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/agenticity/

 

You'll note that he concludes with the statement, "We are natural-born supernaturalists."

Which prompts me to ask these questions.  

 

"If evolution causes us to think in a certain way, why should we believe this way gives us true knowledge about reality...?"  

 

"If we know that we are predisposed to draw supernatural conclusions where there may be none - doesn't that tell us that our default position should be atheism...until proven otherwise?"

.

.

.

Your thoughts?

 

BAA

Yes, the patternicity and agenticity ideas are definitely related topics. So thanks for tying those in with this. His statement ""We are natural-born supernaturalists." is very apt for this conversation.

 

In regards to your questions:

 

"If evolution causes us to think in a certain way, why should we believe this way gives us true knowledge about reality...?"  

 

Without getting into philosophy, which I am not very privy to, I would say that ultimately, we need to boil down everything to its most basic premise. As I think about it, I wonder what purpose reason serves the human race. What evolutionary advantage do we gain by being able to reason? Man could certainly continue to exist without it. Our common modern relations, the apes and monkeys and the like, all continue to function and exist without the capacity to reason as we do. So, to somewhat answer your question with another one, What benefit to we gain by fully understanding what our reality really is? Man has existed for thousands of years without understanding the truth of our reality. Yet we are still here, still thriving and still continuing our species.

 

That is an excellent question, Storm.

Perhaps the initial benefit to us (long ago) was that our better understanding of reality conferred real and tangible evolutionary advantages.  Like the ability to make fire, to make tools and to cooperate in a group thru language.  The adversary here wasn't a wolf or a lion.  The adversary our smarts help us to fight was... extinction.  So we became smarter to stay alive longer.  Ok, we are now thriving and continuing as a species, but perhaps that urgent need to fight against extinction still exists within us - spurring us on to understand reality in better and better ways?  

 

In the 21st century the threat of extinction is (imho) just as great as it ever was, but now manifests itself in new ways and in the form of new and extremely challenging threats.

Global warming, overpopulation, loss of biodiversity, nuclear war, pollution, an incurable plague, asteroid/comet impact, etc., etc.  Perhaps we now have to use our smarts in radically new ways to keep the human race from going to the wall?  Ways that require us to overcome our divisions and work together as a species?  

 

Instead of evolution being a forward moving, improvement orientated construct in this particular case, maybe evolution has maximized itself and that our brain's use of filling the gaps is simply a protective measure to ensure that it has an understanding and a reason to make a particular decision regarding the information it receives. Just like with computers, there are rules that govern what happens to information that it receives, it has to follow specific protocols set forth by the programmers or else the information is meaningless. The brain works in very much the same way. The brain process so much information and discards a lot of information that we are unaware of, but it also has to decide what to do with that information. And it has to decide what to do with information that we intentionally place in its realm. No human can possibly know all the answers to everything, so the brain has to have some type of system in place to keep it from being overloaded with uncertainty and chaos in regards to the information it receives. The fill the gaps process fixes this issue and maintains general functionality for it.

So, maybe I can ask another question: can we really ever know the truth about our reality? My gut feeling is no.

 

"If we know that we are predisposed to draw supernatural conclusions where there may be none - doesn't that tell us that our default position should be atheism...until proven otherwise?"

 

I like this question and I think it raises good points. But once again, when boiled down to its most basic premise, ultimately the use of the fill the gaps theory is to protect the brains worldview. By the brain using the fill the gaps system, it protects itself from chaos and the discomfort of the unknown. So, I don't think the default could actually be atheism because the brain doesn't comprehend atheism. it comprehends its safety and order. I hope that makes sense. The ultimate goal of the fill the gaps is to protect the brains worldview. If atheism serves that purpose, then that could be the default. But I think that Ellen Glasgow makes a great statement that fits this discussion: "People use their best problem solving strategies to get their needs met, even if those strategies are dysfunctional." I think the brain works like this as well. It uses whatever it has at its disposal to makes sense of its worldview by using whatever means it has at its disposal, even if those means are dysfunctional or not based in reality. So, I contend that atheism is not likely to be a default, at least initially, until it becomes part of the brains worldview and becomes a tool that the brain can use to shape its processing the information it receives.

 

Does that make sense?

 

 

Yes, that does make sense to me Storm.  But I would counter your response with a trio of questions.

 

"When it comes to keeping the species alive in the face of extinction, shouldn't we recognize that our brains are predisposed to protecting themselves by this supernatural gap-filling?"

 

"And therefore, shouldn't our default position be to question what our brains are comfortable with by NOT assuming the existence of the supernatural?"

 

"Leading us to ALWAYS adopt the null position of weak atheism as our starting point in understanding reality?"

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.