Challenging The Belief That Atheism Is The Default

[mikey101]

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?"

 

If it's the way the human mind works, being able to recognize gap-filling in one area (supernatural belief) would mean we would just do it in another way.  How could we escape our own minds?

[Storm]

 

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

 

Thanks for your response. I need to apologize, because I was not entirely clear on what I was challenging. I don't dispute the reason part of your statement, but I am refuting the stopping the magical thinking part of the statement. The science shows that people always will have magical thinking until they die.

 

I am familiar with Piaget and I made reference to him in my most recent blog post, The Mind and Belief. His studies on how people, not just children, interpret and categorize information is a foundational part of Cognitive Psychology. Glad you brought him up.

[Storm]

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.

I like the way you think. I think you and I are on the same page for the most part. You definitely grasp how and why religion works. Thanks for your input.

[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.

 

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?  

 

You raise interesting points. My first thoughts about your question here is simply looking at the calamities you listed, some of them are human based calamities that we are potentially bringing upon ourselves. But another part of me is wondering if our ability to reason is a evolutionary response so that we can actually keep all of life's systems from complete annihilation once our sun goes out? What if our reasoning was the ultimate culmination of our natural inclination for self preservation? If we all came from the same thing, wouldn't it make sense that we, as the top of the chain in regards to thinking, would be able to save the rest of life on earth in the end? Certainly something to think about.

 

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?"

After thinking about it for a bit, I am not sure I see any reason this provides a better alternative to what we already have. I wonder if, because we have come from where we have as ex-Christians, that we view the supernatural gap-filling as a weakness? But I am not sure that I see it that way. It serves a purpose. I think that what we have experienced is the misuse and unintended result of this system that we have as a part of us. So, I suspect that a part of me is saying that the answer to this question is that it is irrelevant. We already do the gap filling and we are currently working towards preventing extinction. If extinction was to occur within the next year, we would still use what we have to do what we can, which is the same as if it were to happen 1000 years from now, but we would have much more information and resources (potentially) to utilize.

 

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

I think that its important to note that our brains make many decisions for us before we are consciously aware of those decisions, so in some respects, whether or not we assume the existence of the supernatural is inconsequential to that process. It appears to me that you might be thinking that we are always consciously aware of our decision making processes, but that is not the case. So, in some aspects, we have no control over the primary position our brain decides its comfortable with.

 

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

After thinking about it for a bit, I am not seeing where it really matters whether we start from weak atheism or another position as far as determining the specifics of our reality. Lets simply take you for example. You are a smart, highly educated individual with good reasoning skills and a good understanding of many complex subjects. Your brain currently defaults to the gap filling method, yet you are able to be who you are in spite of it. I would argue that you have a pretty good grasp of your reality. So, do you think that your brain's current abilities hinder you from understanding your reality? Does your brain's gap filling prevent you from saving yourself from extinction? Does it keep you from reproducing? I would assume not. So, taking the position of weak atheism as a starting point seems to me to be no more beneficial than the current way our brains work.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[midniterider]

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

Which prompts me to ask these questions.  

 

Based on the OP's posted study and comments, natural born supernaturalist seems more precise. A child cannot be a believer in a god he has not yet been exposed to and so in that way is an atheist towards all those specific gods, like Florduh said. Yet children are still magical thinkers.

 

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

 

Knowing that something is caused by evolution means we should automatically doubt it's veracity? Has evolution of the human brain caused me to think more logically? If so, does logic give me true knowledge about reality? Or should I doubt logic because it is just 'evolution' causing me to think that way. (Purely, devil's advocate with this paragraph, but I think it's logically sound.) I know I'm addressing only the short bit of Shermer's writing and he must have had a lot more to say. Still, it's fun to think about. :-)

 

 

"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?"

 

If someone holds logic in high esteem then I suppose their default position should be atheism. If, on the other hand one considers logic to be just another tool in the toolbox of living , along with supernatural thought, wisdom and common sense, then maybe one doesn't have to claim a default position at all. Or claim ambiguity as their default position. I think personal preference is important,  and as long as one does not feel bad because of the supernatural thinking I dont see a problem with it.

 

(Maybe another thread could be Wisdom vs Logic: How society actually operates...ha)

 

My wife found a fair sized amount of money in a pocket yesterday that she can't account for in her memory. This was a day after we discovered my credit card limit spontaneously increased itself. She would like to think there is a supernatural agent for this find.

.

.

.

Your thoughts?

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

 

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?"

 

If it's the way the human mind works, being able to recognize gap-filling in one area (supernatural belief) would mean we would just do it in another way.  How could we escape our own minds?

 

 

That question is one that End3 has given up on.

 

He concludes that it's impossible for us to escape from our own minds.  That objectivity is impossible and subjectivity is the only reality we can ever know.

 

This is clearly and demonstrably false.

If objectivity were impossible for us, then it would be impossible for any two people to ever agree on anything about reality.  It would be impossible for them to understand how reality behaves.  It would also be impossible for them to affect reality in any predictable way.  

 

My alarm clock went off this morning - just as I anticipated it would.

That's what it was designed to do.  In fact, every time I set it I'm making a prediction about how reality will be in the future.  We all live this way - dividing reality up in our minds into past, present and future.  There's nothing difficult about this.  We all do it.

 

My car started up, just as it was designed to do - even though I don't fully understand how it works.

It's not necessary for me to fully understand the physics, chemistry and metallurgy that's involved in getting an automobile to work as it was designed to.  Someone else has done that for me and I'm only taking advantage of their deeper understanding of reality... every time I turn the key.  

 

My wristwatch agreed with my buddy George's at 8:45 this morning.

We also agreed on a whole other bunch of things before we went our separate ways.  The weather, some local politics and other small talk.  We didn't have to accurately define and then agree on the explicit meaning of the word, 'weather'. He and I didn't have to go thru that exhaustive process because each of us has our own subjective understanding of that word, which cannot possibly be exactly the same as the others.  No.  'Weather' is objectively understood by both of us, just as you objectively understand that word when you read the letters... W E A T H E R .

 

Despite claims to the contrary, objective reality is easy to agree about, easy to understand and easy to predict.

We do these things all the time, usually without thinking about them.  But some people seem to have an innate distrust of what their own senses are telling them.  Yet, when it comes down to it, they cannot live this way.  Their own lives are testament to the unalterable fact that they think and live and interact objectively all the time!

 

Mikey, 

 

I contend that we can escape from our own subjectivity any time we like.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[mikey101]

That objectivity is impossible and subjectivity is the only reality we can ever know.

 

I contend that we can escape from our own subjectivity any time we like.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

I have no idea what End3 is talking about usually.  I generally need clear thoughts from a person to understand their argument.

 

I think that fundamentally everything is subjective, but it doesn't mean that in daily life we can't apply logic and understanding to move beyond popular harmful fantasies.  One way is to understand how the mind naturally deludes itself, regardless of how smart a person is.  'You Are Not So Smart' is supposed to a good introduction to current research on human delusion.

 

I also agree with Hawking that the existence of a reality 'out there' is not relevant. We use models that agree with our observations.

 

"In our view, there is no picture or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model - dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model - dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If two models agree with observation, neither model can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration." -S. Hawking

[bornagainathiest]

To Storm and the Midniterider...

 

You guys have given me a lot of ground to cover here and a lot of interesting questions and issues to address.

Therefore, rather than take the time to respond to your many points and queries on a case-by-case basis, I think I can take a short cut and head you both off at the pass by concisely stating my position, by demonstrating it's feasibility with a worked example and by posing one salient question. Here goes...

 

 

IF  IT  WORKS  IT  MUST  BE  TRUE

 

 

What do I mean by this?

 

This.

If a highly specific and accurate prediction about how nature works is made and that prediction is borne out by the data, then whoever made that prediction MUST have a true understanding of how nature works in that specific set of circumstances. To say otherwise is to suggest that nature itself is out to fool us.  Or that the evidence of our senses cannot be trusted.  The first option is patently ridiculous - but if true, it means that we can know nothing trustworthy about reality.  The second option sits in direct contradiction to the way we all live our lives - but if true, this also means that we can know nothing trustworthy about reality.  I contend that nature and reality are NOT lying to us and I submit the following worked example as a demonstration of this.

 

In 1979 a particle physicist called Alan Guth sat down in his office in Cornell University and calculated the shape of the power spectrum curve of the Cosmic Microwave Background.  He did this from first principles, without even going near any facility or instrument that could measure or analyze the CMB radiation.  He predicted that the CMB power spectrum would be a perfect blackbody radiation curve. 

 

This can be seen here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Please pay special attention to what is said about Guth's prediction.  It is the most precisely measured blackbody spectrum in nature. The error bars are too small to be seen, even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible [at this scale] to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve.  Or, putting it plain English, Guth's theoretical prediction of nature is as near as ######, perfect.  You'd need a microscope to find any kind of deviation from his prediction by the CMB radiation.  But if you did want to do that, please look here... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm  If you scroll down you'll see that the astrophysicist Ned Wright has helpfully magnified the graph's error bars... 400 times ...so that they can be seen by the human eye. 

.

.

.

Now, let's put Guth's prediction into context.

When he made it no human being had ever seen the CMB power spectrum.  It wasn't detected until 1990, by the COBE satellite.  It has since been confirmed by the WMAP and Planck satellites, fulfilling the proper scientific requirement for a bona fide result to be independently repeated by independent teams of scientists.

 

The CMB radiation is 13.42 billion years old. 

That's over twice as old as the Sun and the Earth, over 3 times older than the estimated age of the very first living thing on this planet and over 35 times older than the earliest vertebrate land animals.  That's over 58 times older than the earliest dinosaur, over 134 times older than the earliest primate and  over 335 times older than our earliest hominid ancestors.  That's over 6,710 times older than the earliest fully anatomically 'modern' human being, over 2,236,666 times older than the beginning of recorded human history and 41,937,500 times older than Alan Guth was when he made his prediction about the CMB.

.

.

.

So, my burning question is this.

 

Since history says that Guth got it perfectly right and his prediction worked perfectly, would someone please tell me how and why he DOESN'T have a true understanding of how nature and reality worked at the beginning of the universe?

 

 

 

 IF   IT   WORKS   IT   MUST   BE   TRUE

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[Wertbag]

I always thought the default position would be more agnostic, simply because the person doesn't understand the question to make a positive or negative decision on.  Surely you can't be against the idea of a God if the idea itself hasn't entered your mind?  It would only be once a person is presented with the two choices and makes a decision (or is lead to that answer by their elders) that they could be labeled as either theist or atheist.

Obviously quite a different idea of putting generic supernatural forces rather than an actual god into the gaps in your knowledge, but until the question is raised that creates the gap the default position would be one of ignorance.

Can we even test the idea looking at the world we are in?  Considering the majority of the worlds population are in a religious home, surely it is almost impossible to determine what a non-influenced response to knowledge gaps would be, as everyone is absorbing the information from around them, our environment itself may lead to beliefs leaning one way or the other.

 

With 87.3% of all statistics being made up (including that one), I would be very cautious in accepting anyone's claim of what is "normal" or "the majority".

[Storm]

To Storm and the Midniterider...

 

You guys have given me a lot of ground to cover here and a lot of interesting questions and issues to address.

Therefore, rather than take the time to respond to your many points and queries on a case-by-case basis, I think I can take a short cut and head you both off at the pass by concisely stating my position, by demonstrating it's feasibility with a worked example and by posing one salient question. Here goes...

 

 

IF  IT  WORKS  IT  MUST  BE  TRUE

 

 

What do I mean by this?

 

This.

If a highly specific and accurate prediction about how nature works is made and that prediction is borne out by the data, then whoever made that prediction MUST have a true understanding of how nature works in that specific set of circumstances. To say otherwise is to suggest that nature itself is out to fool us.  Or that the evidence of our senses cannot be trusted.  The first option is patently ridiculous - but if true, it means that we can know nothing trustworthy about reality.  The second option sits in direct contradiction to the way we all live our lives - but if true, this also means that we can know nothing trustworthy about reality.  I contend that nature and reality are NOT lying to us and I submit the following worked example as a demonstration of this.

 

In 1979 a particle physicist called Alan Guth sat down in his office in Cornell University and calculated the shape of the power spectrum curve of the Cosmic Microwave Background.  He did this from first principles, without even going near any facility or instrument that could measure or analyze the CMB radiation.  He predicted that the CMB power spectrum would be a perfect blackbody radiation curve. 

 

This can be seen here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Please pay special attention to what is said about Guth's prediction.  It is the most precisely measured blackbody spectrum in nature. The error bars are too small to be seen, even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible [at this scale] to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve.  Or, putting it plain English, Guth's theoretical prediction of nature is as near as ######, perfect.  You'd need a microscope to find any kind of deviation from his prediction by the CMB radiation.  But if you did want to do that, please look here... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm  If you scroll down you'll see that the astrophysicist Ned Wright has helpfully magnified the graph's error bars... 400 times ...so that they can be seen by the human eye. 

.

.

.

Now, let's put Guth's prediction into context.

When he made it no human being had ever seen the CMB power spectrum.  It wasn't detected until 1990, by the COBE satellite.  It has since been confirmed by the WMAP and Planck satellites, fulfilling the proper scientific requirement for a bona fide result to be independently repeated by independent teams of scientists.

 

The CMB radiation is 13.42 billion years old. 

That's over twice as old as the Sun and the Earth, over 3 times older than the estimated age of the very first living thing on this planet and over 35 times older than the earliest vertebrate land animals.  That's over 58 times older than the earliest dinosaur, over 134 times older than the earliest primate and  over 335 times older than our earliest hominid ancestors.  That's over 6,710 times older than the earliest fully anatomically 'modern' human being, over 2,236,666 times older than the beginning of recorded human history and 41,937,500 times older than Alan Guth was when he made his prediction about the CMB.

.

.

.

So, my burning question is this.

 

Since history says that Guth got it perfectly right and his prediction worked perfectly, would someone please tell me how and why he DOESN'T have a true understanding of how nature and reality worked at the beginning of the universe?

 

 

 

 IF   IT   WORKS   IT   MUST   BE   TRUE

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

BAA, forgive me if I missed something, but I am struggling to find a connection between what you are proposing and the topic of this thread. It appears to me that you are trying to get a response to the question of whether or not reality is actually reality if our perceptions are subjective and subject to whatever our brains tell us. I am willing to explore that answer in a different thread, but I am not sure that this topic will stay on course in this particular thread devoted to the default construct of the brain. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

(Snip)

BAA, forgive me if I missed something, but I am struggling to find a connection between what you are proposing and the topic of this thread. It appears to me that you are trying to get a response to the question of whether or not reality is actually reality if our perceptions are subjective and subject to whatever our brains tell us. I am willing to explore that answer in a different thread, but I am not sure that this topic will stay on course in this particular thread devoted to the default construct of the brain. 

 

 

Not a problem, Storm.

 

I'm employing the principle of reductio ad absurdum by asking the question, "If the most accurate and most perfect prediction about reality in the history of the entire human race isn't a true understanding of reality - then what is?"  

 

If the answer to this is that even Guth's prediction isn't a true understanding, then there's no point in this discussion.

We're all chasing our own tails and reality is truly unknowable.  It just doesn't matter what our senses tell us, what gap-filling mechanisms we think exist in the human brain or whatever else we offer up for debate.  It's over!  Reality was, is and always will be unknowable and we'd better start just believing in it by faith, just like End3.

 

But, if we do have a method of predicting how reality works (if it works, then it must be true) then we should acknowledge this fact. This method of prediction appears to work regardless of any predisposition to supernaturalism in our brains. This method is called science.

 

Science is, by definition, agnostic.

Therefore, we DO have a working methodology in place that can give us true knowledge about reality that is automatically divorced from supernatural gap-filling.  We cannot and must not bring anything supernatural into science to explain any observed phenomena or mechanism. The moment we do that the science ceases to be science and becomes something else.  So there are safeguards in place, checks and balances that automatically filter out the supernatural from scientific investigation of reality.

 

Storm,

I submit that the human mind's innate predisposition to gap-fill with supernatural explanations is successfully countered by the proven and successful methodology of science.

 

Can you now see how my post ties in with the rest of this thread?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Orbit]

We are wired to attribute agency, and to look for patterns where there are none. Religion simply piggybacks on this evolutionary system. I think BAA touched on this upthread. In the absence of organized religious beliefs in primitive societies, animism is the default. As societies grow more complex, so do their beliefs in the supernatural.

[Ravenstar]

^^^ You beat me to it  

[Storm]

Sorry I haven't been active the past two days. The flu has invaded my family and I've been home and not at work. I'll address the recent posts when I have time and I'm not around family. Thanks. Have a good weekend!

[Geezer]

I've chosen non-religious as my default position. That seems to be a pretty good non-controversial option. Being non-religious doesn't seem to disturb either the believers or the non-believers and apparently doesn't require any additional explanation or clarification.

[midniterider]

To Storm and the Midniterider...

 

You guys have given me a lot of ground to cover here and a lot of interesting questions and issues to address.

Therefore, rather than take the time to respond to your many points and queries on a case-by-case basis, I think I can take a short cut and head you both off at the pass by concisely stating my position, by demonstrating it's feasibility with a worked example and by posing one salient question. Here goes...

 

 

IF  IT  WORKS  IT  MUST  BE  TRUE

 

 

What do I mean by this?

 

This.

If a highly specific and accurate prediction about how nature works is made and that prediction is borne out by the data, then whoever made that prediction MUST have a true understanding of how nature works in that specific set of circumstances. To say otherwise is to suggest that nature itself is out to fool us.  Or that the evidence of our senses cannot be trusted.  The first option is patently ridiculous - but if true, it means that we can know nothing trustworthy about reality.  The second option sits in direct contradiction to the way we all live our lives - but if true, this also means that we can know nothing trustworthy about reality.  I contend that nature and reality are NOT lying to us and I submit the following worked example as a demonstration of this.

 

In 1979 a particle physicist called Alan Guth sat down in his office in Cornell University and calculated the shape of the power spectrum curve of the Cosmic Microwave Background.  He did this from first principles, without even going near any facility or instrument that could measure or analyze the CMB radiation.  He predicted that the CMB power spectrum would be a perfect blackbody radiation curve. 

 

This can be seen here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Please pay special attention to what is said about Guth's prediction.  It is the most precisely measured blackbody spectrum in nature. The error bars are too small to be seen, even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible [at this scale] to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve.  Or, putting it plain English, Guth's theoretical prediction of nature is as near as ######, perfect.  You'd need a microscope to find any kind of deviation from his prediction by the CMB radiation.  But if you did want to do that, please look here... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm  If you scroll down you'll see that the astrophysicist Ned Wright has helpfully magnified the graph's error bars... 400 times ...so that they can be seen by the human eye. 

.

.

.

Now, let's put Guth's prediction into context.

When he made it no human being had ever seen the CMB power spectrum.  It wasn't detected until 1990, by the COBE satellite.  It has since been confirmed by the WMAP and Planck satellites, fulfilling the proper scientific requirement for a bona fide result to be independently repeated by independent teams of scientists.

 

The CMB radiation is 13.42 billion years old. 

That's over twice as old as the Sun and the Earth, over 3 times older than the estimated age of the very first living thing on this planet and over 35 times older than the earliest vertebrate land animals.  That's over 58 times older than the earliest dinosaur, over 134 times older than the earliest primate and  over 335 times older than our earliest hominid ancestors.  That's over 6,710 times older than the earliest fully anatomically 'modern' human being, over 2,236,666 times older than the beginning of recorded human history and 41,937,500 times older than Alan Guth was when he made his prediction about the CMB.

.

.

.

So, my burning question is this.

 

Since history says that Guth got it perfectly right and his prediction worked perfectly, would someone please tell me how and why he DOESN'T have a true understanding of how nature and reality worked at the beginning of the universe?

 

 

 

 IF   IT   WORKS   IT   MUST   BE   TRUE

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thanks, BAA. You make good points. If it works it must be true is a sound principle. 

[Joshpantera]

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.

 

I'm one of the people who make this claim. And the claim is solid. Why? Because it has to do with the time BEFORE you're engaged into contemplative thinking and introduced to beliefs that you can understand. You don't have beliefs as an infant. The mind is not yet operating in terms of a belief system. It's atheist, in that it's not God belief. We're not talking about 3 or 4 years later when belief may began to take form. We're quite frankly born atheist and stay that way (without belief) for several years until contemplative thinking arises (where did everything come from, what happens when we die, etc.) and one may venture into trying to answer that through supernaturalism. 

 

And if we're exposed to beliefs a few years into life when we can even comprehend what belief is, then even later in life we can hit an age of reason where many people leave their childhood beliefs behind and return to the birth default of non-belief. For me that was age 15 while off at Christian boarding academy. I went back and second guessed my position of disbelief during my early 20's and then discovered, by reading the Bible, all of the contradiction and inconsistency contained therein and finally gained an intellectual foundation for the disbelief that arose in my mind naturally back at age 15 without the intellectual foundation of facts counter to my previous beliefs. 

 

Whether we're predisposed to develop a supernatural belief several years into life beyond the default position of being born atheist (without belief) is an interesting question. The default position of being born without God belief may not last straight through life even in an isolated situation. But non-belief certainly does exist in infants who don't believe in anything and it does in many cases re-emerge later in life after an age of reason is reached and the same contemplation that suggested supernatural creation as a child changes to a more rational and logic based approach to the mystery. That's why atheism is increasing nationwide while religious belief has been decreasing in polls - because of people hitting an age of reasoning and realizing that their religious beliefs no longer satisfy them.

[Storm]

 

 

(Snip)

BAA, forgive me if I missed something, but I am struggling to find a connection between what you are proposing and the topic of this thread. It appears to me that you are trying to get a response to the question of whether or not reality is actually reality if our perceptions are subjective and subject to whatever our brains tell us. I am willing to explore that answer in a different thread, but I am not sure that this topic will stay on course in this particular thread devoted to the default construct of the brain. 

 

 

Not a problem, Storm.

 

I'm employing the principle of reductio ad absurdum by asking the question, "If the most accurate and most perfect prediction about reality in the history of the entire human race isn't a true understanding of reality - then what is?"  

 

If the answer to this is that even Guth's prediction isn't a true understanding, then there's no point in this discussion.

We're all chasing our own tails and reality is truly unknowable.  It just doesn't matter what our senses tell us, what gap-filling mechanisms we think exist in the human brain or whatever else we offer up for debate.  It's over!  Reality was, is and always will be unknowable and we'd better start just believing in it by faith, just like End3.

 

But, if we do have a method of predicting how reality works (if it works, then it must be true) then we should acknowledge this fact. This method of prediction appears to work regardless of any predisposition to supernaturalism in our brains. This method is called science.

 

Science is, by definition, agnostic.

Therefore, we DO have a working methodology in place that can give us true knowledge about reality that is automatically divorced from supernatural gap-filling.  We cannot and must not bring anything supernatural into science to explain any observed phenomena or mechanism. The moment we do that the science ceases to be science and becomes something else.  So there are safeguards in place, checks and balances that automatically filter out the supernatural from scientific investigation of reality.

 

Storm,

I submit that the human mind's innate predisposition to gap-fill with supernatural explanations is successfully countered by the proven and successful methodology of science.

 

Can you now see how my post ties in with the rest of this thread?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thanks for clarifying, BAA. To me, it appears that we are looking at the topic from different perspectives (ironically) and that we aren't necessarily addressing the same thing. I think that it is more on my account that I failed to flesh out my particular proposal in more depth that may be causing the confusion.

 

In my OP, I presented the idea that I don't believe that the default human thought process is originally to be atheist, but leans toward the supernatural when it comes to its ability to understand the information it processes. As Joshpantera just stated, in a literal sense, atheism is the default, but only because the capacity to have a belief system does not exist in early human life. Only after reasoning can a belief system develop. But, in regards to how the brain works, the information that it receives needs to have some sort of system and some type of general understanding in order to be able to understand and process the information it receives.

 

Think of it like this: Our brain has a tool box. When we are born, we have no tools. As we grow and learn and process information about our world, we begin to acquire tools that allow us the ability to understand our world and that allow us to be able to do something with the information that we receive. But, we are limited with what we can do with the information based on the tools we have to use. I am stating that one of the earliest tools humans have (a default, if you will) is the supernatural when it comes to understanding how things work and why they work, etc. I am certainly not saying that the supernatural is the only tool, but it is the default tool for many things. I am also not saying that belief in a deity or entity is the default either, simply the supernatural in general.

 

To the Indian who lives in the heart of the Amazon and has no idea why the sun rises and sets (the earth rotating on an axis), he could logically form the idea that the sun is a sentient entity and it goes to bed at night and wakes in the morning. Or that he believes that the sun is controlled by a supernatural being that determines the order of the day (I am not saying this is reality, but just how that Indian may perceive his world). In essence, he is using his current understanding of the world to formulate his idea of what is really happening (he goes to bed when he is tired, wakes when he is rested; or he perceives that he is being watched by a supreme being because he was successfully able to avoid being killed by a mountain lion when he was trapped in a cave). He used the tools he has at his disposal to make a worldview that is compatible with his brain. This is a tool that his brain has from the beginning. Now if this Indian were to move to the city and attend school, he could learn about the Earth rotating and how its orbit around the sun affects the seasons and why some days are longer than others etc. All of the sudden, he has another tool that he can use to understand his world, and this tool would replace the supernatural tool is this particular instance.

 

Like I said earlier up thread, the brain uses whatever it has at its disposal to make sense of its worldview by using whatever means it has at its disposal, even if those means are dysfunctional or not based in reality.

 

I hope this clarifies my OP and where I was heading with this topic.

 

In regards to your post about Mr. Guth and the statement you made "If it works, it must be true", I think your question is taking this thread to a different place. That being said, I will attempt to answer your question.

 

If it works it must be true.

 

This is an interesting statement because it has implications involved with it that I don't understand and that you haven't conveyed. What is the operational definition of "works"? I could argue that Christianity works, so based on this phrase, would I then conclude it is true? I suspect that isn't what you mean, but I hope you see what I am saying. 

 

In regards to reality, I believe that there are multiple realities and that it would depend upon which reality you are referring to that would adequately answer your question.

 

The event that Mr. Guth successfully mapped out is what I would term Objective Reality. It is reality that exists independent of the human mind, and would exist without humans being around to observe it. I believe that Mr. Guth, despite the subjective reality perspective of his mind, was able to successfully understand that reality, as well as you, and many other scientists and students of the cosmos. I have no issue with this.

 

I think you would agree that all humans have subjective realities. But that does not mean that we are incapable of understanding objective reality, in my opinion.

 

So, if this is where you were heading in this conversation, then I hope I have answered your question.

 

As for your statement that "the human mind's innate predisposition to gap-fill with supernatural explanations is successfully countered by the proven and successful methodology of science", in many, if not most cases, this is true. I would say that the gap gets smaller as we continue to learn more about our world and the universe. But I think you would agree that we don't know everything yet.

 

I want to stress that despite my "fill the gaps" belief, I fully believe that the brain is able to learn new tools to successfully replace the ones that inadequately or unrealistically "fill the gaps". So the problem can be remedied, most times with science, and that's a good thing. So, atheism can eventually become the default tool, if we put the time and effort into learning about our world and understanding how it works. Unfortunately, many humans are unwilling to do this, and thus, the belief in the supernatural continues to exist.

[Storm]

We are wired to attribute agency, and to look for patterns where there are none. Religion simply piggybacks on this evolutionary system. I think BAA touched on this upthread. In the absence of organized religious beliefs in primitive societies, animism is the default. As societies grow more complex, so do their beliefs in the supernatural.

 

^^^ You beat me to it  

So, essentially both of you are agreeing with my perspective.

 

At least It appears that way to me, subjectively...lol

[Joshpantera]

So at least in this day and age the mind could never really default to supernaturalism because upon wondering how the world works, even in a Christian setting, you'd know the answer upon asking it. Where does the sun go at night? Why do the stars move across the sky? Why do plants grow? You wouldn't get a supernatural answer until you start asking where did everything come from or what happens when we die?

 

In a way I think that because of the fact that we understand the mechanics of our environment there's no real way to default to supernaturalism any more unless some one specifically teaches it, or if you're isolated from society and set back to the mind set of generations thousands upon thousands of years ago. We're born atheist and in this modern society we'd probably stay that way through life knowing only the science of the world unless specifically taught otherwise. Because the supernatural default requires pure isolation from common modern knowledge and doesn't seem very relevant in this day and age. I'm not sure of the value of trying to counter atheism as default based on the arguments given so far.

 

One might suggest that in a modern society, atheism is the default position that we're all born with and will most likely maintain unless altered by the suggestion of the existence of supernatural forces or beings. 

[Storm]

So at least in this day and age the mind could never really default to supernaturalism because upon wondering how the world works, even in a Christian setting, you'd know the answer upon asking it. Where does the sun go at night? Why do the stars move across the sky? Why do plants grow? You wouldn't get a supernatural answer until you start asking where did everything come from or what happens when we die?

 

I have to disagree here. The problem I see is that, in order for your scenario to work, there needs to be a certain level of understanding about the world being perceived, which would ultimately be learned. But in the beginning, there are no tools. So the brain has to make them up in order to make sense of what it is perceiving. I would argue your statement should actually be this: You wouldn't get an atheistic answer until you start asking where did everything come from or what happens when we die. The majority of the tools our brain uses are acquired, not innate, except the one where "supernaturalism" comes into play and possibly others. I use the word supernatural in a loose sense, because not everything the brain makes up is actually supernatural. But much of it is.   

 

In a way I think that because of the fact that we understand the mechanics of our environment there's no real way to default to supernaturalism any more unless some one specifically teaches it, or if you're isolated from society and set back to the mind set of generations thousands upon thousands of years ago. See my answer above.

 

We're born atheist and in this modern society we'd probably stay that way through life knowing only the science of the world unless specifically taught otherwise.

I completely agree with this statement. But, one thing, we would still use the tools our brain makes up until we replace them with relevant tools. Not necessarily theism or supernaturalism, but whatever our brains can use to make sense of what it doesn't understand. We cant use what we don't have.

 

Because the supernatural default requires pure isolation from common modern knowledge and doesn't seem very relevant in this day and age. I'm not sure of the value of trying to counter atheism as default based on the arguments given so far.

I agree with the premise you are proposing, however, one important thing needs to be stated: Most average humans have no desire to search out the truth about what happens in the world. They are content to believe that "god" did it or that they are being supervised by an all powerful being. This thinking brings them comfort and stability in the face of the chaotic world that they live in. They purposefully use the tool of supernaturalism even though there are better tools available. This is reality, and this is why religion is rampant and likely wont ever go away.

One might suggest that in a modern society, atheism is the default position that we're all born with and will most likely maintain unless altered by the suggestion of the existence of supernatural forces or beings. 

[Storm]

Storm,

 

The following thread, started by Orbit, has some interesting points that you might find relevant to your idea. I'm not a professional scientist, so I'm hesitant to make any statements in this subforum that I cannot verify with documentation. But I will freely make such statements in the spirituality subforum. haha. What I mean is, that I won't readily advocate "spiritual" type views here, but I will suggest them on the spirituality subforum. (Admittedly, though, I've always sensed at least a little bit of "woo" in Star Trek.)

 

In the following thread, there is some consideration of the idea of a wholistic approach to knowing and perceiving reality. So, maybe it isn't either a supernatural or an atheist approach, solely that humans use by default. And I don't believe in the "blank slate" view of the human mind at birth. (I know that's an oversimplifying term.) I tend toward the "collective unconscious" and "racial memory" ideas. (I'm also aware that those views are more in the realm of psychology and social sciences, rather than natural sciences and mathematics.) I like your analogy of the tools in the toolbox.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66138-philosophy-and-spirituality/#.VJiZzZCAA

 

 

We are wired to attribute agency, and to look for patterns where there are none. Religion simply piggybacks on this evolutionary system. I think BAA touched on this upthread. In the absence of organized religious beliefs in primitive societies, animism is the default. As societies grow more complex, so do their beliefs in the supernatural.

^^^ You beat me to it

So, essentially both of you are agreeing with my perspective.

 

At least It appears that way to me, subjectively...lol

 

 

Thanks Human for your input. I have read trough Orbits thread you referenced. While I understand that they're related, I struggle with philosophy. I understand many of the constructs of psychology and how the brain works, but I struggle with the more abstract concepts of reality and thought and perception that is so heavily addressed in philosophy. I will keep tabs on that thread and if I find something I can contribute, I will surely see what I can add.

[Sophrosyne]

Interesting topic. I think that people naturally fill in the gaps where they don't have answers, but once the answers are given to them... they might let go of their supernatural thoughts. Then again they might not if those thoughts provide them comfort. I'm not sure what I think about atheism as default, but I appreciate you bringing it up, things like this get a person thinking.

You have some good points

[bornagainathiest]

Will get back to you as soon as I can Storm.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

Storm wrote: I would argue your statement should actually be this: You wouldn't get an atheistic answer until you start asking where did everything come from or what happens when we die. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Christians and atheists run parallel when it comes to the obvious facts like the earth orbiting the sun and photosynthesis and so on. Those are atheistic answers in that they are naturalistic answers, so far.

 

Now, beyond the answers that are naturalistic in explanation and fall in accord with atheism, we venture into the questions of ultimate. At this point where all answers have been naturalistic in content previously, now we find the limits of natural explanation, not natural theory, but the limits of known naturalistic facts. Now supernatural explanations are given out, such as an eternal God or Mind that created everything and the assertion that you're a living soul which can live eternally after you die. You do get atheistic type answers  in this day and age pretty much down the line until it comes to the questions of ultimate, which are beyond the reach of science. 

 

That's all I was trying to say with my previous statement. You get atheistic answers until you start asking where everything came from (what was before the Big Bang?) or what happens after we die. Then you get supernatural explanations in the mix. 

 

So for you to respond that I should have reversed my statement to, "you wouldn't get an atheistic answer until you start ashing where did everything come from," doesn't make very much sense from the perspective I was speaking from. I suspect that we actually agree on this, not necessarily disagree.