Challenging The Belief That Atheism Is The Default

[midniterider]

I think we are all born non-stamp-collectors. That is the default. :-)

 

We start out as soft non-stamp-collectors since we dont know what stamps are, initially. And then as we are exposed to stamps and stamp collecting and make a decision that we're not interested in that, we become 'informed' non-stamp-collectors with a definite stance on the matter.

 

No, wait. That all sounds silly.  :-)

[Storm]

 

I found this quote by Pascal Boyer to be interesting:

 

"...we now know that all versions of religion are based on very similar tacit assumptions, and that all it takes to imagine supernatural agents are normal human minds processing information in

the most natural way. Knowing, even accepting these conclusions is unlikely to undermine religious commitment. Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems. By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate."

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7216/full/4551038a.html (this is a link to the article site with the citation, but not the article itself. This is for source info) I found the article on Google, but cannot find the link I got access for it.

There is a presumption in the quoted statement, that people -- children in particular -- will have access to information that supplies ideas about supernaturalism. People believe in the supernatural because they are provided with the ideas that postulate the supernatural. Or does Pascal Boyer believe that children are born with an ideology of the supernatural already in their minds (or psyches)? Does he lean toward some sort of Jungian belief in archetypes and a collective unconscious? Even if such Jungian ideas are reasonable, people (children) still need to have concepts of the supernatural presented to them.

Supernaturalism isn't learned initially. Its what is acquired when the mind cannot reconcile a particular bit of information that it has been presented with. The information that it uses to "fill the gaps" is simply information that it has already accepted as viable, regardless of whether or not it is true or grounded in reality. So, while I cannot speak for Mr. Boyer personally, I don't think he thinks that supernaturalism is innate in and of itself. Supernaturalism is a result of natural human cognitive processes.

 

Or are we now presuming that supernaturalism is actually the reality, and therefore present in the Cosmos into which we are born, and therefore present in us at birth? If we presume that supernaturalism is innate in our psyches, and therefore part of human nature, then using empiricism to judge supernaturalism incorrect seems an absurd way of thinking, contradictory to our nature. This line of reasoning is making supernaturalism natural and making empiricism, that leads to atheism, unnatural and false.

In regards to the topic of discussion here, I don't think cognitively conceived supernaturalism is a reality in the literal sense. It is, however, reality in the mind of the person perceiving it. The way the mind works create its own perception of reality, makes it a reality within itself.

The only other reasonable possibility seems to be that supernaturalism is a by-product of an evolutionary phase of the human psyche, and that supernaturalism is being phased out as we further evolve. That would mean that our psyches are changing with further evolution. But does it necessarily rule out the actual existence of supernaturalism as a real aspect of the Cosmos -- a real aspect that is dying away as the Cosmos itself evolves in its own nature. That is, what if the gods were at one time real in Cosmic history but are becoming unreal as the Cosmos further evolves?

My understanding is that supernaturalism is a by-product of the evolution human psyche. However, I think it is not at this point being phased out directly through evolution of human cognitive processes. Those haven't really naturally changed over the last millennium, as I understand it. Humans still do most, if not all, of the same things cognitively that our distant ancestors did. I do think that it is influenced more and more by evolution of other human things though. Our understanding of science and the world around us influences what we learn and perceive. Other questions directly affect this: Did we evolve to build cities? is that a natural evolution of human behavior and understanding? I am not so sure. It is a natural thing from the standpoint that we grew up with it, so it became familiar to us earlier in our life and maybe, therefore, became natural (if that makes sense). Our children now grow up in a scientifically advanced society and the knowledge that this advanced society imparts from the beginning quickly wipes out the chances for some supernatural thoughts to even occur. As I mentioned earlier up thread, our children who grow up in cities (which are largely artificial environments) do not regularly experience the awe and wonder of nature and are not able to develop those basic supernatural type beliefs because the science that would prevent those types of thoughts is already prevalent and easily seen (and understood to some degree). So I would contend that, more and more, atheism is a by-product of the modern world, not a fully natural by-product of natural human thought processes. I contend that much of the atheism we see from birth is learned quickly and early in life because of previous human intervention, not naturally conceived by our human cognitive abilities.

 

I suppose I'm applying Jungian concepts of the archetypes as alleged gods to an imagined psyche of the Cosmos. Is that the same thing as "Cosmic Consciousness" or "Cosmic Unconsciousness"? But isn't Jung's idea of the Collective Unconscious rather cosmic, being shared by transcending individual minds? Were these Jungian ideas metaphorical or also metaphysical? Sorry if it seems I've gone a bit off topic, but it the very notion of supernaturalism being innate in the human psyche is a rather metaphysical view of reality, if not a religious one. But then I'm back to my above suggestion that it may be a passing phase of human consciousness evolution. (I had this discussion about a year-and-a-half ago at a pagan men's fellowship meeting.)

I am having a hard time figuring out how this applies to our discussion. I think you might be introducing new ideas about something that is only indirectly related to what I am trying to convey. I think that maybe you have confused, and maybe I propagated this idea incorrectly so that it confused you, the idea of supernaturalism as a concept or construct instead of supernaturalism being the result of a faulty cognitive process system. In regards to the subject of this thread, my idea of supernaturalism is the result of the way humans process information. So it is "natural" or innate in that regard. But I don't think it is a belief system initially, but the belief system is the result of a whole perception of many cognitive processes that begins to develop a worldview based on those "fill the gaps" understandings that the brain uses. Or better yet, supernaturalism is a conclusion based on normal, natural human cognitive thinking processes, not a belief system. The belief system comes later.

I hope this clarifies what I am trying to convey.

[Llwellyn]

I don't think the "default" position is either science or religion -- I think that the default is more of a common sense set of "rules of thumb" for conceiving of the world.  These beliefs are not tested and shaped by science.  But neither do they include the extravagant metaphysical claims of religion.  Science employs a method of hypothesis and testing before developing belief in the form of theory.  Religion employs a method of appeal to tradition and authority.  I don't think that the naive person uses either method.  I think the naive person will have some superstition, and a lot of the superstitions will later become proven by science -- e.g. avoiding contamination from contact with the sick.  Superstition being one of the common sense "rules of thumb."

 

Insofar as both science and magic are human attempts to understand the world, they are not different kinds of things.  Science tends to be minimalist in its explanations of phenomena, but religion moves from simple theories to complicated theories which go beyond what is required or possible to say based on human sensations.  Science is about saying as much as you have to and no more.  Religion is about proposing hypotheses that jump past the observations or that cannot be disproven by the observations.   For example science minimally asks us to ascribe agency to fellow humans, magic asks us to go further and ascribe agency to more objects of perception.

 

I disagree that there is a sharp dividing line between science and magic.  Scientific theories are in a sense magical in that they describe connections between gaps.  Where the magical thinker puts spirits in the gaps, the scientist connects facts by calling that same connection as "science."  Newton's contemporaries severely criticized his theory that gravity was effected through "action at a distance", as occult.  Scientific theories about gravity, cause-and-effect, etc, propose that there are connections of regularity and predictiability between observables.  No explanation is given or needed for why we can or should make the connections.  The theory may be called "occult" or it may be called "scientific" -- this doesn't change what the theory is, but just how we are wanting to think about it.

[Storm]

Human- I will try to address your questions at my earliest convenience. For the record, I think you get the basics of what I am saying.

 

 

 

I don't think the "default" position is either science or religion -- I think that the default is more of a common sense set of "rules of thumb" for conceiving of the world.  These beliefs are not tested and shaped by science.  But neither do they include the extravagant metaphysical claims of religion.  Science employs a method of hypothesis and testing before developing belief in the form of theory.  Religion employs a method of appeal to tradition and authority.  I don't think that the naive person uses either method.  I think the naive person will have some superstition, and a lot of the superstitions will later become proven by science -- e.g. avoiding contamination from contact with the sick.  Superstition being one of the common sense "rules of thumb."

 

Insofar as both science and magic are human attempts to understand the world, they are not different kinds of things.  Science tends to be minimalist in its explanations of phenomena, but religion moves from simple theories to complicated theories which go beyond what is required or possible to say based on human sensations.  Science is about saying as much as you have to and no more.  Religion is about proposing hypotheses that jump past the observations or that cannot be disproven by the observations.   For example science minimally asks us to ascribe agency to fellow humans, magic asks us to go further and ascribe agency to more objects of perception.

 

I disagree that there is a sharp dividing line between science and magic.  Scientific theories are in a sense magical in that they describe connections between gaps.  Where the magical thinker puts spirits in the gaps, the scientist connects facts by calling that same connection as "science."  Newton's contemporaries severely criticized his theory that gravity was effected through "action at a distance", as occult.  Scientific theories about gravity, cause-and-effect, etc, propose that there are connections of regularity and predictiability between observables.  No explanation is given or needed for why we can or should make the connections.  The theory may be called "occult" or it may be called "scientific" -- this doesn't change what the theory is, but just how we are wanting to think about it.

 

I agree with you to a point, Llwellyn. I think that the default is simply nothing. Everything that a human comes to believe or not believe in is simply the result of their thinking processes and their drawn conclusions of the world around them. Those conclusions are influenced by many things, science and religion being the two biggest influences. Each one has good and bad things about them.

 

I think ultimately, we, as humans, often strive to define everything and make it as understandable in our worldview as possible. In doing this, we try to concretely define what atheism is or what science is or whatever the topic of discussion. I think you raise some valid points regarding our definitions or the rationale or methodology behind everything being so rigid. I agree that it doesn't matter the guise it holds, as long as we understand the purpose and meaning of what it brings to us in the end.

 

Thanks for your input.

Storm