Is Atheism Learned, Innate, Both Or Neither?

[Storm]

So, in my other post entitled Challenging the belief that Atheism is the default, I posted a reply that was based on thoughts that I have been having about Atheism and religion and how the mind works.

 

As a result of my thought processes, I have tried to come up with a good understanding of where atheism comes from.

 

In my other thread, I have presented the conclusion that I have come to that, the human mind, when left to its own devices without any external help will default towards the supernatural due primarily to that fact that our minds try to fill the gaps of information and understanding with things that it does understand. This could be anthropomorphism, or attributing things to an outside agency or being, or something else. But, our minds do this in order to maintain its balance of comfort and understanding keeping peace and order to our worldview.  

 

That being said, I presented the idea that there are two types of atheism:

 

"The first type, and most common, is the derived conclusion that, upon examining the evidence available, that no gods or god exists. In this sense, the atheism is learned, simply by the drawn conclusion that the evidence does not support the claims that have been made. Or it is learned in the sense that it was taught to them by their parents or the people that raised them, and because of this upbringing, no ideas of gods or theism ever had a chance to develop.  

 

The second type of atheism being discussed, which I believe is the type that is being discussed in this thread, is simply better defined as agnosticism. Children raised in a non theistic environment are incapable of knowing about gods or a god, because the idea hasn't been presented to them. For all intents and purposes, a god or gods are within the realm of possibility to all persons until they learn or deduce that they don't exist."

 

While the literal, official definition of atheism is "without god", it has commonly come to mean that the person does not believe that any god(s) exist(s). The person who subscribes to this definition has ultimately concluded that the evidence bears out no proof that any god(s) exist(s). Thus the concept of god(s) is known to this person, but their conclusions have been formulated based on their knowledge and interpretation of the evidence.

 

The literal definition of agnostic is "without knowledge" and it is commonly applied to mean that a person who is without any knowledge of any gods. In this case, a concept of god(s) could exist, or the concept may not exist, but the meaning of the word doesn't change either way.

 

I think I am starting to lean towards the understanding that children when they are born and haven't yet reached the age of reason are more accurately Agnostic than Atheistic, even though both definitions are accurate by their literal definitions. 

 

If you were raised in a non theistic environment, are you atheist because you learned it or because the idea was never presented to you, and you never were allowed the opportunity to develop any supernatural ideas or beliefs?

 

In my quote above, I made the statement that god or gods are within the realm of possibility to all persons until they learn or deduce that they don't exist. So, I would argue that this is agnostic, not atheist.

 

I am essentially saying that you can be taught to be atheistic, just like you can be taught to be theistic.

 

So this raises the interesting question of "Is atheism learned or innate?" (based on my definitions above)

 

What do you think and why?

 

 

[Guest Furball]

1. I was born an atheist by default (only believed in a god or a jesus later because mother pushed it on me)

2. After christianity i had to learn how to be atheist again

[florduh]

It's no different than believing in or not believing in Santa Claus.

 

The "thoughtful" atheist has studied, reasoned and come to a conclusion he can defend as a valid intellectual position. That is obviously learned.

 

To agree that there may be a god but not bother to try to find out is a position that makes no sense. It's a bit of a cop out to simply declare you can't ever know or make a decision on the proposition. If you believe that Yahweh or some other deity might really exist then it behooves you to investigate until you have an answer.

 

Of course I would say that technically, anything could be possible; however it is the probability and not an extremely remote possibility we must govern our lives by. I mean it's possible that British royalty and American presidents really are shape shifting alien lizards, but it seems a rather outrageous claim with no evidence to support it, just like the idea of gods; I dismiss them both. Theists have bullied us into making special allowance for their assertions as if the same rules and logic we apply to the lizard people can't be used to examine their particular extraordinary assertion. We are not born believing in alien lizards, but for whatever reason, certain people would have us believe just that. One may dismiss the far fetched ideas as just silly or one may build a logical case against lizards and gods.

 

There is no special word to describe those who don't believe in lizard people, Santa or leprechauns; they just don't believe it. Theists have done a great job setting themselves above scrutiny as applied to everything else. Words such as "atheist" for one who doesn't believe the theist's particular fabrication help to cement their special status in the world of crackpot ideas.

 

[Lucy]

It depends on how you are defining the words. I'll define what I'm meaning when I use these words to be more clear.

 

agnostic - not knowing

gnostic - knowing

theist - believes there is a god

atheist - lacking believe in god

 

 

It is possible to feel that you "know" something even if the thing you "know" is incorrect. Whether or not you can prove something, and whether or not it is true is irrelevant as to whether or not you perceive yourself to "know" something. We have all at some point "known" things that turned out to not be true.

 

 

 

I think we are all born "agnostic atheists."

 

You can then be taught or deduce that there is enough evidence for god that would cause you to become a "gnostic theist."  Meaning that you "know" that god exists. (Again this doesn't mean it's true, just that you "know" it.)

 

You can also be taught or deduce that there is not enough evidence to conclude a god exists which would make you "gnostic atheist." You feel that you "know" there is no god that exists for which adequate evidence has been provided.  (Again, you can still be wrong, you perceive yourself to "know" it.) I think it depends on how the individual defines atheist at this point. I could see "gnostic atheist" as meaning "knows they don't believe in a god," or, "knows there is no god," depending on the person who is using the term to describe themselves.

 

 

I would call someone who ended up atheist because of lack of theistic teaching an "agnostic atheist" and someone who concluded atheism after some thinking about it as "gnostic atheist."

 

 

There is a different between saying, "I don't know if there is a god or not because I haven't really thought about it," and saying, 'I can't determine if a god exists, but I don't believe in any of the god claims I've encountered so far." But I would consider both of those people to be atheist, just one is agnostic (unknowing) and one is gnostic (knowing).

 

 

I hope that made sense....

[Guest Furball]

 

atheist - lacking believe in god

 

I go by the actual definition. Atheist - doesn't lack belief - but outright rejects any deities 

[Storm]

It's no different than believing in or not believing in Santa Claus.

 

The "thoughtful" atheist has studied, reasoned and come to a conclusion he can defend as a valid intellectual position. That is obviously learned.

 

To agree that there may be a god but not bother to try to find out is a position that makes no sense. It's a bit of a cop out to simply declare you can't ever know or make a decision on the proposition. If you believe that Yahweh or some other deity might really exist then it behooves you to investigate until you have an answer.

I totally agree. But sometimes people just don't care. They choose to believe what they want regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

 

Of course I would say that technically, anything could be possible; however it is the probability and not an extremely remote possibility we must govern our lives by. I mean it's possible that British royalty and American presidents really are shape shifting alien lizards, but it seems a rather outrageous claim with no evidence to support it, just like the idea of gods; I dismiss them both. Theists have bullied us into making special allowance for their assertions as if the same rules and logic we apply to the lizard people can't be used to examine their particular extraordinary assertion. We are not born believing in alien lizards, but for whatever reason, certain people would have us believe just that. One may dismiss the far fetched ideas as just silly or one may build a logical case against lizards and gods.

 

There is no special word to describe those who don't believe in lizard people, Santa or leprechauns; they just don't believe it. Theists have done a great job setting themselves above scrutiny as applied to everything else. Words such as "atheist" for one who doesn't believe the theist's particular fabrication help to cement their special status in the world of crackpot ideas.

I agree with this premise as well.

But when we are born, does our clean slate of knowledge in our brain technically classify us as agnostic about everything? I think it boils down to this reality: Everything is possible until its proven it isn't. It doesn't make me atheist or alizardist or a-santa-ist or whatever. It simply means we are without the knowledge of any of their existence.

[Lucy]

 

 

atheist - lacking believe in god

 

I go by the actual definition. Atheist - doesn't lack belief - but outright rejects any deities 

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "actual definition."

 

I don't think you can claim one definition to be the "actual definition" in this case. The definition of word can change over time. This word has more than one definition depending on the source of that definition.

 

 

I'm going by this definition from here http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism :

 

 

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism.

 

 

 

 

 

So you will find some dictionaries that claim one meaning of atheism and others that claim another.

 

Dictionary.com uses

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. "

 

 

 

This again could mean either "lacks belief" or "outright rejects."

This is why I would classify atheists as either agnostic or gnostic.

[Storm]

It depends on how you are defining the words. I'll define what I'm meaning when I use these words to be more clear.

 

agnostic - not knowing

gnostic - knowing

theist - believes there is a god

atheist - lacking believe in god

 

 

It is possible to feel that you "know" something even if the thing you "know" is incorrect. Whether or not you can prove something, and whether or not it is true is irrelevant as to whether or not you perceive yourself to "know" something. We have all at some point "known" things that turned out to not be true.

 

 

 

I think we are all born "agnostic atheists."

 

You can then be taught or deduce that there is enough evidence for god that would cause you to become a "gnostic theist."  Meaning that you "know" that god exists. (Again this doesn't mean it's true, just that you "know" it.)

 

You can also be taught or deduce that there is not enough evidence to conclude a god exists which would make you "gnostic atheist." You feel that you "know" there is no god that exists for which adequate evidence has been provided.  (Again, you can still be wrong, you perceive yourself to "know" it.) I think it depends on how the individual defines atheist at this point. I could see "gnostic atheist" as meaning "knows they don't believe in a god," or, "knows there is no god," depending on the person who is using the term to describe themselves.

 

 

I would call someone who ended up atheist because of lack of theistic teaching an "agnostic atheist" and someone who concluded atheism after some thinking about it as "gnostic atheist."

 

 

There is a different between saying, "I don't know if there is a god or not because I haven't really thought about it," and saying, 'I can't determine if a god exists, but I don't believe in any of the god claims I've encountered so far." But I would consider both of those people to be atheist, just one is agnostic (unknowing) and one is gnostic (knowing).

 

 

I hope that made sense....

It does make sense and I am glad you posted this. I think your post makes it more specific than I did, but like you stated, its still open to interpretation. I wish there was a way to make it more specific.

[Guest Furball]

Lack presupposes there is still some possibility about a gods existence. A person may lack financial funds but still have money in their pocket. A person may lack belief in god but suppose that there may yet be evidence for one. A person therefor who lacks belief in god is an agonostic. In other words they are not really sure if there is one or not. An atheist knows there is no god. 

[Storm]

 

 

 

atheist - lacking believe in god

 

I go by the actual definition. Atheist - doesn't lack belief - but outright rejects any deities 

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "actual definition."

 

I don't think you can claim one definition to be the "actual definition" in this case. The definition of word can change over time. This word has more than one definition depending on the source of that definition.

 

 

I'm going by this definition from here http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism :

 

 

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism.

 

 

 

 

 

So you will find some dictionaries that claim one meaning of atheism and others that claim another.

 

Dictionary.com uses

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. "

 

 

 

This again could mean either "lacks belief" or "outright rejects."

This is why I would classify atheists as either agnostic or gnostic.

 

I was trying to define it for the purpose of our discussion. I simply went with the literal translation in each instance. The prefix a means without. Theism is defined as a belief in a deity. Gnostic is the Greek word for learned, which is derived from the word knowledge. Hence: without belief in a deity, and without knowledge.

 

I like your classification of atheists as agnostic or gnostic. That makes it more specific.

[Ravenstar]

'Magical thinking' is natural in children… whether that is theistic or not is kind of a silly question - children see their parents as 'god' (or at least godlike) first… I think it just means that when one is ignorant and not yet capable of assessing things properly as far as discerning between fantasy and reality then some sort of animism or superstition is bound to be natural. However, once the age of reason is reached then it is a matter of social, cultural and family/tribe indoctrination as to what FORM the superstition takes. I doubt any child, on his own, would come up with a concept of god… no, it would be more akin to animism.

 

I was raised in a basically non-religious household, (one parent atheist, one a cultural Catholic) BUT… it was a complete non-issue - as in NO judgements were made towards either religious or non-religious people. It just wasn't a topic that was ever discussed. I was always interested in mythology, occult, religion and such - being a curious and imaginative child… I naturally fell into the theology of the culture I was in… christianity.

 

I became an agnostic atheist because I chose to follow the truth and study what I was following - because it was important to me to know as much as I could. It fell apart under serious scrutiny.

[Guest Furball]

 

 

 

 

atheist - lacking believe in god

 

I go by the actual definition. Atheist - doesn't lack belief - but outright rejects any deities 

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "actual definition."

 

I don't think you can claim one definition to be the "actual definition" in this case. The definition of word can change over time. This word has more than one definition depending on the source of that definition.

 

 

I'm going by this definition from here http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism :

 

 

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism.

 

 

 

 

 

So you will find some dictionaries that claim one meaning of atheism and others that claim another.

 

Dictionary.com uses

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. "

 

 

 

This again could mean either "lacks belief" or "outright rejects."

This is why I would classify atheists as either agnostic or gnostic.

 

I was trying to define it for the purpose of our discussion. I simply went with the literal translation in each instance. The prefix a means without. Theism is defined as a belief in a deity. Gnostic is the Greek word for learned, which is derived from the word knowledge. Hence: without belief in a deity, and without knowledge.

 

I like your classification of atheists as agnostic or gnostic. That makes it more specific.

 

Sorry I will back out of the thread. My humble apologies.

[Lucy]

Lack presupposes there is still some possibility about a gods existence. A person may lack financial funds but still have money in their pocket. A person may lack belief in god but suppose that there may yet be evidence for one. A person therefor who lacks belief in god is an agonostic. In other words they are not really sure if there is one or not. An atheist knows there is no god. 

 

I am defining it as lacking a belief. There is a possibility of having a belief. The belief in god doesn't presuppose there is a god. Just that one can have a belief in one.

 

Most people would define a theist as "a person who has a belief in a god," so therefore atheist is "a person who is lacking a belief in god."

 

If theist meant simply "there is a god" then it would be a adjective descriptor of reality itself rather than a noun describing a person who has a belief.

In other words, "theistic world" (world where god exists) vs "atheistic world" (world where god doesn't exist) but I don't see the words used in this way.

 

 

To reconcile our definitions.

What you refer to as agnostic, I am calling agnostic atheist.

What you refer to as atheist, I am calling gnostic atheist.

[Storm]

 

 

 

 

 

atheist - lacking believe in god

 

I go by the actual definition. Atheist - doesn't lack belief - but outright rejects any deities 

 

 

I don't know what you mean by "actual definition."

 

I don't think you can claim one definition to be the "actual definition" in this case. The definition of word can change over time. This word has more than one definition depending on the source of that definition.

 

 

I'm going by this definition from here http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism :

 

 

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism.

 

 

 

 

 

So you will find some dictionaries that claim one meaning of atheism and others that claim another.

 

Dictionary.com uses

"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. "

 

 

 

This again could mean either "lacks belief" or "outright rejects."

This is why I would classify atheists as either agnostic or gnostic.

 

I was trying to define it for the purpose of our discussion. I simply went with the literal translation in each instance. The prefix a means without. Theism is defined as a belief in a deity. Gnostic is the Greek word for learned, which is derived from the word knowledge. Hence: without belief in a deity, and without knowledge.

 

I like your classification of atheists as agnostic or gnostic. That makes it more specific.

 

Sorry I will back out of the thread. My humble apologies.

 

No need to leave. I have no issues with what you said in your posts. You answered the question I had in your post to Lucy.

[Lucy]

Sorry I will back out of the thread. My humble apologies.

 

Disagreement on some semantics is not a bad thing. I think it is good to discuss things like this. No need to go just from some disagreement!

[Overcame Faith]

I think this study tends to support your position, Storm:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html

 

It is an Oxford study that, "...set out to establish whether belief in divine beings and an afterlife were ideas simply learned from society or integral to human nature."

 

The conclusion was that, "...human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts."

 

I thought one example was particularly revealing. When three year olds were asked whether their mother would know the content of a closed box, they said yes. In other words, they thought their mothers were omniscient. However, by age four, most children realized that their mother was not omniscient. Omniscience is certainly a religious concept which the children did not abandon, at least as it relates to their mothers, until they learned otherwise.

 

There's much more and worth the read.

[JadedAtheist]

Overcoming Faith, just wanted to step in and say that this is a problem other species have. I forget the scientific name for it (theory of mind perhaps?), but basically it's a good indicator of intelligence. With humans, and some other animals we have the ability to differentiate between what we know, and what others know. As a young child, we don't have this ability, same goes with less intelligent animals. 

[Overcame Faith]

Overcoming Faith, just wanted to step in and say that this is a problem other species have. I forget the scientific name for it (theory of mind perhaps?), but basically it's a good indicator of intelligence. With humans, and some other animals we have the ability to differentiate between what we know, and what others know. As a young child, we don't have this ability, same goes with less intelligent animals.

 

Very enlightening, thank-you

[Lucy]

I think this study tends to support your position, Storm:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html

 

It is an Oxford study that, "...set out to establish whether belief in divine beings and an afterlife were ideas simply learned from society or integral to human nature."

 

The conclusion was that, "...human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts."

 

I thought one example was particularly revealing. When three year olds were asked whether their mother would know the content of a closed box, they said yes. In other words, they thought their mothers were omniscient. However, by age four, most children realized that their mother was not omniscient. Omniscience is certainly a religious concept which the children did not abandon, at least as it relates to their mothers, until they learned otherwise.

 

There's much more and worth the read.

 

 

 

This is interesting. I think that as infants we see our parents in the same way an adult theist sees "god." This is possibly why we end up using terms like Divine Mother and Heavenly Father to describe our gods.

 

 

I have issues with this statement in the article:

Separate research from China suggested that people across different cultures instinctively believed that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lived on after death.

 

I don't see the study they are referring to being named. To claim something is "instinct" is different than to claim something is a "common" belief. I would like to see how the research was done. They should be more specific other than "research from China." Did the Chinese researchers come up with a way to test if someone instinctively thought there was an afterlife without being already exposed to the belief? Or did they just poll a bunch of kids in random areas and decide that the belief was common. The methodology of the researchers is important.

[florduh]

An atheist knows there is no god.

 

Most would say that the probability is nil and therefore assume there is no god, much as we assume there are no lizard people. I know, it's a fine distinction but I think it's important to acknowledge since the theists have forced us into the game of definitions. To make the positive claim that there is no god (or lizard people) we must be able to prove it.

[Lucy]

 

An atheist knows there is no god.

 

Most would say that the probability is nil and therefore assume there is no god, much as we assume there are no lizard people. I know, it's a fine distinction but I think it's important to acknowledge since the theists have forced us into the game of definitions. To make the positive claim that there is no god (or lizard people) we must be able to prove it.

 

 

 

Some theists claim to "know" there is a god, but be unable to prove it. But while admitting they cannot prove it, they still claim to just "know" it.

 

We can have the perception of knowledge without being able to prove anything. Intellectuals try to avoid falling into the trap of claiming to know something they can't back up at all.

 

I see the word "know" as referring to your perception of a claim. You can claim "I know there is no god" as in "I perceive the claim that there is no god to be a true fact."

 

Some atheists know there is no god. Christians know there is a god. Muslims know there is no god but Allah. They are all perceiving that their understanding of reality is based on true facts.

 

Claiming to "know" something about reality doesn't change what reality actually is. I've "known" a lot of things over my life that I later found out to be false. That doesn't mean they weren't perceived as true by me at the time. My perception was incorrect.

[JadedAtheist]

 

Overcoming Faith, just wanted to step in and say that this is a problem other species have. I forget the scientific name for it (theory of mind perhaps?), but basically it's a good indicator of intelligence. With humans, and some other animals we have the ability to differentiate between what we know, and what others know. As a young child, we don't have this ability, same goes with less intelligent animals.

Very enlightening, thank-you

 

yeah, I was right - theory of mind:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

 

The false belief section there covers the example you gave (it's a common test).

[pantheory]

Is atheism innate, learned, both or neither?

 

 

IMO atheism is certainly not innate, as is the lack of knowledge concerning the existence of god(s) -- juvenile agnosticism. If one decides there is not enough evidence to make a decision one way or the other, one could call himself an agnostic.  IMO theism is generally learned from a society, group or family, or a belief to explain what one does not otherwise understand. Atheism can be learned in the same way, or both could be a break away from what one has been taught.  If one reads the bible one could come to the conclusion that it makes sense or that it doesn't.  If it makes sense then a person will most likely keep his family religion, if it doesn't  then one could otherwise rationalize his belief or come up with his own ideas which could be a different religion, or a disbelief in religion in general which could be described as agnosticism or atheism.

 

Atheism could be a belief learned from a society or family, or it could be the conclusion of an individual concerning the state of reality based upon his judgement of the evidence available, or lack thereof, or both. It also could be a statement of rebellion with or without a great deal of thought going into the statement or claim.

[midniterider]

Atheism could be a belief learned from a society or family

 

So atheism could be a belief then... :-)

[pantheory]

 

Atheism could be a belief learned from a society or family

 

So atheism could be a belief then... :-)

 

 

IMO we cannot prove that a god of some kind could not exist, so in that sense IMO atheism is a belief. One might respond to the statement that atheism is a belief by saying there is no evidence in your opinion (IYO) to support the existence of a god(s).  Usually they have a particular religion in mind so you might quote the odds of the possibility that the old, the new, or some other bible or testament might be true IYO, would be 1/1000, 1/1000,000, 1/1,000,000,000,000, 1/ 10^50, or greater -- that should shut them up concerning the meaning of atheism IYO or the possibilities of its validity.