Challenging The Belief That Atheism Is The Default

[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.

 

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.

 

 

Thanks for your patience, Storm.

 

Yes, we are looking at the same topic, but we aren't actually addressing the same thing about that topic.  Perhaps the best way to explain is via an analogy.  Think of us as being two doctors and the topic in question is our 'patient'.  Here is a summary of what's happening.

 

Doctor Storm is carefully examining the patient's condition, looking at the displayed symptoms and trying to figure out what's going on.

Your focus is squarely on the workings of the human brain and the mind.  You're looking at the role of evolution and how various strategies for survival have given humans certain ways of perceiving reality.  Hence your interest in the default setting of human beliefs.  Are we blank slates or has evolution predisposed us to see things as being supernatural, even when they aren't?  That would be what's been referred to as, 'gap-filling'.  In this respect Storm, you're a bit like a doctor trying to make an accurate diagnosis.  To do so, you first need to understand how the patient functions.  Then, once you know that, you can go on to see if that patient is functioning normally or is in need of treatment.  

 

Whereas, my approach has been somewhat different.

 

Doctor BAA has already accepted that the patient isn't functioning 'normally'.

Because humans seem predisposed to supernatural explanations of reality, I'm thinking ahead, in terms of prevention and cure.  I see this innate predisposition as an inherited aberration of the human mind.  A part of our evolutionary heritage that is harmful to us, not helpful.  Therefore I've proposed that this unhelpful predisposition be treated and cured by the use of a better and more helpful way of perceiving reality.  This treatment and cure is science.  The discipline of science is agnostic and has built-in safeguards to prevent unwanted personal bias influencing it. 

 

So, while Doc BAA agrees with Doc Storm about the nature of the human condition, they haven't actually been taking the same approach during this thread.  Storm has been tentative, investigative and exploratory, while BAA has been more focused on treatment, rather than diagnosis. 

.

.

.

Does that help explain things, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Human,

 

I'm very glad my words have been meaningful and helpful to you.  

Yours are intriguing and illuminate an aspect of this topic that I hadn't considered.  

Thank you for that insight.

 

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

I like it too Human. I'm of the same opinion as concerns the supernatural as default. And I had similar experiences with religion in youth.

 

I think that had I not have been indoctrinated into a fundamentalist world view at the youngest age that I can remember, then I would not have accepted supernaturalism over the basic scientific overview of reality. It makes more sense and when I could sense that, I did sense that. It was as if skepticism was a natural instinct. When it could flourish it did flourish.

 

And perhaps the only reason that skepticism didn't flourish in my mind earlier in life was due to the result that the promise of eternal life had on my adolescent, fearful of death mind set as a pre-teen. I didn't want to question whether or not living forever is possible, I just wanted to believe it, so I did. But even though I didn't want to believe that I can't live forever in reality, that resistance deep inside showed me that I was afraid of it because it's the most likely scenario. I didn't want to admit to myself that eternal life is the result of pure fantasy but with time and contemplation I could no longer avoid it from an intellectually honest position.

 

That struggle could have well been between a naturally inclined supernatural mindset that want's the ego consciousness to survive forever without end with an equally natural, naturalistic inclined logical mindset - both mindsets being natural in different senses and both mind sets capable of the position of default in my mind at different stages of metal development. So the idea of the supernatural not as the only default position is something that I would agree with. I was naturally drawn towards fantasy concepts just as I was naturally drawn to facts and factual based theory at different stages of life. But of course the stages of life coincided with being prone to fantasy as a child and then becoming prone to logic and reason as a teen and adult. 

[Storm]

 

 

Thanks for your patience, Storm.

 

Yes, we are looking at the same topic, but we aren't actually addressing the same thing about that topic.  Perhaps the best way to explain is via an analogy.  Think of us as being two doctors and the topic in question is our 'patient'.  Here is a summary of what's happening.

 

Doctor Storm is carefully examining the patient's condition, looking at the displayed symptoms and trying to figure out what's going on.

Your focus is squarely on the workings of the human brain and the mind.  You're looking at the role of evolution and how various strategies for survival have given humans certain ways of perceiving reality.  Hence your interest in the default setting of human beliefs.  Are we blank slates or has evolution predisposed us to see things as being supernatural, even when they aren't?  That would be what's been referred to as, 'gap-filling'.  In this respect Storm, you're a bit like a doctor trying to make an accurate diagnosis.  To do so, you first need to understand how the patient functions.  Then, once you know that, you can go on to see if that patient is functioning normally or is in need of treatment.  

 

Whereas, my approach has been somewhat different.

 

Doctor BAA has already accepted that the patient isn't functioning 'normally'.

Because humans seem predisposed to supernatural explanations of reality, I'm thinking ahead, in terms of prevention and cure.  I see this innate predisposition as an inherited aberration of the human mind.  A part of our evolutionary heritage that is harmful to us, not helpful.  Therefore I've proposed that this unhelpful predisposition be treated and cured by the use of a better and more helpful way of perceiving reality.  This treatment and cure is science.  The discipline of science is agnostic and has built-in safeguards to prevent unwanted personal bias influencing it. 

 

So, while Doc BAA agrees with Doc Storm about the nature of the human condition, they haven't actually been taking the same approach during this thread.  Storm has been tentative, investigative and exploratory, while BAA has been more focused on treatment, rather than diagnosis. 

.

.

.

Does that help explain things, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I see what you are saying and thanks for clarifying.

 

I think you have described my point of view in that I am looking at the process and the way it all works. But I have a difficulty with your view. As Human pointed out, it appears that you are looking at the system as some sort of problem, like it is a virus or an illness that needs to be cured. In my opinion, this is the incorrect way to look at it. The process is simply just a process. It uses whatever tools it is given. So, in this respect, I don't see the system as flawed or not "normal"

 

It is much like your earlier mention of how your car works. You said:

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.

 

Your car requires some sort of fuel to work. Likely and ideally, it uses unleaded gasoline and when it has this fuel, it generally works optimally. But you could fuel it with carb cleaner or starter fluid. It would work, but not very efficiently. You could try using water, but it wouldn't work with that at all. The car itself isn't good or bad. Its what it has available as fuel that makes it work efficiently or not. The brain works the same way. It is simply a dynamic system that requires a fuel. When it doesn't have the best type of fuel available, it doesn't work in the most efficient way possible. And because of the dynamics of the system, it has to have something available in order for it to work. In this case, the brain can make its own fuel, based on whatever it already understands. Even if the fuel isn't the most efficient, the system still works. This doesn't make the system itself bad or flawed. It just is the system. But if you fuel it with science and reason, it works much more efficiently and produces much better results.

 

So, in this regard, the patient isn't functioning "abnormally", its just being given the least optimal fuel to work on, which is hindering it from functioning at its most efficient. 

 

So, in short, it appears that you are attempting to diagnose and fix a problem with the car when the source of the problem is the fuel.

 

I think the brain system itself works well when it has the best information available for it to utilize.

 

Hope this clarifies my point of view.

[Storm]

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 asking 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. 

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I understand and agree.

 

I think I was thinking something different.

 

Going back to my original premise though, I think that my statement "You wouldn't get an atheistic answer until you start asking where did everything come from or what happens when we die." works well. Based on the way the brain works, atheism doesn't come into play until the questions are asked, if that makes sense. So, atheism must be sought out through seeking information to explain where everything came from. Atheism is acquired, not innate.

 

It is better explained like this:

 

When we are all born and start our journey of understanding of the world, all possibilities are there to be confirmed or disproven. It is only through the scientific method that the truth can actually be learned. Until then, the supernatural is always in play.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Thanks for your patience, Storm.

 

Yes, we are looking at the same topic, but we aren't actually addressing the same thing about that topic.  Perhaps the best way to explain is via an analogy.  Think of us as being two doctors and the topic in question is our 'patient'.  Here is a summary of what's happening.

 

Doctor Storm is carefully examining the patient's condition, looking at the displayed symptoms and trying to figure out what's going on.

Your focus is squarely on the workings of the human brain and the mind.  You're looking at the role of evolution and how various strategies for survival have given humans certain ways of perceiving reality.  Hence your interest in the default setting of human beliefs.  Are we blank slates or has evolution predisposed us to see things as being supernatural, even when they aren't?  That would be what's been referred to as, 'gap-filling'.  In this respect Storm, you're a bit like a doctor trying to make an accurate diagnosis.  To do so, you first need to understand how the patient functions.  Then, once you know that, you can go on to see if that patient is functioning normally or is in need of treatment.  

 

Whereas, my approach has been somewhat different.

 

Doctor BAA has already accepted that the patient isn't functioning 'normally'.

Because humans seem predisposed to supernatural explanations of reality, I'm thinking ahead, in terms of prevention and cure.  I see this innate predisposition as an inherited aberration of the human mind.  A part of our evolutionary heritage that is harmful to us, not helpful.  Therefore I've proposed that this unhelpful predisposition be treated and cured by the use of a better and more helpful way of perceiving reality.  This treatment and cure is science.  The discipline of science is agnostic and has built-in safeguards to prevent unwanted personal bias influencing it. 

 

So, while Doc BAA agrees with Doc Storm about the nature of the human condition, they haven't actually been taking the same approach during this thread.  Storm has been tentative, investigative and exploratory, while BAA has been more focused on treatment, rather than diagnosis. 

.

.

.

Does that help explain things, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I see what you are saying and thanks for clarifying.

 

No problem, Storm.

 

I think you have described my point of view in that I am looking at the process and the way it all works. But I have a difficulty with your view. As Human pointed out, it appears that you are looking at the system as some sort of problem, like it is a virus or an illness that needs to be cured. In my opinion, this is the incorrect way to look at it. The process is simply just a process. It uses whatever tools it is given. So, in this respect, I don't see the system as flawed or not "normal"

 

Ok, these are fair points and I will address them - at the end of this post.

 

It is much like your earlier mention of how your car works. You said:

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.

 

Your car requires some sort of fuel to work. Likely and ideally, it uses unleaded gasoline and when it has this fuel, it generally works optimally. But you could fuel it with carb cleaner or starter fluid. It would work, but not very efficiently. You could try using water, but it wouldn't work with that at all. The car itself isn't good or bad. Its what it has available as fuel that makes it work efficiently or not. The brain works the same way. It is simply a dynamic system that requires a fuel. When it doesn't have the best type of fuel available, it doesn't work in the most efficient way possible. And because of the dynamics of the system, it has to have something available in order for it to work. In this case, the brain can make its own fuel, based on whatever it already understands. Even if the fuel isn't the most efficient, the system still works. This doesn't make the system itself bad or flawed. It just is the system. But if you fuel it with science and reason, it works much more efficiently and produces much better results.

 

So, in this regard, the patient isn't functioning "abnormally", its just being given the least optimal fuel to work on, which is hindering it from functioning at its most efficient. 

 

So, in short, it appears that you are attempting to diagnose and fix a problem with the car when the source of the problem is the fuel.

 

I think the brain system itself works well when it has the best information available for it to utilize.

 

Hope this clarifies my point of view.

 

 

I see your p.o.v. Storm.   Up to a point I'd even agree with it.

.

.

.

But here's where we diverge.

.

.

.

There's a new kid on the block, when it comes to evolution...  intelligence.

The system/process we're discussing is where evolution has wired our brains to be predisposed towards the supernatural, when it comes to trying to explain reality. Yes?  So, forgive me if I'm reading you wrong here, but you seem to be suggesting that this predisposition is hard-wired into us.  That our brains will use whatever's available, but will always default to supernaturalism, in preference to anything else.

 

Yet I'd contend that this doesn't always have to be so.

The wonderful thing about intelligence is that it gives us the power to understand ourselves, to recognize what brain-fuel works best and to take appropriate measures.  A great deal of the human brain is soft-wired and able to be re-written.  Evolution seems to have gifted us with the ability to change ourselves, to re-make ourselves and not to be slaves to our evolutionary past.  Not to always use the default setting.  Not to always settle for the lowest common denominator, metaphorically speaking.  As far as I know Storm, this attribute (the power to change our own evolutionary potential) is unique to humans - tho' I stand to be corrected on that by those who know different and/or better.

 

If we have to smarts to recognize that science and reason work better than superstition and religion, isn't it therefore a retrograde step on our part just to let our innate predisposition always opt for the latter?

 

When we aren't deliberately choosing a rational explanation over a supernatural one, aren't we abusing our own evolutionary potential?

 

If we know that our brains will automatically see gods where none exist, shouldn't we use that self-knowledge for our own betterment and treat this disposition as a kind of inherited condition that can be cured?

 

Hemophilia, Sickle cell anemia and Huntingdon's disease are inherited conditions.

So why shouldn't we treat our brain's tendency to see angels and demons as something just as unwelcome as these horrible diseases - and then do something about it?

.

.

.

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 asking 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. 

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I understand and agree.

 

I think I was thinking something different.

 

Going back to my original premise though, I think that my statement "You wouldn't get an atheistic answer until you start asking where did everything come from or what happens when we die." works well. Based on the way the brain works, atheism doesn't come into play until the questions are asked, if that makes sense. So, atheism must be sought out through seeking information to explain where everything came from. Atheism is acquired, not innate.

 

It is better explained like this:

 

When we are all born and start our journey of understanding of the world, all possibilities are there to be confirmed or disproven. It is only through the scientific method that the truth can actually be learned. Until then, the supernatural is always in play.

 

In this light I agree with where you were going with the premise. 

 

Which leads to the situation of atheism as default. When Geezer said that he prefers atheism as default, that's the same sense that I've applied it. It's about suggesting that after having already been theistic it makes more sense to place atheism in the default position until such time as credible evidence for the supernatural arises, if ever. No sense in wishful thinking or deluding ourselves in believing something with no credible support. I think that the sense that most of us have claimed atheism as our personal default has been one of noting that we were born without theistic belief, we at some point acquired it, and have since dropped it due to an intellectually honest critique of our belief systems and various world views.

 

We have consciously chosen, intellectually, to place atheism (not-theism) as our personal default position.

 

We're saying that by default, non-belief is the most logical option.

 

And I think there's been some confusion in terms of how you've applied the word default throughout the discussion.  

 

Storm wrote: "When we are all born and start our journey of understanding of the world, all possibilities are there to be confirmed or disproven. It is only through the scientific method that the truth can actually be learned. Until then, the supernatural is always in play."

 

That being the case, and with explaining what it means to say "atheism as default," do you see how the term still applies even after the critique you've given? 

 

It doesn't have to be innate in order to be some one's default, which is the deeper issue at hand..... 

[Storm]

And I think there's been some confusion in terms of how you've applied the word default throughout the discussion.  

I think you are correct.

 

I agree with you and BAA and others that the default should be Atheism. I am simply arguing that what we work with in the beginning isn't atheism. After time and once we understand what is going on around us, the default should logically lead to atheism.

 

I think this discussion would be better if we could do it in person face to face and talk in real time. But I think it has been a good discussion. I know that my thinking on this topic has evolved as you all have challenged my thinking. I think my premise still stands, however, I see it more clearly and understand it better.

[Storm]

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your patience, Storm.

 

Yes, we are looking at the same topic, but we aren't actually addressing the same thing about that topic.  Perhaps the best way to explain is via an analogy.  Think of us as being two doctors and the topic in question is our 'patient'.  Here is a summary of what's happening.

 

Doctor Storm is carefully examining the patient's condition, looking at the displayed symptoms and trying to figure out what's going on.

Your focus is squarely on the workings of the human brain and the mind.  You're looking at the role of evolution and how various strategies for survival have given humans certain ways of perceiving reality.  Hence your interest in the default setting of human beliefs.  Are we blank slates or has evolution predisposed us to see things as being supernatural, even when they aren't?  That would be what's been referred to as, 'gap-filling'.  In this respect Storm, you're a bit like a doctor trying to make an accurate diagnosis.  To do so, you first need to understand how the patient functions.  Then, once you know that, you can go on to see if that patient is functioning normally or is in need of treatment.  

 

Whereas, my approach has been somewhat different.

 

Doctor BAA has already accepted that the patient isn't functioning 'normally'.

Because humans seem predisposed to supernatural explanations of reality, I'm thinking ahead, in terms of prevention and cure.  I see this innate predisposition as an inherited aberration of the human mind.  A part of our evolutionary heritage that is harmful to us, not helpful.  Therefore I've proposed that this unhelpful predisposition be treated and cured by the use of a better and more helpful way of perceiving reality.  This treatment and cure is science.  The discipline of science is agnostic and has built-in safeguards to prevent unwanted personal bias influencing it. 

 

So, while Doc BAA agrees with Doc Storm about the nature of the human condition, they haven't actually been taking the same approach during this thread.  Storm has been tentative, investigative and exploratory, while BAA has been more focused on treatment, rather than diagnosis. 

.

.

.

Does that help explain things, Storm?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I see what you are saying and thanks for clarifying.

 

No problem, Storm.

 

I think you have described my point of view in that I am looking at the process and the way it all works. But I have a difficulty with your view. As Human pointed out, it appears that you are looking at the system as some sort of problem, like it is a virus or an illness that needs to be cured. In my opinion, this is the incorrect way to look at it. The process is simply just a process. It uses whatever tools it is given. So, in this respect, I don't see the system as flawed or not "normal"

 

Ok, these are fair points and I will address them - at the end of this post.

 

It is much like your earlier mention of how your car works. You said:

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.

 

Your car requires some sort of fuel to work. Likely and ideally, it uses unleaded gasoline and when it has this fuel, it generally works optimally. But you could fuel it with carb cleaner or starter fluid. It would work, but not very efficiently. You could try using water, but it wouldn't work with that at all. The car itself isn't good or bad. Its what it has available as fuel that makes it work efficiently or not. The brain works the same way. It is simply a dynamic system that requires a fuel. When it doesn't have the best type of fuel available, it doesn't work in the most efficient way possible. And because of the dynamics of the system, it has to have something available in order for it to work. In this case, the brain can make its own fuel, based on whatever it already understands. Even if the fuel isn't the most efficient, the system still works. This doesn't make the system itself bad or flawed. It just is the system. But if you fuel it with science and reason, it works much more efficiently and produces much better results.

 

So, in this regard, the patient isn't functioning "abnormally", its just being given the least optimal fuel to work on, which is hindering it from functioning at its most efficient. 

 

So, in short, it appears that you are attempting to diagnose and fix a problem with the car when the source of the problem is the fuel.

 

I think the brain system itself works well when it has the best information available for it to utilize.

 

Hope this clarifies my point of view.

 

 

I see your p.o.v. Storm.   Up to a point I'd even agree with it.

.

.

.

But here's where we diverge.

.

.

.

There's a new kid on the block, when it comes to evolution...  intelligence.

The system/process we're discussing is where evolution has wired our brains to be predisposed towards the supernatural, when it comes to trying to explain reality. Yes?  So, forgive me if I'm reading you wrong here, but you seem to be suggesting that this predisposition is hard-wired into us.  That our brains will use whatever's available, but will always default to supernaturalism, in preference to anything else.

I don't think that it is hard wired into us. Its just the way the brain works. The process is neither good or bad and contains no information. Its just a process. The brain needs to have something to fill the gaps in order to work. So it uses whatever it can based on what it knows and understands. I think that the supernatural could be described as the "path of least resistance" if you will.

 

Yet I'd contend that this doesn't always have to be so.

Agreed. The default can be atheism. It can be learned and become the default.

 

The wonderful thing about intelligence is that it gives us the power to understand ourselves, to recognize what brain-fuel works best and to take appropriate measures.  A great deal of the human brain is soft-wired and able to be re-written.  Evolution seems to have gifted us with the ability to change ourselves, to re-make ourselves and not to be slaves to our evolutionary past.  Not to always use the default setting.  Not to always settle for the lowest common denominator, metaphorically speaking.  As far as I know Storm, this attribute (the power to change our own evolutionary potential) is unique to humans - tho' I stand to be corrected on that by those who know different and/or better.

I agree with this. I am definitely glad that our brains work this way.

 

If we have to smarts to recognize that science and reason work better than superstition and religion, isn't it therefore a retrograde step on our part just to let our innate predisposition always opt for the latter?

It is my belief that you might be attributing something to the process that doesn't exist. The process of our brain receiving and interpreting information is fixed and contains no prior information for it to draw any atheistic or supernatural inclinations on its own. It is only after we have received the information and develop a worldview that the brain then can determine whether there is an anomaly that needs to be rectified or not. It is certainly possible that one could gather information and process it from an atheistic view from the beginning, but imho, that would be out of pure luck more so than anything else. We only have so much control and influence in what our brains take in and process. Our brain is processing information no matter where we go or what we do. We can limit some senses, but the brain still processes information.

I think its a lot like our innate desire to eat. We know we need to eat and we know that this process provides us with what we need to carry on the eating process as well as many other processes. In the beginning we have the understanding that we can eat everything, and try much of it, but eventually we eat something that is bad for us, like a poisonous mushroom. It looks like all the other mushrooms and probably tastes like them too, but ultimately, they make us sick, if not kill us. It is only until we eat the mushroom that we find this out. Up until then, the process is neither good or bad. Its just the process. Once we learn that this particular mushroom makes us sick or could kill us, we change our thinking and, ultimately, our behavior towards the mushroom. So, the way we eat doesn't change, but what we eat changes. Like I said to Josh, "When we are all born and start our journey of understanding of the world, all possibilities are there to be confirmed or disproven. It is only through the scientific method that the truth can actually be learned. Until then, the supernatural is always in play."

 

 

When we aren't deliberately choosing a rational explanation over a supernatural one, aren't we abusing our own evolutionary potential?

In the beginning of the journey, there isn't an ability to choose. Only after we have the ability to know that more than one option exists can we make a conscious choice.

 

If we know that our brains will automatically see gods where none exist, shouldn't we use that self-knowledge for our own betterment and treat this disposition as a kind of inherited condition that can be cured?

I am not contending that supernaturalism is only about gods or deities or entities. It can be anthropomorphism or anything the brain can come up with. 

 

Hemophilia, Sickle cell anemia and Huntingdon's disease are inherited conditions.

So why shouldn't we treat our brain's tendency to see angels and demons as something just as unwelcome as these horrible diseases - and then do something about it?

Again, I don't think its a condition that can be cured at the beginning. Its just a process. Only after we gain the knowledge of science and reason can we change the way we filter the information. The process doesn't change, just the way we filter the information.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I want to stress that I have probably done a poor job of fully explaining everything. I think both you and Josh have made good points and you have definitely helped me to understand my point better. I just hope that I have helped you understand it better as well.

 

Thanks

Storm

[Joshpantera]

 

And I think there's been some confusion in terms of how you've applied the word default throughout the discussion.  

I think you are correct.

 

I agree with you and BAA and others that the default should be Atheism. I am simply arguing that what we work with in the beginning isn't atheism. After time and once we understand what is going on around us, the default should logically lead to atheism.

 

I think this discussion would be better if we could do it in person face to face and talk in real time. But I think it has been a good discussion. I know that my thinking on this topic has evolved as you all have challenged my thinking. I think my premise still stands, however, I see it more clearly and understand it better.

 

Yes, it just depends on how we're using the term default. In this sense a consciously chosen default position selected by logic and reason.

 

Wouldn't that be cool if there was an ex-C convention every year? Have a panel of active members in real time. I like the sound of that.

 

Your premise about the human mind defaulting to animism and a supernaturalistic world view in the absence of scientific knowledge does seem to hold true. I've recntly re-watched Richard Dawkins The God Delusion video on youtube:

 

It's note worthy that he mentions how human beings are prone to suspend skepticism as young children. For the purpose of survival, when adults tell children not to go down to the river because it's dangerous, the child is pre-wired towards believing in the danger. Along with the caution of danger, the tribal mythology or community religion is also accepted with a credulous attitude in youth. This is entirely natural and a part of human evolution where those who take heed to warning as children, survive. And in Dawkins view it's not entirely bad. However, with age and maturity this evolutionary child-like condition of suspended skepticism ought to give way to a more skeptical position later in life. One of wanting credible evidence for sensational claims. 

 

I went on further and viewed another video for the New Atheism and found that much of it relate's to the thread as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbQ__J72VC8

 

Around 11;00 he goes into a poll for Humanists. Oddly enough, 80% voted that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are good for Humanism. Dawkins was surprised by this. The tone of the New Atheism is generally harsh and sharp, however the tone is viewed as helpful for Humanism. I tend to agree with this even though I don't classify as a hard atheist or anti-thiest, which is what Dawkins clearly is. The approach does seem harsh, and I once took the same approach but have since backed way off, at least publicly in real time. But nevertheless, in reviewing this video I can say that I do support Dawkins efforts against religion because it's merely the truth seeking process playing out. Claims are made, claims are shot down. The claims of religion are counter productive to humanity and so I can see the value that New Atheism has to Humanism. 

 

But to the ignorant and intellectually dishonest, it's all just the many hats of Satan......

 

I think that ignorance, in a rapidly advancing technological civilization, is becoming unfavorable and blind belief will become increasingly unattractive and viewed as weak minded. 

 

Happy New Year!!!!

[bornagainathiest]

Storm,

 

With all due respect, I think you're contradicting yourself in your replies to me.  

 

The wonderful thing about intelligence is that it gives us the power to understand ourselves, to recognize what brain-fuel works best and to take appropriate measures.  A great deal of the human brain is soft-wired and able to be re-written.  Evolution seems to have gifted us with the ability to change ourselves, to re-make ourselves and not to be slaves to our evolutionary past.  Not to always use the default setting.  Not to always settle for the lowest common denominator, metaphorically speaking.  As far as I know Storm, this attribute (the power to change our own evolutionary potential) is unique to humans - tho' I stand to be corrected on that by those who know different and/or better.

I agree with this. I am definitely glad that our brains work this way.

 

You agree with this?

 

Yet you go to say...

The process of our brain receiving and interpreting information is fixed and contains no prior information for it to draw any atheistic or supernatural inclinations on its own.

 

How can the process be fixed if we have the soft-wired ability to change ourselves, to re-make ourselves and not to be slaves to our evolutionary past?

 

If we were slaves, then the process would be fixed, wouldn't it? 

But since you agree that we aren't slaves, it therefore cannot be fixed.

 

If we couldn't re-make ourselves, then we would be stuck in an unchangeable situation, wouldn't we?

But since you agree that we can re-make ourselves, then we cannot be stuck in an unchangeable situation.

 

If we had no choice but to always use the default settings of our brains, then we would be slaves... yes?

But since you agree that we can choose not to always use the default setting of our brains, then we cannot be slaves to this setting.

.

.

.

If we can choose to change ourselves and have the ability to do so, how can we be slaves?

.

.

.

I cite myself as a worked example.

I was an arachnophobe.  But I re-wrote my own brain chemistry by the conscious decision to overcome my irrational fear with understanding and knowledge.  It worked.  I can now pick the little ****ers up and put them outside.  If I was a slave to the fixed workings of my brain, that should have been impossible.

.

.

.

Perhaps the middle ground offers us a place to agree?

Would you accept that some functions of the brain are necessarily fixed, while others are dynamic - allowing us to change ourselves, within certain limits?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[Storm]

Storm,

 

With all due respect, I think you're contradicting yourself in your replies to me.  

 

The wonderful thing about intelligence is that it gives us the power to understand ourselves, to recognize what brain-fuel works best and to take appropriate measures.  A great deal of the human brain is soft-wired and able to be re-written.  Evolution seems to have gifted us with the ability to change ourselves, to re-make ourselves and not to be slaves to our evolutionary past.  Not to always use the default setting.  Not to always settle for the lowest common denominator, metaphorically speaking.  As far as I know Storm, this attribute (the power to change our own evolutionary potential) is unique to humans - tho' I stand to be corrected on that by those who know different and/or better.

I agree with this. I am definitely glad that our brains work this way.

 

You agree with this?

 

Yet you go to say...

The process of our brain receiving and interpreting information is fixed and contains no prior information for it to draw any atheistic or supernatural inclinations on its own.

 

How can the process be fixed if we have the soft-wired ability to change ourselves, to re-make ourselves and not to be slaves to our evolutionary past?

 

My apologies for the confusion. I can totally see how it appears that I am making a contradictory statement. Ill try to explain what I am referring to using this analogy:

 

The way the brain receives and processes information is a process, just like it is in some ways like we eat. The eating process involves us using our hands and placing the food into our mouths and chewing it (if necessary) and then swallowing it to send it into our stomachs and so on.

 

We can change and choose what we put into our mouths, how frequently we put the food there, how much we put there, when we put it there, etc. But the process is still the same. Hand to mouth to stomach.

 

The brain works the same way. Its a fixed process. We can change and choose what information we receive, how frequently we receive it, how much we receive, whether or not we are open to accepting it, whether or not it has value to us, etc. We can, for the most part, control all of this, but the process still works the same way. While, this isn't a scientific site, I think this short article does a great job of explaining the basics of how the brain processes information. Much of this process is fixed and, in my understanding, not able to be changed, much like the eating process cant be changed. (Obviously, we can circumvent the eating process and feed intravenously and the like, but this isn't an evolutionary change, but I am talking in generalities)

 

I hope this helps clear up what I am trying to convey about the fixed part.

 

I am certainly not an expert in the workings of the brain and how evolution has changed how the brain works, but after thinking about it for a while now, I am not sure how the brain could change evolutionarily to prevent the "fill the gaps" from using the supernatural to "explain" things it does not understand and comprehend. The process itself is unbiased and neutral and, from what I can see, works incredibly efficiently and I don't see any particular stressor or environmental situation that would be likely to affect it enough to warrant the type of changes that you are positing. While you and I can see the negative affects of religious thinking and supernatural thinking, it appears that this thinking does have some evolutionary advantages, so, I cannot see any reason that it would change anytime in the near future, if at all.

 

I do have to say, that it appears that we are at a disadvantage in some respects because we are at the mercy of those that raise us in the early stages of our mental development. If the parents are fundy, there is a significantly higher probability that the child will at some point lean towards fundy thinking. This is simply an unfortunate outcome of the way the process works. So, by the time that we are able to really start reasoning, we are already thinking a specific way and that established way of thinking affects the future things we aim to study and learn about. So, if anything, our environment is likely a significant culprit of why we think supernaturally. I think that culturally and socially, our society is moving more and more towards secularism and non supernatural type thinking, and that change could very much affect the supernatural and religious upbringings that many people have and could prevent the disadvantage and make people more likely to not use supernaturalism and religiosity to cloud their thinking and their understanding of the world.

 

How can the process be fixed if we have the soft-wired ability to change ourselves, to re-make ourselves and not to be slaves to our evolutionary past?

 

If we were slaves, then the process would be fixed, wouldn't it? 

But since you agree that we aren't slaves, it therefore cannot be fixed.

 

So, in some ways, I would argue that we aren't slaves to the process by itself, we are also slaves to society and the information that those who raise us present to us until we can be rational and think logically on our own. And as I just stated earlier, I think this is slowly changing, but the process itself does cause us to default to whatever understanding our brain can use to make sense of the information. Since we cant know everything we need to know in the early stages of our brains development of its worldview, there really isn't any other way that I can think of that would prevent the "fill the gaps" process from occurring.

 

I hope this clarifies my viewpoint on this for you.

[Storm]

 

 

And I think there's been some confusion in terms of how you've applied the word default throughout the discussion.  

I think you are correct.

 

I agree with you and BAA and others that the default should be Atheism. I am simply arguing that what we work with in the beginning isn't atheism. After time and once we understand what is going on around us, the default should logically lead to atheism.

 

I think this discussion would be better if we could do it in person face to face and talk in real time. But I think it has been a good discussion. I know that my thinking on this topic has evolved as you all have challenged my thinking. I think my premise still stands, however, I see it more clearly and understand it better.

 

Yes, it just depends on how we're using the term default. In this sense a consciously chosen default position selected by logic and reason.

 

Wouldn't that be cool if there was an ex-C convention every year? Have a panel of active members in real time. I like the sound of that.

 

Your premise about the human mind defaulting to animism and a supernaturalistic world view in the absence of scientific knowledge does seem to hold true. I've recntly re-watched Richard Dawkins The God Delusion video on youtube:

 

It's note worthy that he mentions how human beings are prone to suspend skepticism as young children. For the purpose of survival, when adults tell children not to go down to the river because it's dangerous, the child is pre-wired towards believing in the danger. Along with the caution of danger, the tribal mythology or community religion is also accepted with a credulous attitude in youth. This is entirely natural and a part of human evolution where those who take heed to warning as children, survive. And in Dawkins view it's not entirely bad. However, with age and maturity this evolutionary child-like condition of suspended skepticism ought to give way to a more skeptical position later in life. One of wanting credible evidence for sensational claims. 

 

I went on further and viewed another video for the New Atheism and found that much of it relate's to the thread as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbQ__J72VC8

 

Around 11;00 he goes into a poll for Humanists. Oddly enough, 80% voted that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are good for Humanism. Dawkins was surprised by this. The tone of the New Atheism is generally harsh and sharp, however the tone is viewed as helpful for Humanism. I tend to agree with this even though I don't classify as a hard atheist or anti-thiest, which is what Dawkins clearly is. The approach does seem harsh, and I once took the same approach but have since backed way off, at least publicly in real time. But nevertheless, in reviewing this video I can say that I do support Dawkins efforts against religion because it's merely the truth seeking process playing out. Claims are made, claims are shot down. The claims of religion are counter productive to humanity and so I can see the value that New Atheism has to Humanism. 

 

But to the ignorant and intellectually dishonest, it's all just the many hats of Satan......

 

I think that ignorance, in a rapidly advancing technological civilization, is becoming unfavorable and blind belief will become increasingly unattractive and viewed as weak minded. 

 

Happy New Year!!!!

 

Thanks Josh for the videos. I will try to watch them/listen to them sometime soon. Trying to work around my hidden deconversion can make watching and listening to things like what you posted a bit difficult. But I will find a way.

 

I think that ignorance, in a rapidly advancing technological civilization, is becoming unfavorable and blind belief will become increasingly unattractive and viewed as weak minded. 

I agree and I certainly hope that this premise proves to become true.

 

Happy new year to you as well.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

I hope this clarifies my viewpoint on this for you.

 

 

It does Storm, thank you.

 

 

 

BAA

[PhiloTech]

So many things wrong with this assertion. When someone like me says "atheism is a default" it means that having no belief yet alone awareness of a god is a default for a growing mind. 

 

My little sister for example is very morbid about things and when learning how to speak she actually told me that when a person dies, "that is it." Thanks to my mother's influence obviously she now does not say this and gets confused and cannot grasp things that are not perceivable. A god is exactly what is stated earlier, something not able to be perceived. This is why the historic elevation of gods has gone from animism to cosmic monotheism. The minute you say the tree has a spirit in this day of age is the exact minute you would be declared insane. We can test,analyze and do studies on a tree yet a spirit never comes into question. This is why gods have become more and more immaterial over the millenia. Less to prove and less to challenge. 

 

This also raises the question of Theological Noncognitivism and the issue of whether "god" or "gods" are coherent concepts. To answer this simply they are not coherent and the opposite. From human super beings living on mountains, forest spirits and then cosmic tyrants with no form. 

 

None of these things run through children's heads as a default instead questions do. Having been raised in a house that held many foster kids I can say that this is how it always goes until they are taught something to deluded and quench their questions.

[Storm]

So many things wrong with this assertion. When someone like me says "atheism is a default" it means that having no belief yet alone awareness of a god is a default for a growing mind. 

 

My little sister for example is very morbid about things and when learning how to speak she actually told me that when a person dies, "that is it." Thanks to my mother's influence obviously she now does not say this and gets confused and cannot grasp things that are not perceivable. A god is exactly what is stated earlier, something not able to be perceived. This is why the historic elevation of gods has gone from animism to cosmic monotheism. The minute you say the tree has a spirit in this day of age is the exact minute you would be declared insane. We can test,analyze and do studies on a tree yet a spirit never comes into question. This is why gods have become more and more immaterial over the millenia. Less to prove and less to challenge. 

 

This also raises the question of Theological Noncognitivism and the issue of whether "god" or "gods" are coherent concepts. To answer this simply they are not coherent and the opposite. From human super beings living on mountains, forest spirits and then cosmic tyrants with no form. 

 

None of these things run through children's heads as a default instead questions do. Having been raised in a house that held many foster kids I can say that this is how it always goes until they are taught something to deluded and quench their questions.

Thanks for your input. Your experience definitely holds weight. It is my experience as well.

 

Like you, I don't think atheism is the default, in more ways than one. I know that the actual definition is simply "without god", but to me, atheism is the other side of the coin of theism. In my mind, children don't have anything. Just like you said, just a lot of questions and perceptions that don't necessarily add up to being what we would call "reality". It is reality to them, but we know that this reality changes so much in childhood. Ideally, they would grow out of it with the right people teaching them the right information, but we all know that this rarely happens.

[PhiloTech]

 

So many things wrong with this assertion. When someone like me says "atheism is a default" it means that having no belief yet alone awareness of a god is a default for a growing mind. 

 

My little sister for example is very morbid about things and when learning how to speak she actually told me that when a person dies, "that is it." Thanks to my mother's influence obviously she now does not say this and gets confused and cannot grasp things that are not perceivable. A god is exactly what is stated earlier, something not able to be perceived. This is why the historic elevation of gods has gone from animism to cosmic monotheism. The minute you say the tree has a spirit in this day of age is the exact minute you would be declared insane. We can test,analyze and do studies on a tree yet a spirit never comes into question. This is why gods have become more and more immaterial over the millenia. Less to prove and less to challenge. 

 

This also raises the question of Theological Noncognitivism and the issue of whether "god" or "gods" are coherent concepts. To answer this simply they are not coherent and the opposite. From human super beings living on mountains, forest spirits and then cosmic tyrants with no form. 

 

None of these things run through children's heads as a default instead questions do. Having been raised in a house that held many foster kids I can say that this is how it always goes until they are taught something to deluded and quench their questions.

Thanks for your input. Your experience definitely holds weight. It is my experience as well.

 

Like you, I don't think atheism is the default, in more ways than one. I know that the actual definition is simply "without god", but to me, atheism is the other side of the coin of theism. In my mind, children don't have anything. Just like you said, just a lot of questions and perceptions that don't necessarily add up to being what we would call "reality". It is reality to them, but we know that this reality changes so much in childhood. Ideally, they would grow out of it with the right people teaching them the right information, but we all know that this rarely happens.

 

 

I specifically stated that atheism is the default. My only issue is that people are over-inflating the definition of atheism and quality of atheism. A child is by default a pragmatic atheist purely out of ignorance. Not all cultures develop belief in gods and I point to Asia as the shining example. Look at China and Japan. 

If atheism is not a default then assuredly without influence one would become an theist without intervention yet that is not the case. Historically it is the exact same thing. 

[Storm]

 

 

So many things wrong with this assertion. When someone like me says "atheism is a default" it means that having no belief yet alone awareness of a god is a default for a growing mind. 

 

My little sister for example is very morbid about things and when learning how to speak she actually told me that when a person dies, "that is it." Thanks to my mother's influence obviously she now does not say this and gets confused and cannot grasp things that are not perceivable. A god is exactly what is stated earlier, something not able to be perceived. This is why the historic elevation of gods has gone from animism to cosmic monotheism. The minute you say the tree has a spirit in this day of age is the exact minute you would be declared insane. We can test,analyze and do studies on a tree yet a spirit never comes into question. This is why gods have become more and more immaterial over the millenia. Less to prove and less to challenge. 

 

This also raises the question of Theological Noncognitivism and the issue of whether "god" or "gods" are coherent concepts. To answer this simply they are not coherent and the opposite. From human super beings living on mountains, forest spirits and then cosmic tyrants with no form. 

 

None of these things run through children's heads as a default instead questions do. Having been raised in a house that held many foster kids I can say that this is how it always goes until they are taught something to deluded and quench their questions.

Thanks for your input. Your experience definitely holds weight. It is my experience as well.

 

Like you, I don't think atheism is the default, in more ways than one. I know that the actual definition is simply "without god", but to me, atheism is the other side of the coin of theism. In my mind, children don't have anything. Just like you said, just a lot of questions and perceptions that don't necessarily add up to being what we would call "reality". It is reality to them, but we know that this reality changes so much in childhood. Ideally, they would grow out of it with the right people teaching them the right information, but we all know that this rarely happens.

 

 

I specifically stated that atheism is the default. My only issue is that people are over-inflating the definition of atheism and quality of atheism. A child is by default a pragmatic atheist purely out of ignorance. Not all cultures develop belief in gods and I point to Asia as the shining example. Look at China and Japan. 

If atheism is not a default then assuredly without influence one would become an theist without intervention yet that is not the case. Historically it is the exact same thing. 

 

Ah, so I misunderstood what you were saying. I apologize.

 

I think that I have laid out my position through this thread. I have to respectfully disagree with your premise. In my defense, I am arguing concerning how the brain works, not necessarily about questions and the like. The way our brains work predisposes us to automatically fill the gaps in our understanding and knowledge with whatever it can come up with to satisfy its desire for comprehension until something else can be formulated and understood to take its place. More often than not, this involves the supernatural or animism or some other type of thought process. Because of this, atheism isn't the default. The default is whatever our brains come up with. I think there is ample evidence that shows this to be true.

 

As I stated to BAA earlier, we cannot possibly know everything about everything all at once. Until we are able to learn and understand each individual thing, we are always going to be subject to the possibility of the supernatural until we have enough information to determine that this isn't the case. I would argue you are biologically inclined to do this, whether you like it or not.

[PhiloTech]

 

 

 

So many things wrong with this assertion. When someone like me says "atheism is a default" it means that having no belief yet alone awareness of a god is a default for a growing mind. 

 

My little sister for example is very morbid about things and when learning how to speak she actually told me that when a person dies, "that is it." Thanks to my mother's influence obviously she now does not say this and gets confused and cannot grasp things that are not perceivable. A god is exactly what is stated earlier, something not able to be perceived. This is why the historic elevation of gods has gone from animism to cosmic monotheism. The minute you say the tree has a spirit in this day of age is the exact minute you would be declared insane. We can test,analyze and do studies on a tree yet a spirit never comes into question. This is why gods have become more and more immaterial over the millenia. Less to prove and less to challenge. 

 

This also raises the question of Theological Noncognitivism and the issue of whether "god" or "gods" are coherent concepts. To answer this simply they are not coherent and the opposite. From human super beings living on mountains, forest spirits and then cosmic tyrants with no form. 

 

None of these things run through children's heads as a default instead questions do. Having been raised in a house that held many foster kids I can say that this is how it always goes until they are taught something to deluded and quench their questions.

Thanks for your input. Your experience definitely holds weight. It is my experience as well.

 

Like you, I don't think atheism is the default, in more ways than one. I know that the actual definition is simply "without god", but to me, atheism is the other side of the coin of theism. In my mind, children don't have anything. Just like you said, just a lot of questions and perceptions that don't necessarily add up to being what we would call "reality". It is reality to them, but we know that this reality changes so much in childhood. Ideally, they would grow out of it with the right people teaching them the right information, but we all know that this rarely happens.

 

 

I specifically stated that atheism is the default. My only issue is that people are over-inflating the definition of atheism and quality of atheism. A child is by default a pragmatic atheist purely out of ignorance. Not all cultures develop belief in gods and I point to Asia as the shining example. Look at China and Japan. 

If atheism is not a default then assuredly without influence one would become an theist without intervention yet that is not the case. Historically it is the exact same thing. 

 

Ah, so I misunderstood what you were saying. I apologize.

 

I think that I have laid out my position through this thread. I have to respectfully disagree with your premise. In my defense, I am arguing concerning how the brain works, not necessarily about questions and the like. The way our brains work predisposes us to automatically fill the gaps in our understanding and knowledge with whatever it can come up with to satisfy its desire for comprehension until something else can be formulated and understood to take its place. More often than not, this involves the supernatural or animism or some other type of thought process. Because of this, atheism isn't the default. The default is whatever our brains come up with. I think there is ample evidence that shows this to be true.

 

As I stated to BAA earlier, we cannot possibly know everything about everything all at once. Until we are able to learn and understand each individual thing, we are always going to be subject to the possibility of the supernatural until we have enough information to determine that this isn't the case. I would argue you are biologically inclined to do this, whether you like it or not.

 

 

This is not a coherent god concept. You are referring to the fact that humans anthropomorphicize everything that occurs. We usually attribute things to conscious beings and not inanimate forces. This is why polytheism was so dominant. It does not mean we will create gods we will just have anthropomorphic understanding of the word.

Your entire reasoning is failed from here on out. With your very own logic you could say that if I think anything has consciousness I thereby think it is divine.

When I say things like "death is knocking on your door" that thus makes me a theist. You are forming opinions on multiple fallacies which include Double Thinking, Weak Generalizations and an Argument from Improper Analogy. 

[JadedAtheist]

I have come to understand that this belief that atheism is the default when no other influence exists is not a true statement or belief.

 

Both my parents are not all that religious and since they're different religions anyways it kinda ensured that I wasn't raised in an environment exposed to it. Up until the time I went into foster care at around 8 I was not exposed to any form of religion. Even after that point I didn't have any real serious exposure till my late teens. During this entire time I was an atheist and even at my young age when someone tried explaining religion to me, I found it quite humorous that anyone believed that shit (from my little understanding at first, I thought that religion was something people believed long ago, but not anymore - I didn't realise people believed it here and now till a little while later). Thus, based on my personal experience at least, I imagine most people would be atheists outside of external influences. Some might draw the conclusion there must be something out there, but I find this highly doubtful given the current climate, perhaps in some sort of primitive society it's possible but hardly in a modern one.

[Storm]

 

 

 

 

So many things wrong with this assertion. When someone like me says "atheism is a default" it means that having no belief yet alone awareness of a god is a default for a growing mind. 

 

My little sister for example is very morbid about things and when learning how to speak she actually told me that when a person dies, "that is it." Thanks to my mother's influence obviously she now does not say this and gets confused and cannot grasp things that are not perceivable. A god is exactly what is stated earlier, something not able to be perceived. This is why the historic elevation of gods has gone from animism to cosmic monotheism. The minute you say the tree has a spirit in this day of age is the exact minute you would be declared insane. We can test,analyze and do studies on a tree yet a spirit never comes into question. This is why gods have become more and more immaterial over the millenia. Less to prove and less to challenge. 

 

This also raises the question of Theological Noncognitivism and the issue of whether "god" or "gods" are coherent concepts. To answer this simply they are not coherent and the opposite. From human super beings living on mountains, forest spirits and then cosmic tyrants with no form. 

 

None of these things run through children's heads as a default instead questions do. Having been raised in a house that held many foster kids I can say that this is how it always goes until they are taught something to deluded and quench their questions.

Thanks for your input. Your experience definitely holds weight. It is my experience as well.

 

Like you, I don't think atheism is the default, in more ways than one. I know that the actual definition is simply "without god", but to me, atheism is the other side of the coin of theism. In my mind, children don't have anything. Just like you said, just a lot of questions and perceptions that don't necessarily add up to being what we would call "reality". It is reality to them, but we know that this reality changes so much in childhood. Ideally, they would grow out of it with the right people teaching them the right information, but we all know that this rarely happens.

 

 

I specifically stated that atheism is the default. My only issue is that people are over-inflating the definition of atheism and quality of atheism. A child is by default a pragmatic atheist purely out of ignorance. Not all cultures develop belief in gods and I point to Asia as the shining example. Look at China and Japan. 

If atheism is not a default then assuredly without influence one would become an theist without intervention yet that is not the case. Historically it is the exact same thing. 

 

Ah, so I misunderstood what you were saying. I apologize.

 

I think that I have laid out my position through this thread. I have to respectfully disagree with your premise. In my defense, I am arguing concerning how the brain works, not necessarily about questions and the like. The way our brains work predisposes us to automatically fill the gaps in our understanding and knowledge with whatever it can come up with to satisfy its desire for comprehension until something else can be formulated and understood to take its place. More often than not, this involves the supernatural or animism or some other type of thought process. Because of this, atheism isn't the default. The default is whatever our brains come up with. I think there is ample evidence that shows this to be true.

 

As I stated to BAA earlier, we cannot possibly know everything about everything all at once. Until we are able to learn and understand each individual thing, we are always going to be subject to the possibility of the supernatural until we have enough information to determine that this isn't the case. I would argue you are biologically inclined to do this, whether you like it or not.

 

 

This is not a coherent god concept. You are referring to the fact that humans anthropomorphicize everything that occurs. We usually attribute things to conscious beings and not inanimate forces. This is why polytheism was so dominant. It does not mean we will create gods we will just have anthropomorphic understanding of the word.

Your entire reasoning is failed from here on out. With your very own logic you could say that if I think anything has consciousness I thereby think it is divine.

When I say things like "death is knocking on your door" that thus makes me a theist. You are forming opinions on multiple fallacies which include Double Thinking, Weak Generalizations and an Argument from Improper Analogy. 

 

I think you're reading more into my statement than I am actually stating. And you are accusing me of making statements that I have not made. I agree with you that humans generally have an anthropomorphic view of the world, but I am by no means saying that I think that if you think anything has consciousness its divine. Nor did I ever state that I am purely talking about theism. I talking about the way human brains process information and understand their world. You can learn not to think that way, but until you do, that is how it works.

 

I question whether or not you actually read through the entire thread and followed my line of reasoning.

Up thread, I made the following statement that summarizes my entire point:

"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 tried to further explain that I think that more often than not, humans will generally attribute unknown phenomenon and other things that they cannot comprehend to supernatural or other type of explanations. While there is some generalizing, this phenomena is easily observable in daily life. And this exists in our modern world because it is how our ancestors viewed the world and so on all the way back to the beginnings of the human race.

 

I am hard pressed to see how my opinions are based on multiple fallacies which include Double Thinking, Weak Generalizations and an Argument from Improper Analogy. My opinions are based on simple observations and scientific facts. I don't believe that you have to agree with me, but you certainly don't have any ground to dismiss me with such disdain. I think you simply do not understand what I am proposing.

[Storm]

 

I have come to understand that this belief that atheism is the default when no other influence exists is not a true statement or belief.

 

Both my parents are not all that religious and since they're different religions anyways it kinda ensured that I wasn't raised in an environment exposed to it. Up until the time I went into foster care at around 8 I was not exposed to any form of religion. Even after that point I didn't have any real serious exposure till my late teens. During this entire time I was an atheist and even at my young age when someone tried explaining religion to me, I found it quite humorous that anyone believed that shit (from my little understanding at first, I thought that religion was something people believed long ago, but not anymore - I didn't realise people believed it here and now till a little while later). Thus, based on my personal experience at least, I imagine most people would be atheists outside of external influences. Some might draw the conclusion there must be something out there, but I find this highly doubtful given the current climate, perhaps in some sort of primitive society it's possible but hardly in a modern one.

 

To clarify, I am not talking about religion. I am talking about "filling the gaps" of our limited understanding of the world so that our minds can be at ease with the unknown or unexplainable. You probably don't remember it, but I would be willing to bet you did the very thing I am describing. You are certainly lucky to not have been raised in a religious environment.

[JadedAtheist]

To clarify, I am not talking about religion. I am talking about "filling the gaps" of our limited understanding of the world so that our minds can be at ease with the unknown or unexplainable. You probably don't remember it, but I would be willing to bet you did the very thing I am describing. You are certainly lucky to not have been raised in a religious environment.

 

I have memories from as young as 2 (which I realise isn't the norm from most I've spoken to), so I can say with a lot of confidence I didn't try to fill in any gaps in terms of looking towards a higher power as an explanation of the current or anything like that. 

[Storm]

 

To clarify, I am not talking about religion. I am talking about "filling the gaps" of our limited understanding of the world so that our minds can be at ease with the unknown or unexplainable. You probably don't remember it, but I would be willing to bet you did the very thing I am describing. You are certainly lucky to not have been raised in a religious environment.

 

I have memories from as young as 2 (which I realise isn't the norm from most I've spoken to), so I can say with a lot of confidence I didn't try to fill in any gaps in terms of looking towards a higher power as an explanation of the current or anything like that. 

 

If you think that is the case, then you are entitled to think that, and you might be correct. The research and study I have done seems to indicate that its not likely that you are correct. But I cant say that with 100% definite accuracy, just like you cant say what you believe in this regard is 100% accurate as well.

[JadedAtheist]

If you think that is the case, then you are entitled to think that, and you might be correct. The research and study I have done seems to indicate that its not likely that you are correct. But I cant say that with 100% definite accuracy, just like you cant say what you believe in this regard is 100% accurate as well.

 

Let me clarify, there is no doubt from 2 onwards, I have memories of dreams that I had at that age so I can definitely tell you what I did and didn't think about anything at that time onwards. The only doubt is what I believed prior to that age, and I highly doubt that I was a theist of some kind to only to drop the belief from my first memories onwards. In the quotes that you have provided, I have not seen case studies based on interviews of people from a young age raised in a neutral environment. So, if I were you I'd apply more skepticism to those claims than you are currently giving to mine  

 

I think looking at people's experiences here would be hard as most would have been raised in some sort of religious environment. I think if a study like this were to be done - somewhere in Japan, China or the Scandinavian countries would be best where high levels of atheism exist, while at the same time also high levels of apathy exist too (i.e. people aren't raised to actively be atheists). I think this would be more accurate than a model derived from what they would suppose to be the case.