Challenging The Belief That Atheism Is The Default

[Storm]

 

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

Unless you have an Eidetic memory, I find it very difficult to believe that you can remember the many billions and billions of thoughts and pieces of information that has entered your mind. While you may certainly be correct, my understanding of how the brain works and the way our brain pieces information together indicates that, at least at some point, you did what I claim. I am not saying that you believed in god or that you accepted a religion or anything, but at some point you most likely attributed some, known only to you, not necessarily based in reality, form of understanding for information that you processed in your brain. If you want to clarify that you don't believe that its supernatural, I am ok with that. But its what the human brain does when there are gaps. I know that you don't know everything about everything and that when you were younger, you knew much, much less than you know now. The less you know, the higher the probability for gap filling. So, by simple deduction, I can logically be skeptical of your claim. But, again, I admit that I could be wrong.

 

Also, my serious skepticism towards your belief about yourself is entirely based on my understanding of how the brain works and processes information, not on society or who raised you. While I admit that society and who raised you has/had an influence on what you think and believe, its only part of the equation. The way your brain works is a bigger part of the equation.

[Joshpantera]

I remember cutting my hand open on a broken bottle down at my grandfather's marina clear as day. I was 2 when that happened. I remember Salty Dog my pet. Chasing him around the marina getting sand spurs in my feet. All at age 2. I'd take it easy with suggesting that he doesn't remember age 2, Storm, if that's what you think. And I wouldn't tell the poor guy that he can't possibly remember every detail of every thought at age 2 either, because that's really beside the point in this instance. He only has to remember that he was NOT theistic because that's the one point relevant to atheism as default. 

 

Not theistic means atheistic, not God belief. 

 

Whether he filled gaps or not is irrelevant in this case because even if he did fill gaps, and doesn't remember doing it, he does still clearly remember that he didn't believe in Gods, which, places him as atheist by default - not God belief. You've posted about how you're not saying that filling the gaps has to necessarily be theistic and that gap filling could be something else. Well, here's a case in point where some one's stepped forward with personal experience of atheism as their childhood default regardless of whether or not any gaps were ever filled. 

 

Storm, can you link the study's in which you're referring to? 

 

I'm growing a little more skeptical of their nature now that the question has been raised. Are you certain that there's no theistic influence driving these study's? If there is then I'm sure I'd detect it upon reading through. Or have you simply taken different scientific studies and decided on your own that they should be interpreted as proving atheism is not default?  

[JadedAtheist]

Your statement saying you don't believe we are atheists by default is the one I was addressing, and I gave my personal experience which rejects your hypothesis. You're now saying we do this filling in the gaps thing, which is another point entirely. Tell me what you mean exactly and I can tell you whether or not I agree with that based on my personal experience.

[Storm]

Your statement saying you don't believe we are atheists by default is the one I was addressing, and I gave my personal experience which rejects your hypothesis. You're now saying we do this filling in the gaps thing, which is another point entirely. Tell me what you mean exactly and I can tell you whether or not I agree with that based on my personal experience.

The fact that I am even reading your statement is a strong indicator that you didn't really read through the thread and understand my premise. I am guessing you just skimmed through it and thought that your experience disproved me and you chimed in. I've maintained the filling the gaps idea through the entirety of the thread. It started in the original post and then I re-stated my position more clearly in post # 45, which I will quote again here for your convenience:

 

 

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.

 

I am certainly fine with your disagreement with my premise and your personal experience may ultimately disprove my hypothesis. Your personal experience holds a lot of value for you and based on that, it shapes your worldview. But I question the amount of understanding you have about how the brain works and processes information. I am certainly not saying you are not intelligent or anything like that, but based on your answers, I suspect that you have a limited understanding on how the brain processes information and how beliefs develop.

 

I am not an expert in this by any means, but I have studied enough cognitive psychology to draw the conclusions I have presented. Professionally, I am a therapist and I have a degree in counseling, so I have what I would call sufficient training and knowledge in this area. I work on behavior modification with criminal addicts in therapeutic sessions. So, this area is an area that I have significant interest in both personally and professionally.

 

That being said, I am willing to admit I am wrong and I am willing to change my assertion, but I have yet to see any evidence that disproves my premise. Your personal experience isn't sufficient evidence to dispel my premise because your evidence is based on what I perceive as a lack of understanding of what I am referring to. In other words, you presented an orange for evidence, when an apple was what was needed to provide evidentiary proof.

 

If I have not made my point clearly through this thread, then I apologize and I accept responsibility for such. But I feel that I have adequately laid out what I think about this and why.

[Storm]

I remember cutting my hand open on a broken bottle down at my grandfather's marina clear as day. I was 2 when that happened. I remember Salty Dog my pet. Chasing him around the marina getting sand spurs in my feet. All at age 2. I'd take it easy with suggesting that he doesn't remember age 2, Storm, if that's what you think. And I wouldn't tell the poor guy that he can't possibly remember every detail of every thought at age 2 either, because that's really beside the point in this instance. He only has to remember that he was NOT theistic because that's the one point relevant to atheism as default. 

I never once challenged his ability to remember things from age two. I challenged his ability to remember every thought and belief he has ever had in his life. No one remembers everything they have ever thought or all of the pieces of information they have ever processed. People with Eidetic memories are more likely to remember some of this stuff, but not all of it. I am stating that he is making a broad generalization about which he cannot know for certain.

 

 

 

Not theistic means atheistic, not God belief. 

 

Whether he filled gaps or not is irrelevant in this case because even if he did fill gaps, and doesn't remember doing it, he does still clearly remember that he didn't believe in Gods, which, places him as atheist by default - not God belief. You've posted about how you're not saying that filling the gaps has to necessarily be theistic and that gap filling could be something else. Well, here's a case in point where some one's stepped forward with personal experience of atheism as their childhood default regardless of whether or not any gaps were ever filled. 

 

After thinking about this for a while, I have come to the following possible conclusion: I think that there are two different definitions of atheism that exist in the realm of the Ex-c forum.

 

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.  

 

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.

 

Based on the premise that I have presented, and in Jaded's case, he was influenced by his parents toward atheism. He did not go into detail about the specifics of what his parents taught him, how he came to the conclusions he came to. So, I am supposed to accept his life as "evidence" when there are so many things we don't know about it? And I think its pretty clear that he didn't understand the premise I brought forth since his last post asked for clarification of my position, when, if he had actually read the thread, he would have better understood what I was referring to.

 

So, in his case, I am not so sure that he defaulted towards atheism. It was how he learned it. I would argue that he was agnostic/atheist by default, purely by definition and not by concept, if that makes sense.  So, the fill the gaps does matter. It still supports my premise. Nothing he has presented has disproven my hypothesis.

 

Storm, can you link the study's in which you're referring to? 

 

I'm growing a little more skeptical of their nature now that the question has been raised. Are you certain that there's no theistic influence driving these study's? If there is then I'm sure I'd detect it upon reading through. Or have you simply taken different scientific studies and decided on your own that they should be interpreted as proving atheism is not default?  

 

I am not referring to any studies in particular. I am referencing my study of Cognitive Psychology and how the brain processes information and how it develops beliefs. This is a subject that has to my knowledge, not been studied specifically, but the ideas behind it have been. The quote in my original post comes from a book entitled "Biological Evolution of the Religious Mind and Behavior". This is a scholarly book, not a religious one. The entire purpose of the book is to shed light on why and how religion and the mind works. This book started me on the thinking process towards what I presented, but I found more information through other articles and books on the subject.

 

But simply studying cognitive psychology would yield this type of conclusion. Study Piaget's theories on schema. I found this article and found it interesting. There is a lot of information out there on this stuff if you want to spend the time studying it. I am not a nut job presenting some obscure idea. This is something that I drew conclusions from what I've read.

 

I don't recall that I believe that my premise has been proven, nor do I believe I have posted any such statement,  but my premise has yet to be disproved by anyone posting here. I am still learning and reading and being challenged by you and Jaded and BAA and anyone else that feels like presenting a challenge. And I accept that challenge. If I didn't, I wouldn't have posted it here.

 

Once again, I am willing to admit if and when I am wrong about this, but the more I study it and read and think about it, I think it has merit.  Multiple people in this thread, including you, have made comments that there is evidence that what I am presenting is viable and potentially true. Until I see evidence that disproves my premise, I will continue to hold on to it. If you choose to disagree, then that is fine.

[JadedAtheist]

OK. So, I thought I was misunderstanding you but I wasn't. I'm even more confused by your responses to my posts. You were arguing we don't default to atheist - I said we do. You then said "yeah, but nevertheless we fill the gaps" which isn't even a response you're basically retorting with your premise again which is that atheism isn't the default. But, whatever. I'm also confused by your discussion of two types of atheism when it was addressed in the very first reply to your topic. You in turn said it didn't matter. I of course did not reason myself to atheism, I was an atheist just because I was never exposed, therefore still an atheist by definition because an atheist is simply one who doesn't believe in any gods, no matter how they got there. Can you see why I am confused here with your responses, especially now that you're conceding to what I've said (sort of)?

[Storm]

OK. So, I thought I was misunderstanding you but I wasn't. I'm even more confused by your responses to my posts. You were arguing we don't default to atheist - I said we do. You then said "yeah, but nevertheless we fill the gaps" which isn't even a response you're basically retorting with your premise again which is that atheism isn't the default. But, whatever. I'm also confused by your discussion of two types of atheism when it was addressed in the very first reply to your topic. You in turn said it didn't matter. I of course did not reason myself to atheism, I was an atheist just because I was never exposed, therefore still an atheist by definition because an atheist is simply one who doesn't believe in any gods, no matter how they got there. Can you see why I am confused here with your responses, especially now that you're conceding to what I've said (sort of)?

So, I'm still not so sure that you're understanding as much as you think you do. Clearly all humans are agnostic/atheist when they are born. We are born with no knowledge of anything, gods included. So yes, in that sense, you are defaulting to atheism. I'm agreeing with that. My hypothesis is that, left alone with no outside influences, humans will default to supernatural, or "magical thinking" if you want to call it that. Religions exist because this was the case when our distant ancient ancestors had no science to refute anyone's thoughts to the contrary. Religion and supernatural beliefs exist even today because it is the way humans think and process information.

 

Your experience doesn't refute this like you think it does. You did have an advantage in that your parents didn't teach you any theistic worldview, but I could argue that your atheism is learned more so than its a default, because you modeled the behaviors and beliefs that your parents do. This is why I made the distinction between the two atheism definitions. There is learned atheism and agnostic atheism, which we have at birth.

[Storm]

OK. So, I thought I was misunderstanding you but I wasn't. I'm even more confused by your responses to my posts. You were arguing we don't default to atheist - I said we do. You then said "yeah, but nevertheless we fill the gaps" which isn't even a response you're basically retorting with your premise again which is that atheism isn't the default. But, whatever. I'm also confused by your discussion of two types of atheism when it was addressed in the very first reply to your topic. You in turn said it didn't matter. I of course did not reason myself to atheism, I was an atheist just because I was never exposed, therefore still an atheist by definition because an atheist is simply one who doesn't believe in any gods, no matter how they got there. Can you see why I am confused here with your responses, especially now that you're conceding to what I've said (sort of)?

So, I'm still not so sure that you're understanding as much as you think you do. Clearly all humans are agnostic/atheist when they are born. We are born with no knowledge of anything, gods included. So yes, in that sense, you are defaulting to atheism. I'm agreeing with that. My hypothesis is that, left alone with no outside influences, humans will default to supernatural, or "magical thinking" if you want to call it that. Religions exist because this was the case when our distant ancient ancestors had no science to refute anyone's thoughts to the contrary. Religion and supernatural beliefs exist even today because it is the way humans think and process information.

 

Your experience doesn't refute this like you think it does. You did have an advantage in that your parents didn't teach you any theistic worldview, but I could argue that your atheism is learned more so than its a default, because you modeled the behaviors and beliefs that your parents do. This is why I made the distinction between the two atheism definitions. There is learned atheism and agnostic atheism, which we have at birth.

[JadedAtheist]

OK, I think you're right and I'm not getting what you're saying. Essentially if I understand you correctly, you are meaning to say that if people are in a primitive environment they are inclined to supernatural thinking, I have no disagreement in that sense as this has obviously happened in the past. People are inclined to try and find an explanation and in a primitive society they are unlikely to come across the right one. In modern society, this obviously isn't a problem and without indoctrination from childhood I don't believe people would believe in any of the modern day religions. 

[Storm]

OK, I think you're right and I'm not getting what you're saying. Essentially if I understand you correctly, you are meaning to say that if people are in a primitive environment they are inclined to supernatural thinking, I have no disagreement in that sense as this has obviously happened in the past. People are inclined to try and find an explanation and in a primitive society they are unlikely to come across the right one. In modern society, this obviously isn't a problem and without indoctrination from childhood I don't believe people would believe in any of the modern day religions.

Yes, now you are on the right track. When left unchecked by science, humans generally default to magical thinking. This train of thought was discussed by myself and BAA earlier in this thread. As long as science is around, atheism can overcome this, and generally does become the default, but generally only through outside influences, either through science or learned behavior.

[Ravenstar]

I think there is a bit of a difference between magical thinking and theism… though they can be related. Believing in magic is not quite the same thing as ascribing a deity or higher power to things. Point in fact: The genius loci may be a supernatural or magical expression of a place.. maybe even an entity, but it isn't worshipped. Many pagans believe in magic without a related belief in deity or a theistic cause for it.

 

I may be cutting hairs here but the thinking of a child before the age of reason is not a simple thing to ascertain, especially before decent language skills and vocabulary are acquired. Children have many things that they may entertain.. say,monsters in the closet or imaginary friends, that can be explained by instinctual fears or emotional needs… not necessarily a belief process as it would be in an adult. Imagination is also very important in a child cognitive development and therefore may be seen in a different way than just a predisposition to theism.

 

just some thoughts.

[midniterider]

I guess I've lost the reason why it is important to assert that atheism is the default? Other than to kick out the God is default idea.

 

And does something which has never been thought of by someone really have any quality to it? Can a child really be 'without' a belief in something that it has no awareness of, yet?

 

Wouldn't the quality of atheism be much higher if a child is aware of what a God is and then rejects it?

 

Do we say a newborn is a-republican or a-democrat or a-political? If someone has not been exposed to a concept can they be labeled as holding a particular position on that concept?

 

I think atheist vs theist with regards to a newborn or very young child is a false dichotomy. No decision has been made by the child as to belief or non-belief. My two cents.

[midniterider]

I think there is a bit of a difference between magical thinking and theism… though they can be related. Believing in magic is not quite the same thing as ascribing a deity or higher power to things. Point in fact: The genius loci may be a supernatural or magical expression of a place.. maybe even an entity, but it isn't worshipped. Many pagans believe in magic without a related belief in deity or a theistic cause for it.

 

I may be cutting hairs here but the thinking of a child before the age of reason is not a simple thing to ascertain, especially before decent language skills and vocabulary are acquired. Children have many things that they may entertain.. say,monsters in the closet or imaginary friends, that can be explained by instinctual fears or emotional needs… not necessarily a belief process as it would be in an adult. Imagination is also very important in a child cognitive development and therefore may be seen in a different way than just a predisposition to theism.

 

just some thoughts.

 

I had some magical thinking as a child but it didnt blossom into Christianity...not until I married a Christian, anyway. I doubt I'd have ever opened a bible if I had not had someone help indoctrinate me.

[Joshpantera]

 

I remember cutting my hand open on a broken bottle down at my grandfather's marina clear as day. I was 2 when that happened. I remember Salty Dog my pet. Chasing him around the marina getting sand spurs in my feet. All at age 2. I'd take it easy with suggesting that he doesn't remember age 2, Storm, if that's what you think. And I wouldn't tell the poor guy that he can't possibly remember every detail of every thought at age 2 either, because that's really beside the point in this instance. He only has to remember that he was NOT theistic because that's the one point relevant to atheism as default. 

I never once challenged his ability to remember things from age two. I challenged his ability to remember every thought and belief he has ever had in his life. No one remembers everything they have ever thought or all of the pieces of information they have ever processed. People with Eidetic memories are more likely to remember some of this stuff, but not all of it. I am stating that he is making a broad generalization about which he cannot know for certain.

 

 

 

Not theistic means atheistic, not God belief. 

 

Whether he filled gaps or not is irrelevant in this case because even if he did fill gaps, and doesn't remember doing it, he does still clearly remember that he didn't believe in Gods, which, places him as atheist by default - not God belief. You've posted about how you're not saying that filling the gaps has to necessarily be theistic and that gap filling could be something else. Well, here's a case in point where some one's stepped forward with personal experience of atheism as their childhood default regardless of whether or not any gaps were ever filled. 

 

After thinking about this for a while, I have come to the following possible conclusion: I think that there are two different definitions of atheism that exist in the realm of the Ex-c forum.

 

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.  

 

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.

 

Based on the premise that I have presented, and in Jaded's case, he was influenced by his parents toward atheism. He did not go into detail about the specifics of what his parents taught him, how he came to the conclusions he came to. So, I am supposed to accept his life as "evidence" when there are so many things we don't know about it? And I think its pretty clear that he didn't understand the premise I brought forth since his last post asked for clarification of my position, when, if he had actually read the thread, he would have better understood what I was referring to.

 

So, in his case, I am not so sure that he defaulted towards atheism. It was how he learned it. I would argue that he was agnostic/atheist by default, purely by definition and not by concept, if that makes sense.  So, the fill the gaps does matter. It still supports my premise. Nothing he has presented has disproven my hypothesis.

 

Storm, can you link the study's in which you're referring to? 

 

I'm growing a little more skeptical of their nature now that the question has been raised. Are you certain that there's no theistic influence driving these study's? If there is then I'm sure I'd detect it upon reading through. Or have you simply taken different scientific studies and decided on your own that they should be interpreted as proving atheism is not default?  

 

I am not referring to any studies in particular. I am referencing my study of Cognitive Psychology and how the brain processes information and how it develops beliefs. This is a subject that has to my knowledge, not been studied specifically, but the ideas behind it have been. The quote in my original post comes from a book entitled "Biological Evolution of the Religious Mind and Behavior". This is a scholarly book, not a religious one. The entire purpose of the book is to shed light on why and how religion and the mind works. This book started me on the thinking process towards what I presented, but I found more information through other articles and books on the subject.

 

But simply studying cognitive psychology would yield this type of conclusion. Study Piaget's theories on schema. I found this article and found it interesting. There is a lot of information out there on this stuff if you want to spend the time studying it. I am not a nut job presenting some obscure idea. This is something that I drew conclusions from what I've read.

 

I don't recall that I believe that my premise has been proven, nor do I believe I have posted any such statement,  but my premise has yet to be disproved by anyone posting here. I am still learning and reading and being challenged by you and Jaded and BAA and anyone else that feels like presenting a challenge. And I accept that challenge. If I didn't, I wouldn't have posted it here.

 

Once again, I am willing to admit if and when I am wrong about this, but the more I study it and read and think about it, I think it has merit.  Multiple people in this thread, including you, have made comments that there is evidence that what I am presenting is viable and potentially true. Until I see evidence that disproves my premise, I will continue to hold on to it. If you choose to disagree, then that is fine.

 

Ok, I'm glad that you aren't saying that he doesn't remember age 2. 

 

As for 2 definitions of atheism, this is where you're not revealing yourself as up to speed with the atheist organizations and the general status of defining atheism. Theists have pushed for things like defining atheism as a positive belief in the non-existence of Gods. Even in terms of a New Atheist like Richard Dawkins, he's not foolish enough to go there. What the atheist organizations agree on is the soft and traditional definition of atheism which is simply a(not) theism(God belief). We've had long threads about atheism around here establishing the general sense of the term which is really simple. 

 

Every time you want to write atheism, instead write "without God belief" and then see how that clarifies things so much better. 

 

A ) For instance, we're talking about whether we're born in a defaulted atheist position. 

 

B ) For instance, we're talking about whether we're born in a defaulted without God belief position. 

 

You see how it doesn't matter whether we lack knowledge or understanding of a debate concerning the option of either atheism or theism. Atheism is simply the lack of God belief, without God belief.

 

And agnostic means non-committal or not knowing. Not knowing and lacking belief are the same thing. That's why the term agnostic atheist is something even the likes of Richard Dawkins will use. It's not one or the other, they go together. You don't know if Gods exist or not and until proven you lack any positive belief that they do. 

 

Learned or intellectual atheism extends from this but requires knowledge whereas mere atheism doesn't require any knowledge or decision making. In the case of Jaded atheist he was born into a house with divided religious views. His parents were both Theistic, but they didn't push religion down his throat so he grew up with a general lack of God belief even though his parents were both Theists.

 

He was born without God belief, and upon exposure to God belief through his parents belief, still didn't subscribe to it. Another point was made about Scandinavia, China, and Japan where religion doesn't really have much of a platform any more. Do these children default to supernaturalism? Well no, lack of God belief flourishes in these regions because belief is not pushed on everyone. There's a natural lack of God belief going around these days to consider. 

 

I guess that you've explained the lure of religion due to a primitive instinct towards magical thinking. I can't really disagree with that. That seems to be why we still have a religious majority. It comes in large part by what Dawkins was saying about survival instincts and blindly believing what we're told by adults.

 

But Theism is learned.

 

Atheism doesn't need to be learned, but it can be learned.

 

A ) Atheism (without God belief) is our first experience of life without learning it. 

 

B ) Theism or supernaturalism can be learned later in life and survival favors this.  

 

C ) Atheism (without God belief) can be learned in contrast to Theism and supernaturalism. 

 

Both BAA and I have experienced the above progression from initial lack of god belief, to acquiring God belief, to intellectually dropping it based on contemplation. 

 

You might say that we're born without God belief and so humans by default, lack supernatural thinking until they've either been exposed to it, or develop it on their own due to pure isolation and a lack of general understanding of how the world works. The supernatural default is secondary to the initial default of without God belief. And the original atheist default, due to it's primacy, has a good chance of returning again later in life when skepticism arises. 

 

I think that I can only agree with supernatuarlism and gap filling as a secondary default, one that's learned in the face of pure ignorance. It has to be learned. Gap filling is within the realm of learning, or trying to learn and I don't see any way around that. 

 

Atheism doesn't have to be learned! It's not a positive belief like supernaturalism and Theism.   

 

So ultimately there's clearly 2 defaults at play and I don't think, for that reason, that you can challenge atheism as default as the title reads. Even in the face of supernaturalistic survival instincts (which I think includes the ego consciousness desire to live forever beyond death) atheism is still default in the most technical sense. When you present gap filling, that doesn't negate what I've raised.

 

One might call this: "The primacy of atheism."

[Storm]

I think there is a bit of a difference between magical thinking and theism… though they can be related. Believing in magic is not quite the same thing as ascribing a deity or higher power to things. Point in fact: The genius loci may be a supernatural or magical expression of a place.. maybe even an entity, but it isn't worshipped. Many pagans believe in magic without a related belief in deity or a theistic cause for it.

I think you're correct in what you're saying. I am trying to be open to all forms of supernaturalism (anything that is not natural). Theism is certainly within that realm but that realm is much bigger than theism, if that makes sense. Your comment about the fact that worship isn't necessarily involved is a good point and one I had not considered.

 

 

I may be cutting hairs here but the thinking of a child before the age of reason is not a simple thing to ascertain, especially before decent language skills and vocabulary are acquired. Children have many things that they may entertain.. say,monsters in the closet or imaginary friends, that can be explained by instinctual fears or emotional needs… not necessarily a belief process as it would be in an adult. Imagination is also very important in a child cognitive development and therefore may be seen in a different way than just a predisposition to theism.

 

just some thoughts.

The more I study this, the more I am understanding that it is incredibly complex and, much like cosmology, this field of study (Cognitive Psychology of Religion) is difficult to fully understand and abounds with theories as to why religion is an integral part of the human experience. I do have to admit that I have not studied a lot of the child cognitive development side of it all. I have read up on Piaget's work with child cognitive development, but not much else. I suspect that this is an important part of the whole process. I will definitely try to include this aspect of it in my studies as well.

 

A recurring theme in what I have been reading is the idea that religious thinking is a natural outgrowth of the human cognitive process, which is the idea behind my premise that started this thread. Children certainly exhibit this cognitive process early in the beginning and their use of imagination and the like, while evolutionary, also serves in cognitive development, if I understand what I have been reading correctly. So, I think your thoughts are definitely supported and valid.

[Storm]

I guess I've lost the reason why it is important to assert that atheism is the default? Other than to kick out the God is default idea.

I think you raise an interesting point that I am now starting to consider. If we are prone to think supernaturally, is it so wrong to do so without the basic structure of religion. What if I decide to be "spiritual" but not religious with a particular religion? This is certainly something I am considering.

 

And does something which has never been thought of by someone really have any quality to it? Can a child really be 'without' a belief in something that it has no awareness of, yet?

Again, another good question. I think that unfortunately in our quest to communicate and be able to understanding of one another, we assume that others are capable of understanding our point of view with a simple definition. But I think I have realized that this is a hit and miss proposition. The term Atheism is a loaded term. This is why I was trying to make a particular distinction between the two types of atheism. While a child may be atheist by definition, I think you hit the nail on the head by asking, are they really atheist? My gut is that they aren't. I think they aren't anything but a blank slate. A clean fresh canvas, if you will.

 

Wouldn't the quality of atheism be much higher if a child is aware of what a God is and then rejects it?

I think it would be more genuine and valid due to the logical processes involved in making that type of decision. Informed decisions always trump uninformed decisions, imho.

 

Do we say a newborn is a-republican or a-democrat or a-political? If someone has not been exposed to a concept can they be labeled as holding a particular position on that concept?

Florduh raised these points up thread. Valid points to consider, for sure.

 

I think atheist vs theist with regards to a newborn or very young child is a false dichotomy. No decision has been made by the child as to belief or non-belief. My two cents.

I agree with you for the most part. I still think that our evolutionary -based cognitive processes lead us in the direction of supernatural thinking, but its not a guarantee, but a "most likely" type scenario. So, yes, the child is neutral, but in some ways, already has a stacked deck against it from the outset.

[Storm]

 

 

I remember cutting my hand open on a broken bottle down at my grandfather's marina clear as day. I was 2 when that happened. I remember Salty Dog my pet. Chasing him around the marina getting sand spurs in my feet. All at age 2. I'd take it easy with suggesting that he doesn't remember age 2, Storm, if that's what you think. And I wouldn't tell the poor guy that he can't possibly remember every detail of every thought at age 2 either, because that's really beside the point in this instance. He only has to remember that he was NOT theistic because that's the one point relevant to atheism as default. 

I never once challenged his ability to remember things from age two. I challenged his ability to remember every thought and belief he has ever had in his life. No one remembers everything they have ever thought or all of the pieces of information they have ever processed. People with Eidetic memories are more likely to remember some of this stuff, but not all of it. I am stating that he is making a broad generalization about which he cannot know for certain.

 

 

 

Not theistic means atheistic, not God belief. 

 

Whether he filled gaps or not is irrelevant in this case because even if he did fill gaps, and doesn't remember doing it, he does still clearly remember that he didn't believe in Gods, which, places him as atheist by default - not God belief. You've posted about how you're not saying that filling the gaps has to necessarily be theistic and that gap filling could be something else. Well, here's a case in point where some one's stepped forward with personal experience of atheism as their childhood default regardless of whether or not any gaps were ever filled. 

 

After thinking about this for a while, I have come to the following possible conclusion: I think that there are two different definitions of atheism that exist in the realm of the Ex-c forum.

 

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.  

 

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.

 

Based on the premise that I have presented, and in Jaded's case, he was influenced by his parents toward atheism. He did not go into detail about the specifics of what his parents taught him, how he came to the conclusions he came to. So, I am supposed to accept his life as "evidence" when there are so many things we don't know about it? And I think its pretty clear that he didn't understand the premise I brought forth since his last post asked for clarification of my position, when, if he had actually read the thread, he would have better understood what I was referring to.

 

So, in his case, I am not so sure that he defaulted towards atheism. It was how he learned it. I would argue that he was agnostic/atheist by default, purely by definition and not by concept, if that makes sense.  So, the fill the gaps does matter. It still supports my premise. Nothing he has presented has disproven my hypothesis.

 

Storm, can you link the study's in which you're referring to? 

 

I'm growing a little more skeptical of their nature now that the question has been raised. Are you certain that there's no theistic influence driving these study's? If there is then I'm sure I'd detect it upon reading through. Or have you simply taken different scientific studies and decided on your own that they should be interpreted as proving atheism is not default?  

 

I am not referring to any studies in particular. I am referencing my study of Cognitive Psychology and how the brain processes information and how it develops beliefs. This is a subject that has to my knowledge, not been studied specifically, but the ideas behind it have been. The quote in my original post comes from a book entitled "Biological Evolution of the Religious Mind and Behavior". This is a scholarly book, not a religious one. The entire purpose of the book is to shed light on why and how religion and the mind works. This book started me on the thinking process towards what I presented, but I found more information through other articles and books on the subject.

 

But simply studying cognitive psychology would yield this type of conclusion. Study Piaget's theories on schema. I found this article and found it interesting. There is a lot of information out there on this stuff if you want to spend the time studying it. I am not a nut job presenting some obscure idea. This is something that I drew conclusions from what I've read.

 

I don't recall that I believe that my premise has been proven, nor do I believe I have posted any such statement,  but my premise has yet to be disproved by anyone posting here. I am still learning and reading and being challenged by you and Jaded and BAA and anyone else that feels like presenting a challenge. And I accept that challenge. If I didn't, I wouldn't have posted it here.

 

Once again, I am willing to admit if and when I am wrong about this, but the more I study it and read and think about it, I think it has merit.  Multiple people in this thread, including you, have made comments that there is evidence that what I am presenting is viable and potentially true. Until I see evidence that disproves my premise, I will continue to hold on to it. If you choose to disagree, then that is fine.

 

Ok, I'm glad that you aren't saying that he doesn't remember age 2. 

 

As for 2 definitions of atheism, this is where you're not revealing yourself as up to speed with the atheist organizations and the general status of defining atheism. Theists have pushed for things like defining atheism as a positive belief in the non-existence of Gods. Even in terms of a New Atheist like Richard Dawkins, he's not foolish enough to go there. What the atheist organizations agree on is the soft and traditional definition of atheism which is simply a(not) theism(God belief). We've had long threads about atheism around here establishing the general sense of the term which is really simple. 

 

Every time you want to write atheism, instead write "without God belief" and then see how that clarifies things so much better. 

 

A ) For instance, we're talking about whether we're born in a defaulted atheist position. 

 

B ) For instance, we're talking about whether we're born in a defaulted without God belief position. 

 

You see how it doesn't matter whether we lack knowledge or understanding of a debate concerning the option of either atheism or theism. Atheism is simply the lack of God belief, without God belief.

 

And agnostic means non-committal or not knowing. Not knowing and lacking belief are the same thing. That's why the term agnostic atheist is something even the likes of Richard Dawkins will use. It's not one or the other, they go together. You don't know if Gods exist or not and until proven you lack any positive belief that they do. 

 

Learned or intellectual atheism extends from this but requires knowledge whereas mere atheism doesn't require any knowledge or decision making. In the case of Jaded atheist he was born into a house with divided religious views. His parents were both Theistic, but they didn't push religion down his throat so he grew up with a general lack of God belief even though his parents were both Theists.

 

He was born without God belief, and upon exposure to God belief through his parents belief, still didn't subscribe to it. Another point was made about Scandinavia, China, and Japan where religion doesn't really have much of a platform any more. Do these children default to supernaturalism? Well no, lack of God belief flourishes in these regions because belief is not pushed on everyone. There's a natural lack of God belief going around these days to consider. 

 

I guess that you've explained the lure of religion due to a primitive instinct towards magical thinking. I can't really disagree with that. That seems to be why we still have a religious majority. It comes in large part by what Dawkins was saying about survival instincts and blindly believing what we're told by adults.

 

But Theism is learned.

 

Atheism doesn't need to be learned, but it can be learned.

 

A ) Atheism (without God belief) is our first experience of life without learning it. 

 

B ) Theism or supernaturalism can be learned later in life and survival favors this.  

 

C ) Atheism (without God belief) can be learned in contrast to Theism and supernaturalism. 

 

Both BAA and I have experienced the above progression from initial lack of god belief, to acquiring God belief, to intellectually dropping it based on contemplation. 

 

You might say that we're born without God belief and so humans by default, lack supernatural thinking until they've either been exposed to it, or develop it on their own due to pure isolation and a lack of general understanding of how the world works. The supernatural default is secondary to the initial default of without God belief. And the original atheist default, due to it's primacy, has a good chance of returning again later in life when skepticism arises. 

 

I think that I can only agree with supernatuarlism and gap filling as a secondary default, one that's learned in the face of pure ignorance. It has to be learned. Gap filling is within the realm of learning, or trying to learn and I don't see any way around that. 

 

Atheism doesn't have to be learned! It's not a positive belief like supernaturalism and Theism.   

 

So ultimately there's clearly 2 defaults at play and I don't think, for that reason, that you can challenge atheism as default as the title reads. Even in the face of supernaturalistic survival instincts (which I think includes the ego consciousness desire to live forever beyond death) atheism is still default in the most technical sense. When you present gap filling, that doesn't negate what I've raised.

 

One might call this: "The primacy of atheism."

 

Josh, as I explained to midniterider in the previous post, I think it was important to differentiate between the two types of atheism. Thanks for your clarification about the definition. I do think that is an issue in regards to general talk regarding theism and atheism. But in terms of our discussion, I think that agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist in their most stripped down literal sense in the way I defined (which you apparently approved of in the other thread) seems to work best.

 

As midniterider brought up, are children really atheist? My gut says not really. They aren't anything. Agnostic atheist only in the literal sense. Cognitive psychologists seem to agree. I think that you and I would both agree that this is a complex concept we are discussing.

 

In my next post, I will link to an interesting article I found over the weekend. I ask that you read it and let me know what you think. It essentially says that you and I are both right and wrong.

[Storm]

I found an excellent article that addresses some of the issues that have been addressed in our thread and the authors have come to the ultimate conclusion that atheism and religious thinking are both natural and unnatural. Here is the link to the article. I think its worth the read. In the article, the authors essentially say that we are both right and we are both wrong.

 

I strongly suggest that anyone reading through this thread read the article I linked. It has some good ideas and helps explain in more depth why my views are right and wrong. It isn't a definitive article, but explains better than I can, regarding what in cognitive psychology of religion is being discussed and how it all works together. Its an exciting field that is relatively new and more and more information is being learned each year.

[Storm]

I found this quote by Pascal Boyer to be interesting:

 

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

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

 

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

[Joshpantera]

I found an excellent article that addresses some of the issues that have been addressed in our thread and the authors have come to the ultimate conclusion that atheism and religious thinking are both natural and unnatural. Here is the link to the article. I think its worth the read. In the article, the authors essentially say that we are both right and we are both wrong.

 

I strongly suggest that anyone reading through this thread read the article I linked. It has some good ideas and helps explain in more depth why my views are right and wrong. It isn't a definitive article, but explains better than I can, regarding what in cognitive psychology of religion is being discussed and how it all works together. Its an exciting field that is relatively new and more and more information is being learned each year.

I came out with my reason for stressing the soft definition of atheism in the other thread and hinted at it here. 

 

Why are we even resisting the idea that children are born atheist and then develop belief from there? It's the very demonizing of the term atheist that the organizations are trying to take issue with and change. You may feel that it's not fair to call them atheist, because of the general bad flavor atheism has been given. My claims are based on calling attention to this problem in such a way that agnostic atheism, which is the soft atheism that tradition favors and which is agreed upon by the consensus, can transcend the demonization that makes it seem so taboo to apply to babies and children. By sticking to what atheism means as simply not God belief, we quickly realize that we're not born with an innate belief in God but rather the opposite. By questioning the world, contemplating why things existence and how they work we can start filling gaps once gaps have been established. But until then, quite frankly, we are without God belief. 

 

Thanks for the link Storm, I'll comment after I've read it through.  

[Joshpantera]

Ok, I've read the article which basically comes to the very conclusions we've arrived at in this thread already by using logical deduction, which is that both theism and atheism are natural, and from another perspective unnatural. 

 

However the article mainly targeted the New Atheism which trends towards anti-theism, something we've touched on for reference, but which I am not necessarily promoting in my summary in the above post. I'm actually raising information about atheism that wishes to distance itself from the hard line variety. That variety has it's place in countering religious deception and apologetic's, but as you can see it's an intellectual variety that is of course natural and unnatural as outlined in the link, but it's not the real meat of what I'm getting at as concerns proper definition, the literal meaning, and not seeing the term atheism as a harsh or unfair treatment of babies and children who are quite naturally without God belief. When using the word atheism for children, I am obviously and automatically speaking of the only variety that could apply to them, soft or mere atheism. 

 

In fact, the article is somewhat outdated as concerns the polls displayed and especially the fact that the poll in question listed atheists as those who 'deny the existence of God.' That's the very problem that I've outlined here and in the other thread. That's the slander, that's the theistic painting of atheism which from the start assumes that there is a God in which to deny. That's what's changing. That's why I've tried giving some depth to the situation for the sake of correcting what I see as a great big straw man raised against mere atheism and it's often unrecognized place in modern society. People will shy away from coming out and just saying atheist because of stereotypes associated with saying it.  

 

But having said that, what I like about the article is the overall acceptance that atheism does have a valid point to consider.

 

The funniest part about this is that I've classified as a Natural Pantheist myself, a spiritual atheist of sorts. I belong to the World Pantheism Movement, Pantheist.net, and participate in private forums devoted to Pantheism. We're a little split with some of us favoring supernatural ideas like Panentheism and liberal theistic reasoning, and others like myself sticking to a fully naturalist world view which allows for natural spirituality, deep ecology, humanism, and a general intuitive feeling concerning the oneness or unity of the whole. I'm into things that Richard Dawkins would frown on and quite frankly wouldn't understand from his New Atheism perspective. I actually had a real pow wow on his forum over spiritual atheism. Nonetheless, I believe that atheism has been wrongly treated for a long time and I've taken up the cross of refuting what I consider mistreatment of atheism and atheists. 

 

You mentioned that you see yourself as going in a spiritual direction, I'm all ears concerning what sense you've made of how to go about doing that? 

[Ravenstar]

Technically… A-theist is the correct term.

 

'Atheism' today is jumbled up with anti-theism, humanism, etc…it has a lot more baggage than it's original definition... but in it's pure form it's just  'without god(s)'.

[Storm]

Ok, I've read the article which basically comes to the very conclusions we've arrived at in this thread already by using logical deduction, which is that both theism and atheism are natural, and from another perspective unnatural. 

 

However the article mainly targeted the New Atheism which trends towards anti-theism, something we've touched on for reference, but which I am not necessarily promoting in my summary in the above post. I'm actually raising information about atheism that wishes to distance itself from the hard line variety. That variety has it's place in countering religious deception and apologetic's, but as you can see it's an intellectual variety that is of course natural and unnatural as outlined in the link, but it's not the real meat of what I'm getting at as concerns proper definition, the literal meaning, and not seeing the term atheism as a harsh or unfair treatment of babies and children who are quite naturally without God belief. When using the word atheism for children, I am obviously and automatically speaking of the only variety that could apply to them, soft or mere atheism. 

 

In fact, the article is somewhat outdated as concerns the polls displayed and especially the fact that the poll in question listed atheists as those who 'deny the existence of God.' That's the very problem that I've outlined here and in the other thread. That's the slander, that's the theistic painting of atheism which from the start assumes that there is a God in which to deny. That's what's changing. That's why I've tried giving some depth to the situation for the sake of correcting what I see as a great big straw man raised against mere atheism and it's often unrecognized place in modern society. People will shy away from coming out and just saying atheist because of stereotypes associated with saying it.  

 

But having said that, what I like about the article is the overall acceptance that atheism does have a valid point to consider.

 

The funniest part about this is that I've classified as a Natural Pantheist myself, a spiritual atheist of sorts. I belong to the World Pantheism Movement, Pantheist.net, and participate in private forums devoted to Pantheism. We're a little split with some of us favoring supernatural ideas like Panentheism and liberal theistic reasoning, and others like myself sticking to a fully naturalist world view which allows for natural spirituality, deep ecology, humanism, and a general intuitive feeling concerning the oneness or unity of the whole. I'm into things that Richard Dawkins would frown on and quite frankly wouldn't understand from his New Atheism perspective. I actually had a real pow wow on his forum over spiritual atheism. Nonetheless, I believe that atheism has been wrongly treated for a long time and I've taken up the cross of refuting what I consider mistreatment of atheism and atheists. 

 

You mentioned that you see yourself as going in a spiritual direction, I'm all ears concerning what sense you've made of how to go about doing that? 

Yeah, the article is a couple years old. It kind of served two purposes regarding this thread. The first is to show that I am not coming up with some out in left field premise and that I am just a loony trying to challenge everyone. I read the stuff (not just this article, but several) and drew my conclusions. This is where I am at. I certainly have not definitively figured it all out, but this is pointing me in a different direction than I thought.

 

Secondly, it presented some idea in a more thorough fashion than we did, and presented some new ones as well. Just provided food for thought I guess.

 

I see your point about the definitions of atheism and why its important. It all makes sense and I agree that the definition could use some clarity in the grand scheme of it all. I was merely talking in simplistic terms in my attempt to put a definition on it.

 

I still think that children are no more atheist than a brand new, clean canvas is not a painting of a tree. Infant children are blank. The canvas is blank. Neither one has any value (as far as a determination of belief or non belief value, or of what the painting is, if that makes sense) until the information or paint is applied to the corresponding part (if you will).

 

I think the article brought up one thing that I had not considered in my thoughts and that is that many people are now being raised in primarily man made environments (cities) and not in the countryside, where the human cognitive processes in regards to "magical thinking" often occurs. Many humans don't experience the awe and wonder of nature and since they are being raised in an "artificial" environment, this is in some ways a deterrent towards the more naturally inclined cognitive processes that led towards "magical thinking". I thought it was interesting that the author of the article quoted a source that talked about how the U.S. is the only developed country that has a high rate of religious people and that the source thought that it was due to the fact that we have a high incidence of poverty and that even our middle class is only a short event away from a financial catastrophe. All of the other developed countries had a stable way of life and somewhat equal distribution of resources.

 

I guess that the more I think about it and the more I read about it, the more I am starting to see that this is a complex thing we are discussing. I think that we all understand that several sources feed our understanding of the world. The world itself, other people, our brains, experience, etc. Its certainly a complex and interesting subject for sure.

 

As far as your question regarding spirituality, I don't want to change the direction of this thread. I will PM you if that is ok.

[Storm]

 

Perhaps it might be good to distinguish between how we think from [/i] what [/i] we think. Atheisim is both a condition and a concept.

I think there is definitely merit to this statement. Sometimes I think we combine the two, when they need to be separate. Good point, Human!

[Joshpantera]

Storm wrote: "I guess that the more I think about it and the more I read about it, the more I am starting to see that this is a complex thing we are discussing. I think that we all understand that several sources feed our understanding of the world. The world itself, other people, our brains, experience, etc. Its certainly a complex and interesting subject for sure."

 

Complex for sure. 

 

Storm wrote: "I think the article brought up one thing that I had not considered in my thoughts and that is that many people are now being raised in primarily man made environments (cities) and not in the countryside, where the human cognitive processes in regards to "magical thinking" often occurs. Many humans don't experience the awe and wonder of nature and since they are being raised in an "artificial" environment, this is in some ways a deterrent towards the more naturally inclined cognitive processes that led towards "magical thinking". I thought it was interesting that the author of the article quoted a source that talked about how the U.S. is the only developed country that has a high rate of religious people and that the source thought that it was due to the fact that we have a high incidence of poverty and that even our middle class is only a short event away from a financial catastrophe. All of the other developed countries had a stable way of life and somewhat equal distribution of resources."

 

I found that interesting as well. This is probably two fold once again. Sure man made environments contribute to a decline in the sort of magical thinking that once occurred in primitive societies, but at the same time a major increase in knowledge has paralleled the rise in man made environments. The cities are generally were atheism flourishes. There we find both a more educated environment overall, as well as what they call an "artificial" environment. Recent polls show religion in decline and atheism on a steady increase so what ever the observation, it's changing and perhaps we're simply on the road to catching up with the older nations who have already outgrown our current mind set.