Babies are born athiests or theists

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by S.A.M., Mar 18, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    How sound is this statement argument, epistemologically?
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    An atheist is a person that does not believe in God.
    Newly born babies do not believe in God.
    Newly born babies are atheists.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Depends on your particular epistemological structure.
    In particular, it hearkens back to that old dead horse: 'Nature vs. Nurture'. Do we learn to believe in a deity, or are we trained to believe such?

    Side note: be careful with making use of soundness.
    Strictly speaking, soundness can only apply to an argument, and not a statement.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I think you have to know about theism before you can reject it. There are terms for different kinds of atheism, I believe it's been discussed on sciforums ad nauseum.
     
  8. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Perhaps.
    Nonetheless, this doesn't imply therefore that the 'native' mind-state of a human must be Theistic (this also works for the obverse position of course.).

    I would suggest that the native mind-state on this particular topic would be non-theistic.
    I say non-, as opposed to a-, so as to avoid any logic confusion.

    Akin to: are babies born democrats or fascists?
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    If we regard theism and atheism as symbols that define abstract concepts [which I do], does that change your opinion in any way?

    I have come across two pieces of information in the last month which initially passed me by, but later, their proximity coalesced in my mind and intrigued me.

    One was an article in New Scientist. While based on a lot of assumptions, there was a valid point about abstraction and causality that I found very interesting.
    The second was a reference given by spidergoat on the Piraha people who accept only that which can be empirically proven to them. Their capacity for abstract thought is so poor as to be almost entirely absent. They have no folk tales, no history beyond a couple generations, no numbers and no words for colour.

    To what extent is abstract thinking a prerequisite for concept formation?
     
  10. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Atheism describes without gods. As a label, it exists only after the assertion by others that god(s) exist(s) (theists).

    If there were no majority asserting that god(s) exist(s), there would be no need to refer to those that do not accept this assertion. If belief in unicorns became a majority belief, I would probably consider myself a a-unicornist. Belief in ghosts is widespread, and if aghostist where as easy to say as atheist, I'd likely use it. As it is, I happily refer to myself as a non-believer in ghosts. This doesn't imply that ghosts must first exist, nor does it imply that I was born with a belief in ghosts to begin with.

    The word atheist is simply a word. A label. The meaning can be whatever you wish it to be. You can define it however you like. Those who self-define as atheists, however, utilize the definition "a lack of belief in god(s)."

    New born babies are non-believers in gods. They lack a belief in gods among many, many other things. They are atheists.

    I agree, that without the term "theist" the term "atheist" would not exist. There would be no need for it. Without believers in gods, we would not need to refer to those that lack belief in gods. There may be a civilization on another planet in another galaxy that has a belief in something that neither of us have ever conceived of. Neither of us was born with a belief in whatever this concept is, but this same civilization may have a label for those who are non-believers. We must, out of necessity, fall under that label even though we do not know what it is or what it translates to.
     
  11. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Gods are presented to people by their cultures. Therefore, new born babies are atheists.
     
  12. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502

    As do I.


    Not at all.
    One cannot blindly lump all abstract concepts (or their attendant symbols) into the same epistemological type.


    Weird.
    I just recently read that one myself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In any case, I don't see how that one (or the second point either..) are relevant. But then, that simply because in my epistemological structure, there are various types of abstractions....

    Now that, is an intriguing question, in and of itself...
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Skinwalker:

    Thats okay, we're discussing the epistemological soundness, ie is it a priori or a posteriori?

    As I posted above:

    "Children the world over have a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work, and this early developing receptivity continues to anchor our intuitive thinking throughout life,"
    says anthropologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Could you give me an example?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Could you expand on that?

    Surely there has been some study of this?
     
  15. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Then, clearly, they're atheist, without gods, since god is an a posteriori concept.

    The analogy would be if I had never seen an apple before, then was introduced to an apple, would I have been considered without an apple before the introduction. Of course I was.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    But did you know you were without an apple before you were introduced to one?
     
  17. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502

    Off the top of my head: "shape" and "family".
    Two abstract conceptions with excessively varied generative history and (obviously) usage.


    See above.
    Depending one one's school of thought (epistemologically..), one will organize abstract concepts with varying classification systems.

    In pure Philosophy? Sure. Ever heard of the tabula rasa?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think however, what we're looking at here would require such an analysis that also would take into account some sociological and/or anthropological angles.
     
  18. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    It isn't relevant to whether or not I was without one.
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Hmm would a blind baby recognise shape? They could however, recognise family [or familiarity]


    Blank slate? How would one go about dissecting something like that, if one wanted to?
     
  20. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    As far as I could remember, the concept of god (i.e. the creator of the universe) was introduced to me by my surrounding. Means that I was born atheist, but was raised as theist. However, even if the concept were never introduced to me, I think in some points in life I would ask the question, did somebody create the universe, or has it always been there.
     
  21. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    They are not born either Atheist or Theist. Even up until they are old enough to talk they probably would not give it much thought. It is only wen the end of the tunnel is in sight that they begin to think about what comes after. One can not assume that a infant has the same anxieties that an older person would have.
     
  22. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    Babies are born atheists, since they cannot understand language, and therefore you cannot teach a child to believe in God.
     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Perhaps not the kind of "thought" as a philosopher, but a baby has to have, and exhibits some tendencies, to "believing" that his mother is nothing short of a god. Everything necessary in the baby's world comes from the mother. How could he view it otherwise?

    Agreed ...not the same anxieties as an old person. But if you've ever heard a baby cry, then you have to believe that he knows anxiety.

    And if you've ever seen a baby change abruptly from wild crying to deliriously happy when his mother arrives, then perhaps to him, that is god! The giver of all things, huh?

    Baron Max
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page