Religion
Related: About this forumThere's no such thing as an atheist baby
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheismRichard Dawkins' implication that babies have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming a default language or nationality
Andrew Brown
theguardian.com, Thursday 12 June 2014 09.59 EDT
'To reach the state where you can really reflect critically on your own beliefs takes a long time.' Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Some Muslims will never speak of "converts" but only "reverts" because they believe that everyone is born a Muslim, even if some babies have this truth hidden from them by their parents who tell them they're Christians or atheists. And there's a style of atheist rhetoric that makes exactly the same point. To take two random examples from my recent Twitter stream: Joan Smith wrote: "I'm not convinced there are Muslim or Christian children. They have religious parents, but should be able to decide when they grow up." And Richard Dawkins wrote: "When you say X is the fastest growing religion, all you mean is that X people have babies at the fastest rate. But babies have no religion."
But there are no atheist babies, and certainly no agnostic ones. This is for two reasons. The first is that if we're going to be consistent, and to demand that babies only be ascribed identities that they themselves embrace, there are no German, British or Chinese children either. There are simply the children of German and English and Chinese parents, who will in due course learn the habits and the rules of the cultures around them and grow into their parents' language, nationality, food habits and religious opinions. The way in which they express these will become more subtle and more interesting as they grow up or at least we can hope it will but the fact remains that babies are entirely anchored in the world by their parents.
But you don't get Dawkins and Smith complaining because people talk about "Chinese babies". They think religion is different. Well, it is. For one thing, and despite the existence of loathsome and barbaric laws against apostasy, in most of the world it's much easier to change your religion than your language or nationality. It is generally accepted that changing your religion is a human right, but changing your nationality is not. The big difference is that religions usually make it hard to leave and nationalities usually make it hard to enter. But in neither case does an individual get to choose as if no one else were involved. To imply that babies have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming that they have a default language or nationality.
Of course, in an environment where religion is regarded as weird and old-fashioned, children grow up atheist because that's what their parents are. They don't think about it. They may have profoundly superstitious and unscientific beliefs, but they will think of these as rational and atheist because that's what they know all decent people are.
more at link
Trajan
(19,089 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I had to stop immediately at every baby is born a Muslim.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'Atheist' is not a specific 'sect' or 'alternate religion'. It's simply a word referring to not being a theist, or one who believes in some supernatural deity.
So every baby might well be an 'atheist', unless you are claiming that babies are 'born with belief'. It's not saying that babies are born 'disbelieving' in a God. It's just saying they're no more born believing in a God than they are born believing in SpongeBob. They have no such concept until they mentally develop to the point where they CAN have such a concept.
So yes, babies are born 'atheist', but that says nothing about whether they'll grow up to become deliberate non-believers or priests. It's just a semantic issue, not a religious one. You can't have 'faith' until you understand that there is something to have faith in.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They most likely believe things about their parents that we can't even imagine.
I think the author makes a good point. It's a silly argument either way and using babies to make a case seems particularly silly.
But there might ensue a raging argument on the issue prompted by this article, which could be hilarious.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And babies do not have a belief in a god until that idea is presented to them.
No belief in god = atheist.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Children are not born with a belief in Islam, Buddhism, Pastafarian or whatever, but there is a question of whether the tendency to grow up and get religious belief just comes down to what a child is taught, or something else. Are some people born to be a certain way?
For example, a lot of the Al-Q types were born to parents that were NOT extremists at all, some of whom were atheists that would NOT have raised their children to be intense Muslims. Osama Ben Ladin himself was from a family that took their religion very lightly, as show by the fact that Osama himself was the son of a concubine, one of several his father had, which is forbidden by Islamic law (especially the strongly enforced law in Saudi Arabia.) Now, the books will analyze for years wehther Osama's religon was a way to get back at Daddy, or something that would have grown despite efforts by the family to discourage it.
Or let's use a simpler idea: has anyone did a study to see how many children raised in relgious households go atheist and vice versa? While ancedotal evidence may be common, what would settle the issue is to do a study that analyzes changes in attitudes towards relgion, yay so many atheist families, yay so many religious, and see what the children actually do. This might seem silly, but keep in mind, until the scienstist actually did hard, number crunching studies, few would have talked about a child being "born" gay. Thankfully, people did the studies, and now it is accpeted that people are born gay, that it is just another variable.
And if indeed, the study was done, then we get the payoff, because religion, which is assumed to be a choice, would then be just another variable.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)perhaps there is a predilection to be more or less religious that people are born with (just speculation) this would in no way point to which religion they would gravitate to. No one is born more prone to be a Christian or Muslim, that is a matter of where and to whom they are born.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Then prove that babies are born with it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do I really need to present proof to you that babies are curious?
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)So, yes, you made the claim and you need to back it up.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or not.
I don't need to do anything, particularly for someone who feels the need to personally attack me right out of the gate.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You should listen to your friend rug, after all, without evidence, you're simply posting fairy tales.
Words to live by.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)or even a kitten, believes they are consumed with curiosity, awe, and wonder. It's a thing with newborns, learning, and brain development.
More likely, it would behoove you to prove they are not.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Without evidence, posting fairy tales, etc.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)which one might call 'wonder'. They presumably do not, however, have 'wonder' in the spiritual sense, or even in the imaginative sense. While older preschoolers have a predilection for fantasy and magic, this is not found in infants: imagination does not appear to develop till the 2nd year of life.
Theory of mind, which makes it possible to have a concept of 'belief' at all, does not develop until the 2nd year of life at earliest estimates, and possibly not till the 4th or 5th.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or not. You are just making an assumption.
And what would it matter anyway? Making claims about a baby's religious state is just silly and senseless, imo.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)religious state is senseless.
Hence Dawkins point that saying "Christian child" or Muslim child" is silly.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Is it Just the general statement that more children are being born into certain religious cultures?
I think most people would agree that a child is not born with religion but many are born into a religion.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)the important part starts about 50 seconds in.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are a variety of ways that one can apply and interpret religious labels. It may have to do with the family, the community, the culture. It may be used in a rather secular way, as we have often discussed here and have more to do with historical connections than religion.
In addition, he is talking about a religious story that was being put on and how children from families with different religious affiliations were being included.
The comparison with groups of a political persuasion, and particularly with groups of no religious persuasion, doesn't raise my consciousness at all.
While I agree with him that babies are born without religion, who is he to say at what point a child may religiously identify or whether religious identity, even if it is primarily cultural, is appropriate for children.
There is no such thing as a catholic, jewish, muslim or catholic child? He' wrong about that.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)Some that babies are born religious or spiritual; some that they are born atheists.
'You are just making an assumption'
So are we all. So are you, when you say that babies are born 'with wonder'. All we know is that babies are born with a capacity for learning; anything that goes beyond that, with regard to their religious states, is an assumption.
'Making claims about a baby's religious state is just silly and senseless, imo.'
It may be. But on such claims there hinge many religious practices: e.g. infant versus adult baptism; not to mention the old concept of Limbo; etc.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)statements about children not having any religion and encourages his audience to challenge this every time they hear it.
He gives no scientifically based guidelines about when it might be ok with him for a child to religiously identify nor does he make any distinction between a more cultural/secular identification as opposed to a faith based one.
When talking of babies, that may be true. But when talking about children, who is he or anyone else to say when it is no longer true.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)or spiritual, just that there may be a genetic propensity towards being spiritual.
Wonder can be simply interpreted as curious. I think babies are curious and it doesn't really contradict your description here at all.
Rituals are a part of many aspects of a community, be they religious or not. Baptism is often about the parents raising the child in a specific religious tradition and I'm not sure what you mean about limbo in this case. Baptism at birth is generally followed by confirmation at an older age, when the child has undergone some education and is thought to be making the decision for themselves at that point.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)One view (note that infant capacities/ incapacities are very clearly emphasized here):
http://gospelway.com/salvation/infant_baptism.php
An alternative view:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism
Limbo was the afterlife that some Catholics proposed as the likely state for people who were not capable of accepting or rejecting God at the time when they died: this included both unbaptized babies, and 'heathens' who had never been exposed to the Gospel.
Here is a famous verse by Wordsworth about babies' spiritual condition: a lovely poem, but possibly questionable in its viewpoint:
'Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!'
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you might vehemently disagree.
It is not reflective of anything but itself.
Some denominations baptize at birth, others at an older age. It's really just about the ritual and how each group interprets it.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)But there are certainly views on infants' capacities, and religious standing, that are embedded in the rituals.
[img][/img]
cbayer
(146,218 posts)is that babies are atheist or theist.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)And the nationality argument is utter rubbish and a red herring.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)edhopper
(33,615 posts)nationality is about citizenship and country of birth.
It is a political designation used for legal reasons.
No one is born with Christian or Muslim beliefs, or a belief in any God.
It's apples and oranges.
Dawkins said babies have no religion, he did not say all babies are atheists, that is the author's invention.
It's stupid and I'm done talking about a ill-conceived worthless article like this.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)speechless
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Glad you said it first.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)What is your deal?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm sure you had the best intentions, your kindness to atheists on DU is legendary.
Still enjoying yourself?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's your opinion, and no one else is required to accept it.
unblock
(52,317 posts)thing simply because that's not particularly his thing. religion and atheism is.
i rather doubt that he was dispute the notion that babies don't inherently know the culture of the nation in which they will be raised, he just doesn't care to discuss it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)might be an inheritable trait, at least for some.
It is an argument that rather intrigues me, as it is clear that some people do not choose to believe or not believe, they just do or don't.
unblock
(52,317 posts)there's a strong correlation between the twins being spiritual or not, pointing to a genetic component.
however, there is no correlation between *which* religion that points to genetics. the religion of your parents or secondarily, the local community, are the main determinants there.
but i think there's a distinction between religion and sprituality. i think it's that spiritual sense of wonderment that's the inherited trait. they have to be taught the rest.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think "spirituality" is a better trait to study, as you point out. There is no doubt that family and community are huge determinants in which religion one may or may not ascribe to.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)percentage of humanity. It's well documented.
But a specific active belief, isn't. I've not seen one shred of evidence that it could be, or has been.
Edit: Unblock said it better, above.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If you don't understand what atheism is, I guess it would seem silly.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While the argument could be made that it is entirely passive and that babies don't really believe in anything, perhaps an equally valid argument could be made that atheism is an active rejection of a particular notion.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You've just stated the difference between agnostic and gnostic atheism.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And some secular 'things', like secular humanism are, if not belief systems, built upon the same template as a belief system and difficult or impossible to distinguish from such.
But 'atheism' is a passive lack of, not an active belief.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. That's it. Agnostic atheism is, therefore, the default position -- the null hypothesis -- on issues of religious belief.
As for children having some biological, pre-programmed conception of a higher power... that's just ascientific, evopysch nonsense. Infants aren't aware of their own states, emotions, or motivations, much less "high" concepts like an invisible external consciousness ruling the damned universe.
There's a reason geography is strongly correlated with religious identity, why kids born in Christian countries tend to identify as Christians into adulthood: because religion is taught. Arguing that there's some kind of genetic, evolutionary reason for this, without actually having proof, is a lazy post-hoc justification for extant human behavior. Handing an Argument from Naturalism a test tube and lab coat doesn't make it any less fallacious.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Very few, if any, people identify as non-stamp collectors, have emblems on their cars or avatars that reflect their lack of stamp collecting or join/support organizations that are primarily for non-stamp collectors.
So, I would argue that in some cases atheism is really an active position.
That would lead me to conclude that there are two kinds of atheism - passive and active - and that a distinction might need to be made when discussing it.
As was said elsewhere, I don't think that children have a biological conception of a higher power, but they may have a genetically based predisposition towards spirituality (or not). Those that do would seem more likely to adopt the religion of their families or communities, while those that don't would seem less likely to do so.
Also it was mentioned above that twin studies have shown this to be the case, though I have not seen these studies.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and share their stamp collecting experiences, if they had a preponderance of TV shows and radio stations dedicated to promoting stamp collecting, if they lobbied the government to make laws favoring stamp collectors over non-stamp collectors...
then I suspect you might see a few avatars or bumper stickers in use by non-stamp collectors, too.
Your objection to the comparison is what's weak, cbayer.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The comparison is functionally appropriate. The reason no one self-identifies as a not-stamp collector is because society hasn't imposed distinctions between those who collect stamps and those who do not. People do not assume not-stamp collectors are inherently immoral and untrustworthy, that not-stamp collectors are un-American, or that not-stamp collectors are "just as bad" as stamp collectors. Not-stamp collectors, generally speaking, aren't prone to feeling isolated or ostracized; they don't feel the need to commune with other not-stamp collectors. None of this has any bearing on the comparison, however, which is all about demonstrating that not believing in gods can be as passive a position as not partaking in a niche hobby, sport, or interest.
Whether or not one self-identifies as an atheist has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the belief is "active" or "passive". As others have already said, the distinction comes down to whether one is a gnostic or agnostic atheist.
If we treat the question of the existence of gods like a scientific hypothesis, it would look like this:
Hypothesis (+): There is evidence god or gods exist.
Hypothesis (-): There is evidence god or gods do not exist.
Hypothesis (Null): There is no evidence for the existence or non existence of god or gods.
Gnostic atheists disbelieve because they think they have sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of god or gods. This is a constructed position assembled from empiricism, logic, personal experience, what have you. One must actively assume this position.
An agnostic atheist, on the other hand, disbelieves because there isn't sufficient evidence to believe. It is the default position in an existential argument. It is a passive belief, regardless of how one self-identifies. It is no more reasonable to think people actively disbelieve God than it is reasonable to think Christians actively disbelieve Xipe Totec, or Ahura Mazda, or any of the hundreds of thousands of deities they've never heard of.
Twins share the same genetic information. If one maintains the family religion while the other does not, then it would seem religious preference is a product of socialization, not genetics.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and am not interested in going through it again. I am highly unlikely to persuade you that my position is correct and you are highly unlikely to convince me that yours is.
The twin studies mentioned show a positive correlation between spirituality/faith in twins, even when raised in different environments.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Hard, soft, strong, weak... you're just debating the appropriateness of the label, not whether disbelief requires a conscious effort.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene
While I would like to see how these conclusions were met by the scientific community, it is worth pointing out the author is saying some people are genetically predisposed to believe in certain things. It does not suggest babies are born with an innate belief in God.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have not personally analyzed the studies he cites.
But based on what I have read and seen, I lean towards belief/disbelief not being a choice for some, if not many, people. Whether that is due to an innate degree of spirituality or whatever you want to call it, I just don't know.
The discussion about whether a baby is an atheist or not is really a pretty silly argument. It is taking it beyond that and making the case for not allowing children exposure to certain things or insisting on exposure, whether one considers them fantasies or not, that I would object to.
Those that consider religion a poison or a disease that needs to be eradicated are just as objectionable as the one wayers who believe everyone who doesn't think like them is going to hell.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)He says nothing about not exposing children to religion. He's arguing people who don't understand the theological implications of belonging to a particular religion should not be counted as members of that religion for the purposes of making arguments from popularity.
People often say, "X" is the fastest-growing religion, as if that somehow makes the religion more credible. It doesn't. It means that religion's adherents are fucking like jackrabbits, and that's about it.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)He is the most evil atheist in the world - whatever sounds the worst is what they'll claim he said.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Have you not heard about that?
I happen to agree with his twitter statement.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You mean this?
I think its rather pernicious to inculcate into a child a view of the world which includes supernaturalism ... Even fairy tales, the ones we all love, with wizards or princesses turning into frogs or whatever it was. Theres a very interesting reason why a prince could not turn into a frog its statistically too improbable.
If so, I should point out he said "inculcate", not "expose". The difference in meaning is none-too-subtle.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And you are correct. He did use the word inculcate, but it's not really clear to me what he means by that. It could mean something as simple as just reading the same stories over and over again.
It seems a rather extreme opinion, imo, but he knew that when he said it.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)"Inculcate" implies the formation of attitudes or habits through repeated, persistent instruction. Constantly immersing your child in fairy tales without thinking to explain to them that they are just stories can't be very conducive to their development. There's nothing wrong with reading these things for entertainment's sake, as long as you take the time to explain to the child what entertainment is.
And this isn't much of a stretch when talking about certain religious parents who, from day one, shove scripture down their childrens' throats without giving them the time or the means to evaluate it themselves or come to their own conclusions. I think we can agree that is damaging as well.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Most kids, mine included, like to hear the same stories over and over and over again. And they don't want to hear anything about them just being stories. They are being entertained in part because they believe there is some truth to it. I'm trying to imagine the conversation you propose and it's making me giggle.
Dawkins, being a very smart man, realized that he couldn't make the case for not telling children religiously based stories without including other "fairy tales".
Indoctrination is an entirely different thing, and he probably should have stuck with that.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And Dawkins is its pope?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is what comes of pretending Atheism is a theology. It isn't. Forget babies. Take a fully grown adult. Now, assume that adult has never been exposed to, and completely unaware of any supernatural gods.
That person is by default, an atheist, even though he may not even be aware of the word at all.
Atheism is not a positive belief that one actively ascribes to. It's a lack of belief. It can be willful, or completely passive.
To the best of our understanding, a one day old baby has no concept of, or awareness of, any god or gods. Until that baby might be exposed to and adopt such material as belief, it defaults to a position of 'atheist'.
Where do these newspapers even find these idiot commentators?
Edit; Withdrawing the 'idiot' allegation. I reviewed the story comments, where the author is actively engaging. I'm starting to think his article was intentionally tongue in cheek.
"AndrewBrown Leopold1904
12 June 2014 10:13pm
Recommend
23 I think you'll find we've all been Buddhist babies. It's a phase you go through, over and over again."
That, is clearly a joke.
Edhopper is correct above, when he pointed out that Dawkins didn't say 'babies are atheists'. They are, by default, but that's not what he said:
""When you say X is the fastest growing religion, all you mean is that X people have babies at the fastest rate. But babies have no religion.""
randys1
(16,286 posts)said baby would not have any reason to believe in completely made up invisible men in the sky
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Since religions developed independently across almost all cultures, someone had to think it up.
randys1
(16,286 posts)who created an entire religion because his wife caught him cheating on her...
It is possible a religion could be born from hallucinogenics or someone with a creative mind
but since we know there is NO evidence ever, anywhere, from anyone, that any god exists, it had to be invented
cbayer
(146,218 posts)not be accurate.
We just don't know and no one really has the standing to make a definitive claim either way.
Your story about this has about as much to back it up as the person who says god spoke to him.
There is no evidence either way and every individual comes to their own conclusions, but they are not more right than someone else.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Why?
One of the reasons is George W Bush thought they needed christianity...one of many reasons
just sayin
cbayer
(146,218 posts)On another side note, I am watching the series 30 days. In one episode, a couple lives on minimum wage for 30 days. The only way they are able to make it is by accessing agencies, most of them religiously based, that offer goods and services that are essentials and not provided by any governmental or non-religious entities.
Why?
just saying
randys1
(16,286 posts)so while they get help here and there, without unemployment or medicaid or food stamps they would be way worse off
However, thanks to Gingrich and Bill Clinton, poor people do have to rely on religion more now than in a long time
Which is of course a nightmare if you are someone like me...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)it's not sufficient and the big holes in the safety net are filled by religious organizations more often than not.
I think it can be a nightmare for a non-believer, particularly if you live in a community where the religious groups are aggressive proselytizers. I would love to see more secular organizations step up to the plate.
But the fact remains that religious organizations do a lot of good around the world.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Catholic Charities, for instance, received a majority of its funding from the US taxpayer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021362380
So it would seem the shoe's on the other foot - the religious groups aren't "stepping up to the plate," and it's the secular government bailing them out.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Sandy
Mid-west floods
Tornadoes
Housing assistance
Food and clothing assistance
Employment skills training programs
And, as with most governmental grants, they come with standard reporting requirements -
financial data on the grants' uses. The When, Where, What, Who and Why. Along with documented outcomes.
These funds appear targeted to situations where the public, private and religious sectors were all needed to support those directly impacted.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Does nothing to dispute my point, though.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Consider that. Lots of the grunt work is done by volunteers. It's a common situation.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Do you have any evidence to support it?
pinto
(106,886 posts)Administrative expenses = 3.1%
Fundraising expenses = 2.6%
Program expenses = 94.2%
Rationale behind score adjustments:
Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive a 0-star rating for their Financial Health.
Deficit Adjustment:
While charities are not created to make a profit, they should not outspend their means. When a charity runs a combined deficit over time, we adjust its financial score downward. We do this by comparing its average annual deficit to its total functional expenses for the most recent year, and we then deduct that percentage from the charity's program expenses percentage. A charity's average annual deficit is limited to the same fiscal years over which we evaluate the organization more generally (see our discussion of performance categories 5 and 6 to learn how we determine the number of years to consider in evaluating an organization).
For example, charity Z, which spent 71.4% on its programs, ran a deficit of $425,000 in 2003, a $350,000 deficit in 2004, a surplus of $275,000 in 2005, and a deficit of $200,000 in 2006. Over a four-year period, it ran a combined deficit of $700,000, which averages to $175,000, or 5% of $3.5 million in total functional expenses for its most recent year. We deduct that 5% from Charity Z's program expenses score, adjusting it to 66.4%, and now use the revised program expenses to score Charity Z.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But it doesn't support your claim.
rug
(82,333 posts)It is not a default position.
Theism is the thesis.
A-theism is the antithesis to that.
Atheism, to an infant, is no more a default positlion than Anislam.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Well the subject line is accurate anyway. You can't categorize someone 'without' X if you don't have X to compare to.
The antithesis in this case, being WITHOUT, not 'against' or some other positive structure that would require the awareness of the person to embrace.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So it's curious how you got it so completely wrong.
rug
(82,333 posts)Would being the operative word.
But, given absence is the opposite (check the root) of presence, it's simply a fail.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Prove me wrong.
As others have told you repeatedly, your personal definition of atheism is incorrect
But you don't care about facts or honesty, you refuse to let us define our own beliefs or lack of them telling us over and over again what you think and what you believe.
Yeah, telling us what we believe and then laughing at us when we tell you it's offensive is great sport.
From www.religioustolerance.org :
Spreading misinformation about a group's beliefs or practices even though the inaccuracy of that information could have been easily checked and corrected
If one believed that this definition was true, that would make you a religious bigot.
I guess I do believe in something.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Hope you are well and have a nice weekend.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's certainly not the first time you've been called out and I'm sure it won't be the last.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Find someone else to shit on.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Lack of belief in gods versus the belief there are no gods. The majority of atheists seem to use the first definition while non atheists seem to enjoy the second definition. Babies are godless. They don't even have object permanence. Using the atheist definition of the word, babies are definitely atheists.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)who uses it in which way.
I think you describe passive and active atheism and agree that the majority of atheists are more likely passive.
But those that sport avatars, join organizations and, most importantly, engage extensively on websites about religion, are much more likely to be active.
If you see non-atheists using the term in the 2nd sense perhaps it is because that is who they are most likely to engage with.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I am way to full (of chicken) and lazy to try to find and research that may not even exist on the subject right now.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)so they aren't atheists or religious.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There's actually only two possibilities here. Theist or atheist.
The math is not complex.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)People who have been exposed to the idea of god(s), and understand the concept of true and false belief, might be described as either theists or atheists. Even there, it's not totally clear-cut, with many adults being vaguely agnostic; religiously indifferent; or believers in non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, ancestor worship, or animism. The maths is in practice fairly complex even in adults.
In the case of infants, they have neither the concept of 'God' nor of 'belief'; therefore they cannot be classed as either 'believers in God' or 'nonbelievers in God'.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Theism/atheism is about belief.
if one does not have belief in a supernatural god, whether they have been exposed to the idea or not, they are by default, an atheist. Because they lack belief.
Words have meaning. (And being 'vaguely agnostic' has nothing to do with whether one is an atheist or a theist)
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)(or probably isn't a god).
I don't think you can say that someone is an atheist if they simply have no concept of God. By that definition one would have to say that a cat is an 'atheist', or that people in the 19th century 'didn't believe in the Internet'.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But that is not required. All that is required is disbelief in any proposed gods.
It has to do with positive/negative statements. If I say 'the Abrahamic god does not exist', that's a positive claim. It is now my burden to prove that claim, or accept that the claim is just my opinion. If I say 'I don't believe your claim of the existence of the Abrahamic god', that's quite another matter. There's no burden upon me to disprove the existence of that or any other god.
Again, Theism is about belief. A-Theism is a 'without' modifier. It doesn't matter why the person is without belief. It might be a positive, firm, gnostic claim that there is no god. Or it might just be a Null Value to them, having either never been exposed to the idea, or having been exposed, and dismissed the idea as unconvincing. Both types are equally properly labeled 'atheist'.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I have absolutely no idea what people are talking about when they describe their god(s).
No it doesn't, why do you keep insisting otherwise?
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)but I think it's very difficult for an adult in our society to have NO concept of God, if only the concept that many people think that there is a God that explains the world.
I suppose atheism doesn't mean believing that there is DEFINITELY no God; but it does involve having a world view that does not involve a God: thinking that the world is not explainable in terms of a God, or is explainable in other terms.
I don't think that young babies have sufficient concept of explaining the world, or of the ways in which other people do so, to have any world view at all, or to be either religious or atheist. I could of course be wrong. It is difficult to test what young babies know; and some recent studies have shown them to have more advanced concepts of certain things (e.g. object permanence) than was thought in the past. But it still seems unlikely to me that their concepts of the world are advanced enough to produce the types of explanations that we consider to be religious or atheist.
Nor do I think that this is some sort of criticism of atheism. It is a discussion of the sort of concepts, of which infants are capable. I am an atheist; I am also a left-winger. In just the same way, I don't think that babies are born either left-wing or right-wing: they don't yet have the conceptual development to form such views of society.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I chose my political affiliation, I did not choose to be an atheist.
I reject your definition of my world view, do you really not know how offensive that is?
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)I really don't know what is offensive here? If I AM possibly being offensive and judgemental here, it is of babies, not atheists.
As someone who normally agrees with you on issues, I don't understand why you find it so upsetting that some people don't think that babies are naturally atheist OR religious. I think you may be assuming that it comes with some sort of baggage that in my case doesn't exist at all. I do not agree with the entire article in the OP, which I think is pretty silly and pompous. I am just expressing a certain view from developmental psychology, NOT a judgement of atheism.
ETA: Although voting decision and party affiliation are choices, I am not at all sure that left wing and right wing 'core values' are entirely so, either.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)where I was discussing older pre-schoolers, and was objecting to the view that children are born religious.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I really wasn't exposed to the concept of God when I was young. I was very lucky to have spent my childhood on a small island in the most progressive state in the country. We had a 3 room schoolhouse, grades 1-8. Happiest days of my life.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I wasn't upset because of your opinion about atheist babies (which wasn't even what Dawkins said, his exact words were "babies have no religion" , I thought you were trying to redefine atheism. After 10 years of constant battles on DU you may have noticed that this issue gets me a little wound up.
I've known you for a long time and we agree on just about everything which is why I was confused by your posts.
I'm sorry.
I agree about core values, btw, thanks for the insight, you've given this much to think about.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)I was coming to this as a developmental psychologist, not as a theologian or theological debater; and to be honest, I don't even know that much about all the arguments/definitions re atheism. I am fortunate perhaps to live in a country where atheism as such is not that often attacked, but where we still have to fight against anti-secularism at times.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Atheist means one who disbelieves in the existence of a god(s). It does not necessarily mean you hold the opposite position that there are no gods.
It is about lacking a belief. Nothing more. One who believes there are no gods obviously lacks a belief in gods thus explicitly making them an atheist. A person who neither believes in any gods nor holds that there are no gods also lacks a belief in any gods is implicitly an atheist.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)I think that saying that young babies do or don't believe in God is a bit like saying that they do or don't believe in algebra.
By the way: I should point out in this context that I work in a field related to developmental psychology, and am coming to this topic from that point of view, not from the point of view of religious debate as such. I am a second-generation atheist myself, so as near to having been an 'atheist baby' as one can get; but I still think it's a misleading term in that context.
I also disagree that babies are born naturally religious, which is also a theory that has been brought up on DU.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 14, 2014, 05:28 AM - Edit history (1)
But rather, to impress upon everyone else that it is not an active position. It can be, but it can also be passive.
Unfortunately the babies analogy is a good way of explaining that.
Belief being defined as holding a statement to be true, and disbelief being defined as not holding a statement to be true; babies make a good example of a person who does not hold a position to be true, while not holding the exact opposite position (that no gods exist) either.
I personally prefer using the example of a person born and raised on an island who has never head of Betty Crocker (you can insert a different fictional character of your choice if you want). They have never even heard of Betty Crocker and have no clue if she exists or not. They can neither answer true or false to the question of her existence.
I bet some people reading this are rushing to wikipedia looking her up to learn that she is a fictional character right now.
I am not fond of the baby example myself (as it sounds like we are trying to artificial inflate our numbers), but I get why it is used.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Marry me.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)But I am not looking for any relationships at this time.
How about we just be buddies for now
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Anything for you.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Then they do not believe in god. The definition of belief being holding statement to be true. Disbelief/non-belief being not holding a position to be true.
Disbelief does not necessarily mean or imply that one holds the opposite belief to be true either.
LeftishBrit
(41,210 posts)It generally means a person (or group or culture) who believe that there is no God, or is unlikely to be a God; and explain the world in other ways than through a God, or acknowledge that it cannot be fully explained.
Young babies do not explain the world at all.
According to your definition, one would have to say that a jellyfish is an atheist - I think the term is normally reserved for those with a capacity for a concept of 'God', whether they accept this concept or not.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)But I could also point to the word "theory" where a significant proportion of the population does not understand what the word actually means. Many people use it as a synonym for a guess, hunch or hypothesis, when it actually means far more than that.
Generally, in modern English language, the prefix a- means without. For instance, apolitical usually means that one is not interested in politics rather than opposed to politics in general. Usually the prefix anti- or contra- are used to indicate holding the opposite position. Similarly the suffix -ist means a person. Thus a-theism means lacking theism (belief in god) and atheist refers to a person who lacks theism. Thus, a jellyfish can not be considered an atheist as they do not count as persons.
If you use its historical or etymological origins you go back to the greek word atheos which meant godless. Also it should be noted that it was used by both the early Christians and Hellenist to negatively describe one and another. For most of history the word has been used as an insult and also meant immoral. As an atheist yourself I think you can understand why taking those definitions are problematic and flawed.
The main atheist organizations in my country, the American Atheists and Freedom From Religion Foundation, both hold the same positions. I have no clue what the position of similar organizations in your country might be (assuming you are British and still live in Britain from your userID).
To complicate things further, there are people who have motivations other than correctly describing us who want to distort the word for their own purposes. Whether to make the meaning so narrow as to marginalize us and our views, or to try and make atheism to be more than it appears so as to call it a religion unto itself. There are conservatives in the USA that try and claim this so as to say secularism is the promotion of atheism and demand that their theology be taught in public schools. And some just want to say atheism is just as flawed as theism in that both assert unprovable positions so as to make themselves feel superior to both groups.
So you understand where I am coming from, I hold neither position to be proven, that there is a god(s) nor that there are not any god(s). I suspect the latter but hold neither to be true. I identify as an implicit atheist, or agnostic atheist if you will.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)1) That atheism is an active position
2) demand that babies only be ascribed identities that they themselves embrace
The first is both an objectionable and false claim. It is simply a lack of belief.
The second is an opinion the author made, and to which most countries in the world reject. If you only meet the conditions of being a Chinese citizen, then you are a Chinese citizen. Ascribe to yourself that you are Japanese all you want, unless you are able, willing, and actually do take the steps necessary to become a Japanese citizen....you will still only be a Chinese citizen.
Again, atheism is simply a lack of belief. One can believe in an afterlife, fairies, leprechauns, or whatever, and still be an atheist so long as they do not have a belief in god(s). He is thinking of a "skeptic."
I have other issues with his statements here, but without more background in child psychology I hesitant to comment. Let me just say I am "skeptical" of his claim that supernaturalism is natural to children. That would take an understanding of there being a natural order to things and entities that go beyond that. That is a very abstract concept which I doubt a very young could develop on their own. I think they definitely make irrational explanations to explain the world around them, but without outside input those explanations probably seem very natural to the child.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)is, like his comments on women, and Islam, and other social science matters, is skating on thin ice. It is one thing for him to talk about genetics, indeedm in the hard sciences, he can run circles around most. The danger is when people try to carry that authority into social science, which is totally different. Just because you are a Michelin four-star French chef does not mean you can make Sushi.
Simply put, he needs to let the sociologists and psychologist debate these matters, and stick to biology.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)and not the authors rehash of them
Dawkins was commenting on calling a young child a Christian or Muslim or Jewish is absurd because no one is born with specific religious beliefs.
(if you know of some sociological study that counters that, I would like to see it.)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)distinction as to when a child may develop religious beliefs.
I agree with the person you are responding to. When he talks of genetics and evolution, he is on firm ground.
When he moves into sociological areas, he is in quicksand, has no data and sounds like an evangelizer.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)there is nothing wrong if two toddlers were playing together and the caption says "Muslims and Jews enjoy the sandbox"?
He is commenting here on how the popular culture refers to religion and children, and the ground under him seems quite firm.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)In fact, I would applaud it, because the comment would have little to do with what they do or don't believe religiously, but with what groups they are culturally identified with.
Would you have an issue with it?
The ground under him is quicksand, imo. But on that, we shall just have to disagree.
because it sets up that the children identify themselves as such and therefore it is great that the two "sides" can play together.
Instead of what is really happening, two children playing and indifferent to the larger worlds label.
Dawkins would have it be children from Muslim and Jewish families at play" and not put the beliefs onto the children.
Again he is making social commentary, using the example of the feminist. Did you disapprove of every feminist who commented about popular culture who did not have a degree and cite the research to back them up.
You insistence that Dawkins is out of his venue is a strwman to me.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It really is great when the two sides can play.
He can put it however he wants and he can preach to his audience that they should challenge it whenever they see it, but most of the world understands it for what it is and many would like to see people, including children, from all faiths and no faiths, playing in the sandbox together.
It's much more gratifying than trying to make a crusade out of how they should or shouldn't be identified.
There is a stridency which becomes counter-productive, in which the goal seems only to alienate, that can occur within some movements.
Whether Dawkins is out of his venue or not is not the issue. Whether he can approach this venue as a scientist is.
Response to cbayer (Reply #123)
edhopper This message was self-deleted by its author.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I have voiced agreement with what he tweeted and have repeatedly acknowledged the good work he has previously done in bringing the issue of atheism to the fore. He has a lot of responsibility and deserves a lot of credit for kicking down the door.
What I find objectionable is his militant anti-theism (both his self-identifying terms) and his position that religion is a disease that must be cured.
Your seeing everything I write about him as contempt is duly noted.
I withdraw my remark and just say we have a different view of both what he is saying and this subject in general.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's been a pleasure talking with you.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)weekend.