You aren't born Atheist

Zombrex

There is a very interesting article in this month (fortnight's?) New Scientist about current theories about what religion comes from.

Most of it deals with research with children, that strongly suggest our brains are hard wired from birth to view agents in nature (something a lot of us here have been saying for a while) and to invent the supernatural.

This is an instinct we develop very early (as young as 3 or 4 years old), and carry with us into adulthood.

So the idea (often said on this forum) that we are born atheist is not quite accurate. We wouldn't be adopting religions such as Christianity without first hearing of them, but it seems that children left to their own devices will simply invent their own "god" (supernatural agents) and their own religion to explain the motivation of these agents, framed around human interaction (gods are basically supernatural humans).

This seems to be strongly linked with the idea we have of our own minds. This ability of the brain helps us visualise people who aren't with us (Your grandmother was happy to get your post card) and also visualise people who are abstract (People who go into rivers can drown). But this ability to view a "person" as an abstract entity seems to be linked to belief in the supernatural, and the after life. Children we shown a puppet show where a crocodile ate a mouse. Afterwards when asked questions about the physical mouse the children appeared to understand he no longer existed, but when asked about the mental mouse (what would he like to do now) the children had no trouble seeing the mouse's mental faculties as still existing.

Something slightly to aside, but something I found fascinating, is the tendency to fall back on these instincts when we feel our lives our out of our control.

Studies in the states have found that a person is much (hugely more) likely to see patterns in things that are random if they feel they are out of control or over whelmed. There are a number of evolutionary explanations for this, mostly a survival instinct, our brains fall back on this instinct to see patterns to identify danger, but it goes quite a long way to explaining why people in hard times (such as the 1930s depression) gravitate strongly to religion and things like religion (ie things that provide structure and explanation to random events)

Quite a few of the Christians on the Christianity forum talk about finding religion when they were at their lowest point (stressed, life out of control, no sense of direction or purpose), and interestingly quite a few use patterns they claim to have noticed in life as evidence for God's existence and his presence, which ties into what these experiments were showing. We invent patterns in random events and then agents to explain these patterns as a way of our brains trying to regain order over our lives.

It notes that even atheist do this about things other than god. Atheists can be a superstitious as theists and still have a tendency to believe in concepts such as luck and fate (seeing patterns in random events in their lives).

Atheism is more a conscious move away from this baser instinct of ours than a default state we would find ourselves in if religion didn't exist. An atheist needs to work at atheism, rather than the other way around.

The whole article was fascinating, if a little short (they tend to be in New Scientist), recommended reading for atheists and theists a like.

cavedave

There is some evidence that people are evolved to believe in god.

However there is a fair amount there not. The Pirahã have no God, their language does not match Chomsky's universal grammar and they have no counting.

If the ideas of god, language and mathematics are not innate it makes you wonder what is?

Húrin

I've always been suspicious of the claim that everyone was born atheist. It smacks of a lazy universalising of the experience or nature of all people, in a field where our knowledge is so limited that we cannot know.

It also implies the completely wrong idea that the atheism of an adult (i.e. conscious rejection of the existence of God, often on moral grounds) is somehow similar to the atheism of a baby.

Phototoxin

hmm interesting..

ChocolateSauce

True, we want explanations for things. But we'd invent answers to questions if left to our own devices. What if as soon as we ask a question the scientific answer is provided? It can only be ignorance that would cause someone to develop their own religion from birth. If they had facts, it wouldn't happen. There would be some un-answerable questions, but compared to the ones that could be answered which related to their every day lives, these would be few.

I'll keep this article in mind (yay subscription!), but I remain sceptical.

Overblood

Húrin wrote: »

I've always been suspicious of the claim that everyone was born atheist. It smacks of a lazy universalising of the experience or nature of all people, in a field where our knowledge is so limited that we cannot know.

But you weren't born a Christian either.

cocoa

Surely a lot of this goes back to the problems with defining atheism? More than once I've had people insist that as an atheist I believe god does not exist, as opposed to just lacking the belief that he, or she, does exist...

Having read the OP, I'd still say everyone is born an atheist, but you could argue it's natural to grow / develop into theism. It's mentioned the instinct develops as early as 3 or 4. Nevertheless, at birth, the belief is not present, IMO, you could argue that the seeds of belief are there, but I think at birth babies still lack the belief itself.

philologos

Overblood wrote: »

But you weren't born a Christian either.

How is that relevant? Nobody claims to be naturally Christian, people claim to be transformed due to hearing the Gospel. There would be no transformation if one had been originally Christian from birth.

Húrin

Overblood wrote: »

But you weren't born a Christian either.

I'm flabbergasted that you think I would make such a claim. How did you infer that from my post?

Cool Mo D

Húrin wrote: »

I've always been suspicious of the claim that everyone was born atheist. It smacks of a lazy universalising of the experience or nature of all people, in a field where our knowledge is so limited that we cannot know.

It also implies the completely wrong idea that the atheism of an adult (i.e. conscious rejection of the existence of God, often on moral grounds) is somehow similar to the atheism of a baby.

You do not need to consciously reject God to be an atheist. Someone who has never even heard of the idea of God is as much an atheist as someone who has considered the arguments and found them wanting.

Overblood

So what are we born then? We aren't born anything. We are just born as baby humans with blank-slate minds that absolutely suck up information. And that "transformed due to hearing the Gospel" crap that you mentioned is just child abuse. Since a babies reasoning powers are about the same as a spud, the church deem this a great moment to brainwash them. Start 'em young.

Húrin

Cool Mo D wrote: »

You do not need to consciously reject God to be an atheist. Someone who has never even heard of the idea of God is as much an atheist as someone who has considered the arguments and found them wanting.

The intellectual difference between the two groups is so great, that to use the same description word for both of them is incredulous.

Overblood wrote: »

So what are we born then? We aren't born anything. We are just born as baby humans with blank-slate minds that absolutely suck up information. And that "transformed due to hearing the Gospel" crap that you mentioned is just child abuse. Since a babies reasoning powers are about the same as a spud, the church deem this a great moment to brainwash them. Start 'em young.

Careful now, I'm being burned by your rage here.

I don't know. A newborn isn't exactly an atheist because they're not actively and consciously rejecting the concept of a god, and I think that that is a large part of atheism - at least as it's currently known, anyway. But, they don't believe in a god either, so in that sense, technically, they would be something similar to an atheist.

I suppose they're just indifferent to the issue. Still, I think they're far closer to atheism than theism.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

The intellectual difference between the two groups is so great, that to use the same description word for both of them is incredulous.

I'm inclined to side with Húrin on this, but it really boils down to how you define atheism. I can't equate the thought process and the beliefs that I hold which led me to atheism with that of an infant. You shouldn't label children with any intellectual position as they have not thought about it.

eoin5

This reminds me of my neurocomputation lectures, we went on a few wild tangents .

I think we have an innate tendancy to invent the supernatural. It seems very like our innate language functions. A group of children can create a language incredibly fast. Naom Chomsky and others put forward the idea of a universal grammer to help generalise all languages to a common structure and its mostly accepted as being spot on.

Itd be nice if we have a similar work to generalise all our natural beliefs in the irrational accounting for memes and other influential factors.

Zombrex

perhaps I should clarify a bit

what I meant was that the view that if a child grew up without ever being exposed to religion they would not believe in supernatural agents (gods, spirits) etc, seems wrong

the child would naturally make these up, similar to how children who grow up without language devise their own language.

I appreciate that not everyone here believed that in the first place.

it is part of our human instinct to gravitate towards viewing the universe this way.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

perhaps I should clarify a bit

what I meant was that the view that if a child grew up without ever being exposed to religion they would not believe in supernatural agents (gods, spirits) etc, seems wrong

the child would naturally make these up, similar to how children who grow up without language devise their own language.

I appreciate that not everyone here believed that in the first place.

it is part of our human instinct to gravitate towards viewing the universe this way.

Oh, right. Now I get you. Yah, I'd agree with that - it seems plausible.

Tim_Murphy

There is a very interesting article in this month (fortnight's?) ...

This week's edition. :pac:

It's an interesting article alright. Makes a lot of sense.

seamus

I would consider any child incapable of deciding a God question in any way, for or against. There's no such thing as a theist or an atheist child. They lack the faculties to visualise and comprehend the concept of "God" and many children will believe that God is something tangible within our reality - like Santa.
Many people will identify with spending their younger years believing that when they went to Mass, the priest on the altar was actually "God". Such is the young mind's inability to comprehend the scale of what you need to accept if you are to believe in God.
And if you're incapable of understanding what God is supposed to be, then you're incapable of accepting or rejecting it. You're in a theistic limbo for all intents and purposes.

I have absolutely no doubt that our brains are wired in a such a way that we see "more" in almost everything, even the most mundane things. I had it pretty bad as a younger teenager - I thought that the arrangement of songs on a mixed tape was significant and would have an effect outside of just being music, for example.

philologos

Overblood wrote: »

So what are we born then? We aren't born anything. We are just born as baby humans with blank-slate minds that absolutely suck up information. And that "transformed due to hearing the Gospel" crap that you mentioned is just child abuse. Since a babies reasoning powers are about the same as a spud, the church deem this a great moment to brainwash them. Start 'em young.

Where did I mention transformed due to hearing the Gospel in relation to children?

I personally would have accounted for this process during my late teenage years, to the present in early adulthood and probably it is still continuing.

As for "child abuse" teaching a child about a particular religion is no more child abuse than refusing to. Children are always going to be predisposed to the environment of their parents irrespective.

Simon.d

Húrin wrote: »

The intellectual difference between the two groups is so great, that to use the same description word for both of them is incredulous.

I agree... But the word Atheist refers to all those groups who don't believe a God exists...

This includes those unaware of a God, Agnostics who are unsure whether or not God exists, and those who actively believe God doesn't exist...

I would say new born babies would have to fall into the first grouping, i.e. atheists unaware of the idea of a God, much like my atheistic dog...

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

the child would naturally make these up, similar to how children who grow up without language devise their own language.

Now hang on, I didn't, am I just special?

The closest I got was in my early teens I was quite 'interested' in the supernatural, mainly stuff like Erik Von Daniken, however this was because to an impressionable teenager without access to an opposing view this stuff seemed reasonable.

You're just going to have to take my word for it, I didn't have daily atheist indoctrination from my parents (in fact neither really engaged with me about religion at all).

I personally don't think we're disposed to be theists, except in a round about way I'll explain. I think we are disposed to want a explanation, and we will accept the best one. We still see this all the time, many people just don't like accepting "We don't know" and far prefer "God did it", at least it's an explanation!

For much of our history, this natural (evolved) tendency to need things explained has made us theists, however today we have far better explanations for things.

ChocolateSauce

Wicknight wrote: »

perhaps I should clarify a bit

what I meant was that the view that if a child grew up without ever being exposed to religion they would not believe in supernatural agents (gods, spirits) etc, seems wrong

the child would naturally make these up, similar to how children who grow up without language devise their own language.

I appreciate that not everyone here believed that in the first place.

it is part of our human instinct to gravitate towards viewing the universe this way.

Well in that case!

Daemonic

seamus wrote: »

Many people will identify with spending their younger years believing that when they went to Mass, the priest on the altar was actually "God".

Total aside here really but although I don't recall believing the priest was God, I do recall the notion that the speakers dotted around the church were the 'prophets' they kept wittering on about

kiffer

Daemonic wrote: »

Total aside here really but although I don't recall believing the priest was God, I do recall the notion that the speakers dotted around the church were the 'prophets' they kept wittering on about

I've never even heard the idea that kids might think the priest was God...

I did think it odd that Jesus lived in a safe under a massive statue of himself getting killed...

seamus

http://www.overheardindublin.com/story.php?id=786

CerebralCortex

Daemonic wrote: »

Total aside here really but although I don't recall believing the priest was God, I do recall the notion that the speakers dotted around the church were the 'prophets' they kept wittering on about

Just shows how incredibly boring mass is to a child. I've been told that once during mass I asked my mother whether or not frogs eat grass. I was also curious as to why Jesus wore a cloth nappy. Apologies for being completely off topic.

Húrin

pH wrote: »

Now hang on, I didn't, am I just special?

The closest I got was in my early teens I was quite 'interested' in the supernatural, mainly stuff like Erik Von Daniken, however this was because to an impressionable teenager without access to an opposing view this stuff seemed reasonable.

You're just going to have to take my word for it, I didn't have daily atheist indoctrination from my parents (in fact neither really engaged with me about religion at all).

Despite your parents you have been raised in a western culture where rationalism is the rule, with Christianity as a background presence informing our moral ideology. My upbringing was similar, and I showed interest in the paranormal at the same time. But then I became a Christian at age 21 so you might say our paths diverged.

We would need to put a hypothetical child somewhere with no cultural reference points to test the theory.

Galvasean

Húrin wrote: »

We would need to put a hypothetical child somewhere with no cultural reference points to test the theory.

We'd probably need a few hundred to test it out properly, every child being different and all that, to see what the 'norm'/percentage ratio is.

Cool Mo D

Húrin wrote: »

The intellectual difference between the two groups is so great, that to use the same description word for both of them is incredulous.



Careful now, I'm being burned by your rage here.

I don't believe there is a great difference between the intellectual positions really - I am an atheist because I have never heard or seen any remotely convincing evidence for a God, so I don't believe in one. Someone who has never heard of the concept of God is in the same position.

And on a tangential note, agnostic does not ever mean atheist. Agnostic means you are not sure if God exists or not.
If you have weighed the evidence for God, and you do not find it convincing, you are not agnostic, you are atheist.
You do not have to come to the intellectual position that it is impossible for God to exist to be an atheist.

What I'm getting at is that atheism does not require any sort of belief, it is simply the absence of any belief in God. The strong intellectual rejection of God is still atheism, but it is only a subset of atheism.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

We would need to put a hypothetical child somewhere with no cultural reference points to test the theory.

Well we are atheists, that shouldn't be a problem ...

Obni

We are all born athiests.

The perception of outside agencies develops as an infant matures. I would have thought that before the age of 3, mentioned by Wicknight, the human brain would be capable of seeking out patterns in the regularities of certain agencies and the seemingly random nature of others. What could be more fundamental than an emerging comprehension that appealing for comfort from the distress or hunger you experience often has the desired result? Would the relief come without the appeal? I would say by 3 we are well primed to begin the journey toward filling in all the missing details. Whether we are

=====

You know what people? Plato's cave. G'night.

Húrin

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I don't believe there is a great difference between the intellectual positions really - I am an atheist because I have never heard or seen any remotely convincing evidence for a God, so I don't believe in one. Someone who has never heard of the concept of God is in the same position.

Um, no this just isn't the case. Do you think that it is likely you would have come to this position if you were born in mediaeval times?

No, your atheism is dependent on your awareness of the concept of God, and your own cultural context in late 20th/21st century Ireland. You are in a vastly different position to someone who had never heard of God.

It is not that this hypothetical person/baby has never heard or seen any remotely convincing evidence for a God, it is that they have never heard or seen any claim or testimony about a God.

The person who has never heard of God is in the same position on the God question no matter what period of history they live in.

lostexpectation

did really say supernatural, or just fables?