22 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundA few first principles might help.
I ws wondering what you all think about this premise?
When i first entered the debate i was sure the right answer was that bebies would be Agnostic...as they have no concept of "God" or "belief/disbelief", making don't know the obvious anwer. As my audience was largely atheist the argument centred around the definition of "atheism" - was it a dis se and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. "
What do you guys think?
First, infants have no clear boundary to distinguish self from other. Part of early development requires them to construct a well defined notion of self and other, and to learn some rules that enable them to predict how the other will respond to their behaviour and meet (or not meet) their needs. So for example they learn whether crying will win them attention (and thus believe that the world is benign and they are safe) or not (the world is dangerous and they are not safe).
Second, infants go through a long period of time using magical thinking, as they work out how to get their needs met. If their carer is responsive, and they receive consistent responses so that their carer is predictable, their thinking becomes more realistic. If their carer is unpredictable, chaotic or even malignant (as it sadly can be) then they learn that there is no reliable way to predict what will happen, so that they are unsafe, but they still have a strong biological need to get their needs met. In this case they rely on magical thinking to make some sense of things. If they cannot make the world respond to their actions, they still work out things to do (or not do) that just might (however unreliably and seldom) have the desired effect. At the extreme, a neglected child is passive and just waits for something to turn up, believing that nothing they do will have any effect whatever.
The preverbal child has thus all the ingredients for a "life position" in place before their second year. Being pre-verbal means they do not have the necessary material from which to construct clear concepts let along the notion of "God." Later attitudes to "God" do not shape their "life position" but are shaped by it. Religion meets a psychological need and gives it a shape (meaning it translates something incoherent and vague into something with the appearance of clarity and coherence) which for some people is helpful.
Magical thinking plays some part in everyone's behaviour but usually it is in areas that have not been sufficiently considered and nearly always it is desirable to explore this and remove it because it is unrealistic, limiting and potentially disabling. One example of magical thinking is to imagine religion will disappear in a puff when exposed to a clever argument.
22 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganYou have not provided a precise definition, or even a loose one, for "magical thinking." I do not take it as a self-evident term, like "point" or "line" in geometry.
A few first principles might help.
First, infants have no clear boundary to distinguish self from other. Part of early development requires them to construct a well defined notion of self and other, and to learn some rules that enable them to predict how the other will respond to their behaviour and meet (or not meet) their needs. So for example they le king is to imagine religion will disappear in a puff when exposed to a clever argument.
Since this entire discussion about whether babies are "atheist" is largely semantic in nature there can be no meaningful analysis or debate without well-defined terminology. It's just so much hot air.
EDIT: rwingett so far makes the clearest case here.
22 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI grow tired of wasting my time on the repetition of this point. But for clarity's sake I will do so yet again. It makes no sense to label dogs and chairs as atheists because they are incapable of ever believing in a god, or in anything else for that matter. Human babies will eventually grow into human adults who are capable of believing in god and a great many other things as well. It is therefore worthwhile noting that babies are implicit atheists until such time as they learn about god. Their eventual belief in god, if they come to believe it at all, is a learned behavior and not an innate one.
A table has no concept of God, a chair has no concept of God, a dog turd has no concept of God. By your rational these things are all atheist. A baby does not have the ability to form opinion, therefor it can not have an opinion...therefor it can not by definition have the disbelief in a deity.
The mistake you are repeatedly and stubbornly making (it seems) is in assuming that atheism requires an active disbelief in a god. This is simply not so. All is required is that you not be a theist (A=without, theism=belief in a god or gods). Anyone who lacks a belief in a god is an atheist. Atheists can then be divided into explicit atheists and implicit atheists. Explicit atheists are people who have heard of god, and are capable of understanding the concept, but who do not believe it. Implicit atheists are those who have never heard of god, or who are incapable of conceptualizing of one. As those people also lack a belief in a god, they are atheists.
A baby does not need to be able to form, or have, an opinion. It does not need to know what god is. The fact remains that babies have no belief in a god. Therefore they are atheists, albeit implicit atheists.
I hope that you now fully see the error of your ways and that we can quit going around and around on this tiresome merry-go-round.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAll non-theists are atheists. That's what the term means: to be without theism. I do not accept that agnosticism exists as a separate category unto itself. It is a modifier to either theism or atheism, as in agnostic atheist and agnostic theist. I understand the popular misconception is to assume agnosticism exists as it's own category, but it doesn't. Sorry. If you are not a theist then you are an atheist, whether you choose to accept the label or not.
This is a false dichotomy. A non-theist is not necessarily an atheist. An atheist is someone who denies or disbelieves in god. I'm not even sure you can call babies agnostic since I feel that that position requires a conscious decision not to accept either postulate.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettIt does seem tiresome to argue on about a purely semantic distinction. If only it were possible to easily distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' atheism. Perhaps there should be another word for one of them...
I grow tired of wasting my time on the repetition of this point. But for clarity's sake I will do so yet again. It makes no sense to label dogs and chairs as atheists because they are incapable of ever believing in a god, or in anything else for that matter. Human babies will eventually grow into human adults who are capable of believing in god and a great ...[text shortened]... rror of your ways and that we can quit going around and around on this tiresome merry-go-round.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe only people who seem to have a problem with the blanket term "atheist" are theists, who want to paint atheists as being as ideologically committed as themselves, and self-styled 'agnostics' who mistakenly buy into the theistic misrepresentation of atheism.
It does seem tiresome to argue on about a purely semantic distinction. If only it were possible to easily distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' atheism. Perhaps there should be another word for one of them...
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAs far as I'm concerned, what so called "agnostics" really are is agnostic atheists. But they somehow feel the need for a separate term to distinguish themselves from the "hard atheist" bogeymen.
It does seem tiresome to argue on about a purely semantic distinction. If only it were possible to easily distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' atheism. Perhaps there should be another word for one of them...
22 Jul 11
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAtheism, like any other term, needs to be defined before it is used. (Or maybe when it is used... just to be sure everybody's on the same page.) Atheism can be either belief in no god at all or disbelief in a particular god (early Christians were often accused of (EDIT: brought up on charges of) atheism for not believing in the pagan gods).
It does seem tiresome to argue on about a purely semantic distinction. If only it were possible to easily distinguish between 'hard' and 'soft' atheism. Perhaps there should be another word for one of them...
Practically everybody, except maybe a Hindu, is an atheist in the second sense. I think most global-village atheists would accept the first sense as a fair self-definition.
I doubt that, lacking a concept of God to deny, inanimate objects can be credited with any kind of (a)theism. It depends on whether you adopt a closed- or open-world assumption, and that is something that should be explicit.
Something similar to this comes into the debates over whether, for example, Christians and Mohammedans worship the same God.
Even "purely semantic" distinctions are important! You have to settle semantics BEFORE arguing, or very likely you'll just be arguing past one another.
(To tie this in to the thread, however remotely, I will just note the children's book "Angel in the Waters," which proposes a different but related hypothesis on the baby-God relationship.)
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by divegeesterTry harder. All sides should see if this fits.
I don't understand "hard atheist". Surely a person is either a theist or not; conversely; atheist or not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
I admit myself to be among those on alt.atheism that are referred to in that article.
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettAs I see it, you have three possible positions. It seems logical therefore to have three different labels.
As far as I'm concerned, what so called "agnostics" really are is agnostic atheists. But they somehow feel the need for a separate term to distinguish themselves from the "hard atheist" bogeymen.
I am inferring from your use of language a certain disdain towards those who take an agnostic position - would I be correct in assuming that this is the basis for your semantic position regarding this term?
22 Jul 11
Originally posted by rwingettSelf-styled? Why do you say that? While there may be argument as to the definition of the term 'atheist', the term 'agnostic' is quite clearly defined.
The only people who seem to have a problem with the blanket term "atheist" are theists, who want to paint atheists as being as ideologically committed as themselves, and self-styled 'agnostics' who mistakenly buy into the theistic misrepresentation of atheism.