Are we born as atheists, or are we born as believers?

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

What's the default position?

 

[Davian]

"I am not convinced".

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Depends how you define atheism. Newborns definitely do not have specific theistic beliefs so they can't be said to be theists. I'm not sure if a newborn baby can really be said to hold any "beliefs".

 

[katerinah1947]

What's the default position?

Hi,

Some are born as believers. Most are not.

Your reference for this is Thomas, but understood this way. They all had to be shown.

In the first meeting, Jesus showed everyone His wounds.

In the second meeting Thomas was shown also. That part, being shown is not different, even touching is not that much different.

What is different is the words of Jesus, which seem to apply to no one in that room.

Blessed are those, who have not seen yet have believed. Only one person have I ever met that has always believed.

Me. I was shown and had to touch, analogously. By the way, that process although instructive, was and is hard, but it gives me much to share.

LOVE,

 

[Chris B]

What's the default position?

Broadly, has to be agnostic, surely?

It's Muslim doctrine that everyone is born Muslim, so you cannot convert to it, only revert to it.
Even the Borg don't go that far.

Chris

 

[SteveB28]

What's the default position?

If people are 'born into belief' why do they need to be indoctrinated in their early years?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that the brian wiring may tend towards development of a "spiritual view", and the denial of this be a reaction. Although the specific concepts aren't there, there may be under currents of thesm, just like there is body awareness or visual awareness, but without names etc put to them.

I am basing this on studies which say that "agency" based explanations or phenomena are quite natural in children.

What would evidence this. Non invasive neiurotheological PET scans of the foetus maybe, some years away as of yet...

 

[SkyWriting]

What's the default position?

Very resent research has shown that humans are predisposed toward metaphysical
conclusions in logic and thought processing.

My own theory is that organisms with less complex social structures simply require
fewer assumptions in order to thrive. Humans have very complex decisions and social
structures to deal with and so require many more assumptions or "faith" structures
to survive.

An illustration of this is terrorism. It reveals how much faith people use in their daily
lives in order to function in a stress free state. We "have faith" that we are safe at
a cafe, or soccer game, or music concert. Likely very few people in Paris even had
pepper spray in their pocket for protection against evil. The terrorists actually attacked
places of "worship" where everyone had great faith in the institution they were at.

Back to the topic: Humans are predisposed toward "faith."
Granted: This may have to do with how little ability humans
have to survive on their own at birth. They learn to "have faith"
in "others" early on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What's the default position?

Obviously, we are born in ignorance.

You can't believe a claim if you can't even comprehend what a claim is.

This should be rather obvious.

 

[quatona]

Are we born as atheists, or are we born as believers?

Newborns haven´t occupied themselves with this issue. It´s pretty safe to say that they hold no beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am basing this on studies which say that "agency" based explanations or phenomena are quite natural in children.

Yes, it's called teleological thinking.

This, however, has nothing to do with theistic views and everything with the disconnect with reality of an underdeveloped brain...

For example, consider a rock with a sharp edge and a cat that is scratching itself by rubbing himself against said edge.

Ask a child the question "is the edge sharp so that the cat can scratch itself? Or is the cat simply using the edge to scratch itself because it happens to be sharp?"

The vast majority of the children will go with the first: the purpose of the sharp edge is to help cats scratch themselves.

That's what this "infusing agency" is all about in children. Fallacious thinking. Most children grow out of that by the age of 7.

Also, note that you are talking about children that have fairly developed brains already. Children that can understand language, that are able to communicate, that are able to conceptualize ideas and have the ability of abstract thinking.

NONE of this is present in a newborn baby. The newborn baby has NO knowledge of any of this. The newborn baby can only be amazed at all the sensory input it receives. While it poops, eats and sleeps.

Even babies of a few months old, don't even realise that if you vanish behind a wall, you still exist behind that wall. Which is why they find the "piekaboo" game so hilariously funny.

The idea that such babies have the ability of having any kind of "spiritual view", is quite absurd imo.

 

[SkyWriting]

Newborns haven´t occupied themselves with this issue. It´s pretty safe to say that they hold no beliefs.

But they learn "to have faith in" parents very early.

 

[quatona]

But they learn "to have faith in" parents very early.

So?

 

[SteveB28]

But they learn "to have faith in" parents very early.

Sloppy semantics.

Babies learn to trust something very real - the care, attention and affection of their mothers. Completely different to the concept of forming a belief in something intangible.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sloppy semantics.

Babies learn to trust something very real - the care, attention and affection of their mothers. Completely different to the concept of forming a belief in something intangible.

No difference.
The bond remains if the parents both die
or if dad beats them.

So the trust is there in spite of reality.

 

[SteveB28]

No difference.

Huge difference.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No difference.
The bond remains if the parents both die
or if dad beats them.

So the trust is there in spite of reality.

First of all, children become afraid of those that abuse them.

Secondly, there is a HUGE difference between a parent (biological or otherwise) that demonstrably and observably exists on the one hand and intangible, unfalsifiable entities that care about what we do with our private parts, on the other.

 

[loveofourlord]

There was a interesting study a few years back, not sure if it's been followed up that sugests children start as theists, but more of a hyper everthing is a theist. Moms knows everthing, anything I think of she knows, anything she thinks of I know, so when I'm hungry mom knows I'm hungry. As they get older affter about a year they start to realize they know stuff mom doesn't know and om knows stuff they don't and so on down the line, it's as the brain develops that they realize the limitations of knowledge. It's interseting counter to the old idea that children are born not believing in gods, because to a baby everything is a god, now they arn't Christian, muslim, hindu or such but it's still interesting.

 

[Paulos23]

Given that my son hasn't expressed any ideas about a god except what he has heard from Christmas songs so far, I would say the default is not knowing.

 

[aiki]

According to the Bible, all people are born with an innate sense of the existence of their Creator. (Ro. 1:18-20)

Selah.