Why newborn babies are atheists

[Silmarien]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

There are entire belief systems that don't fall into either category. The most obvious one is pantheism, though there's a spectrum of approaches to divinity running from pantheism to theism. I reserve the term "theism" for those concepts of the divine which involve an active rather than passive God, and use "non-theism" for everything else.

Atheism is a specific subset of non-theism, though it's specific meaning is hard to pin down since it's changed so much over the centuries. I do think it requires an actual rejection of theism, though, since there are any number of religious-friendly agnostics and apophatic thinkers who would not identify as atheists. I certainly wouldn't apply it to babies anymore than I would to comatose people--perhaps less. Infants are so strange that it's impossible to know precisely what is going on in their heads.

 

[Radagast]

So, again: What is the term you would use for humans who don't believe a god exists?

You're asking a deliberately ambiguous question here (and are obviously doing so with a Flewist agenda).

1. People who believe that god(s) do not exist are called atheists.

2. People who believe that god(s) do exist are called theists.

3. People who do not hold either belief are called generally agnostics.

Groups 1 and 3 are sometimes combined together under the label non-theists.

Now this subforum exists only to ask genuine questions about Christianity. What's your question about Christianity? Is it whether we are theists? Yes, we are. Question answered.

 

[Kim7229]

There are entire belief systems that don't fall into either category.

Please explain how a belief system could not fall into one of those two categories.

The most obvious one is pantheism, though there's a spectrum of approaches to divinity running from pantheism to theism. I reserve the term "theism" for those concepts of the divine which involve an active rather than passive God, and use "non-theism" for everything else.

In pantheism, do you consider a pantheist to hold the belief that a god exists?

Atheism is a specific subset of non-theism, though it's specific meaning is hard to pin down since it's changed so much over the centuries. I do think it requires an actual rejection of theism, though, since there are any number of religious-friendly agnostics and apophatic thinkers who would not identify as atheists. I certainly wouldn't apply it to babies anymore than I would to comatose people--perhaps less. Infants are so strange that it's impossible to know precisely what is going on in their heads.

If atheism is a rejection of theism, what term would you use for those who don't hold the belief that a god or gods exist?

 

[Silmarien]

Please explain how a belief system could not fall into one of those two categories.

Because there are belief systems with a concept of the divine that don't qualify as theism. They do not believe in God in the traditional sense, but this does not make them atheistic.

In pantheism, do you consider a pantheist to hold the belief that a god exists?

I don't know what you mean by "a god." Pantheism could be combined with polytheism, so that a pantheist could believe in a variety of spiritual entities. But the pantheistic view of reality is distinct from the theistic one: they do not believe in God in the traditional sense.

If atheism is a rejection of theism, what term would you use for those who don't hold the belief that a god or gods exist?

I already stated it: non-theism.

Though there are polytheists who could be non-theistic in the metaphysical sense (i.e., take a naturalistic view of reality but affirm the existence of pagan gods as part of the natural world), so you're muddying the water by dragging polytheism into the mix as well.

 

[Sketcher]

What do you mean by 'spiritual hole'?
To tell your children a god exists when you're not certain of it is not fair to the child. And no one is certain that a god exists.

No, it is unfair to the child to not teach them about our Creator and Redeemer. I am not going to starve my children of spiritual truth.

 

[Kim7229]

No, it is unfair to the child to not teach them about our Creator and Redeemer. I am not going to starve my children of spiritual truth.

How do you know what you're telling them is the truth?

 

[Kim7229]

Because there are belief systems with a concept of the divine that don't qualify as theism. They do not believe in God in the traditional sense, but this does not make them atheistic.

In those belief systems, would you say the members hold the belief that a god exists? If they do, they're theists, if not they're atheists.

I don't know what you mean by "a god." Pantheism could be combined with polytheism, so that a pantheist could believe in a variety of spiritual entities. But the pantheistic view of reality is distinct from the theistic one: they do not believe in God in the traditional sense.

Good point. In the traditional sense, a god would be a non-material supreme being which possesses such attributes as consciousness, awareness, knows things, can do things, etc. If someone designates the sun or perhaps a pyramid in Egypt as a god, does that make them a believer in a god or gods? I'd say not.

I already stated it: non-theism.

So you are saying that slapping the label 'god' on something which doesn't fit the traditional sense of a god wouldn't make one a believer that a god or gods exist. It seems as if there is confusion due to the fact the word 'god' is often misused and/or misunderstood.

 

[Silmarien]

In those belief systems, would you say the members hold the belief that a god exists? If they do, they're theists, if not they're atheists.

You are simply incorrect. As I have said multiple times now, pantheists are neither theists nor atheists. I was a pantheist for about a decade--it was neither theism nor atheism. You cannot legitimately broaden the definition of "atheism" to encompass people who do not identify as atheists. This is an unnecessary simplification that erases entire perspectives.

Good point. In the traditional sense, a god would be a non-material supreme being which possesses such attributes as consciousness, awareness, knows things, can do things, etc. If someone designates the sun or perhaps a pyramid in Egypt as a god, does that make them a believer in a god or gods? I'd say not.

That's not quite how animism works. If a people associates a particular river with a divinity, they are not simply using the word "god" to describe that river. They do think there's something supernatural about that river, whether it's the river itself or some spiritual entity that lives there.

But this is not theism. Just supernaturalism. The question is where precisely to draw the line between theism and supernaturalism. I would define theism as an approach to metaphysics which affirms the existence of a creative, aware, and actively willing grounds of being.

So you are saying that slapping the label 'god' on something which doesn't fit the traditional sense of a god wouldn't make one a believer that a god or gods exist. It seems as if there is confusion due to the fact the word 'god' is often misused and/or misunderstood.

There is a great deal of confusion, yes. You're contributing to it yourself by bringing up polytheism, because polytheistic systems can be theistic, but don't have to be. An Epicurean who believes in the Greek gods but views reality as materialistic would be a supernaturalist, but not a theist. A Neoplatonist who believes in the Greek gods as well as a greater divine reality beyond the material, on the other hand, would be a theist.

I have never seen a consistently polytheistic approach to theism, so referring to belief in "gods" in the plural as well is a sign of confusion. Hindus are not theists because they believe in Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, Kali, and the rest, but insofar as they affirm the existence of a greater reality (i.e., Brahman) that manifests itself as these created "gods" (and as everything else), they are theists. (Of course, it is more complicated than that, since the most influential branch in Hinduism is really halfway between theism and pantheism philosophically. I would still consider it theism, though.)

 

[Hieronymus]

If it's an incorrect definition, then what label would you put on humans who don't hold the belief that a god or gods exist?

Agnostics.

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't think a newborn can be described as atheist, or even agnostic for that matter.

An agnostic is unsure if God exists. A newborn has never even thought about the question in the first place. Uncertainty is not the same as having a complete absence of a belief.

Agnostic literally means "not knowing".
So it fits the bill.

 

[aiki]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

Well, on this definition, rocks, rats, rubber boots, and ricotta cheese are all "atheist" too. Really, this new definition of "atheist" is just a slippery tactic used to avoid having to do the impossible justifications necessary to support the traditional definition of "atheist." This new definition is essentially a description of a psychological state and as such offers nothing of value to a philosophical discussion of God's existence.

 

[FireDragon76]

In Lutheranism, we don't think of faith as primarily cognitive, so we don't consider babies to be atheists. Babies are members of our church, after all, so we consider them Christians too. Just very little ones.

 

[Soul2Soul]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

And ..... newborn babies wouldn't even be aware that they might be labelled "atheists"!?

 

[SolomonVII]

Jesus described little ones as the perfect Christians, and the citizens of heaven. All that they have going for them is faith actually.

 

[ViaCrucis]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

The gift of faith which is received through Word and Sacrament means that children born of Christian parents and brought into the household of faith are Christians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Carbon]

The original post is technically true but misleading. Yes it is internally consistent given its definitions. Newborns do not, indeed cannot yet, believe in a personal god much less a specific personal god like Jesus. So newborns are “atheists”. But this gives the impression atheism is the default position. More likely theism is the default.

Young human brains are proto-religious, slowly accumulating the precursors for religious belief starting in utero and continuing through early childhood. Belief in invisible minds controlling the world comes naturally once the prerequisite concepts are in place starting with space, time, matter, negation, and causality which come very early. Theory of mind comes a little later. Secondary theory of mind later still, this is your ability to guess what John thinks I believe about John. All of these tools in the cognitive kit are useful for getting around in the real world, they are then coopted by religious imaginations of gods and devils because while these ideas might be false they are not false enough to force selection pressures against their adoption. From an evolutionary perspective acting as if a god is doling out presents for being in the nice list is better than lots of alternatives.

Atheism is only really “there” in any relevant sense after theism is possible and in fact quite likely given the way our brains work. The a-teapotism straw man for example is thus quite disingenuous. Theism and its various flavors (poly, mono, pan, panen) is more like the default position for any sufficiently advanced brain. It is atheism not theism that requires extra work via rational criticism to weed out false attributions of intentionality that attend every pre-scientific worldview.

Aliens I would expect to have some religious history more or less similar to ours.

On the other hand drop a few children on a deserted island. Assume they survive. If what I say above is true then would these people eventually develop something approximating god belief? Very possibly but here I have to hedge. Certainly those “precursors” for god belief are possible given the genes of a typical modern human. What we don’t know is how much they depend on cultural transmission.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So, Kim, what are you "seeking"? (you're label is seeker)
Your posts I just looked at quickly on the summary page and here
don't look like you're seeking anything.... I hope I'm wrong... see the post quote after this one...

All humans can be divided into two categories:
1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)
Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

QUOTE="Sketcher, post: 73336686, member: 27106"]We don't know that for sure, but let's say for a second we did.

They also poop their diapers. They also don't speak intelligibly, they have no skills whatsoever, they need to be taught everything - how to love, how to give, how to wait, how to work. While babies are wonderful bundles of joy, what is more wonderful is their growth into functioning adults. They learn many good things on that journey, so much the better when they have two good parents to teach them. One of these many good things they need to learn is faith in God.[/QUOTE
------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeking God is required for life. It is hard to tell if learning this early in life instead of later in life is good, better, best, or worst...... (when so many fall away, wondering if they would have been better learning later in life so they would not fall away, given the option, as it looks sometimes/ often/ they become so dis-illusioned in and by the evil in the world , the longer they get worn down, without maintaining their faith learned as a child, without good strong true teaching daily and fellowship, without LIGHT to walk in but DARKNESS instead ..... .... ... (the world is full of darkness) ..... darkness can wear out the saints, and many fall away ..... even if they "stay" 'in church' , if they are not Ekklesia (Church), Living Stones Set Together in Christ Jesus .... .... just religion instead of dunamis , "seeking the Kingdom of God Daily" always, in His Grace ...

What is the meaning of the Greek word dunamis in the Bible?
Question: "What is the meaning of the Greek word dunamis in the Bible?" Answer: The Greek dunamis is used 120 times in the New Testament. Loosely, the word refers to "strength, power, or ability." It is the root word of our English words dynamite, dynamo and dynamic.
What is the meaning of the Greek word dunamis in the Bible?

 

[Uber Genius]

Not sure what book you’ve read, maybe Peter Baghossian’s, “manual for creating atheists,” but as you have seen the definition of atheism is someone who asserts the knowledge claim, “God doesn’t exist!” Babies don’t have any such beliefs so this is just a rhetorical trick.

Rocks, cars, iPhones are all atheists.

When we try and discover the nature of this world we want to look at the various data and the explanations for those data.

Atheism might on its face be the best explanation of the problem of suffering or the hiddeness of God.

Conversely, theism might on its face be the best explanation of the existence of objective moral values and duties, the beginning of the universe or multiverse from nothing, the fine-tuning of the initial conditions and constants of the universe for life, the incredible fine tuning for life in our solar system, the creation of enormous amounts of information found in dna, the existence of beauty in nature, the fact that people all seem to call out to God when in immediate fear of death (no atheists in foxholes).

So we must investigate our world and what explains the data we find. This requires careful thinking and avoidance of logical fallacy and rhetorical tricks.

For a presentation of some of the arguments and counter-arguments see:

Reasonable Faith Animated Videos - YouTube

 

[StevenMerten]

All humans can be divided into two categories:

1) Those who hold the belief that a god exists (theist)
2) Those who don't fall into category #1 (atheist)

Since newborn babies wouldn't even be aware of the concept of a god, they don't hold a belief that a god exists. Therefore they fall into category #2 and are atheists.

Hello Kim,
I can remember searching for God before I could walk or talk.

I believe we have a predisposition to search for God. Like newly hatched baby sea turtles having the predisposition to make a run for the ocean. Or baby kangaroos immediately crawling up into their mother's pouch. Or a baby calf knowing to suck on its mother cow's teat.

God created, love for God capable, man, to have a relationship with Him. I think God created man with the predisposition, not only to search God out, but to obey God, which is to love God. Children are pretty innocent and are born with a desire to please and obey, at least their mother, before they find God. In the same way you can feel your conscience talking to you as an adult, babies have God guiding them as well.

I was in my little foot propelled stroller, rolling around the kitchen. My mother leaned down to talk to me. I said to myself, I think she believes I have the ability to talk back to her? After the encounter, I pondered if my mother was god. The reason I can remember this, is because I kept re-contemplating this situation, until long term memory kicked in.

 

[Francis Drake]

Hello Kim,
I can remember searching for God before I could walk or talk.

I believe we have a predisposition to search for God. Like newly hatched baby sea turtles having the predisposition to make a run for the ocean. Or baby kangaroos immediately crawling up into their mother's pouch. Or a baby calf knowing to suck on its mother cow's teat.

God created, love for God capable, man, to have a relationship with him. I think God created man with the predisposition, not only to search God out, but to obey God, which is to love God. Children are pretty innocent and are born with a desire to please and obey, at least their mother, before they find God. In the same way you can feel your conscience talking to you as an adult, babies have God talking to them as well.

I was in my little foot propelled stroller, rolling around the kitchen. My mother leaned down to talk to me. I said to myself, I think she believes I have the ability to talk back to her? After the encounter, I pondered if she was god. The reason I can remember this, is because I kept re-contemplating this situation, until long term memory kicked in.

My wife at the age of three was taken up to heaven in her spirit on several occasions and saw many amazing things including the heavenly city, angels and the Lord.

She did not come from a believing family, and when she tried to talk to her mum, she just laughed thinking it was childish imagination. So from that time on she told nobody.

At the age of 18, she was given a bible and read it cover to cover. When she read about the heavenly city, she recognised it from her visits there as a child.