Atheism, nature or nurture?

[Genady]

In reference to another ongoing thread in this forum, I don't have any feelings about homosexuals and their activities. But I have feelings about religious people. I dislike their religious activities and I feel uncomfortable socializing with them. I'm quite sure that being religious is learned. But what about being an atheist?

[joigus]

My best guess would be both atheism and religion are learned. But I also think there must be* genetic and early-environmental factors (pre-natal, natal, perinatal) having to do with how likely it is that you develop into one or the other.

Let's see what the experts think.

* Meaning: I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

But I have feelings about religious people. I dislike their religious activities and I feel uncomfortable socializing with them.

They are not all the same. I have been comfortable with some deeply religious people, including a couple of Catholic priests, and acutely uncomfortable with many whose religious conviction was outspoken, and yet unconvincing. In both cases, I'm talking about Christians and my superficial observation is that the more sincere the faith, the more lightly they wear it and the less they need to demonstrate it. Most of my life, people's religion was not an issue. In the US, however, it has become increasingly political over the last four decades. What happens in the US, and what is done elsewhere by the US, affects the whole world.

All beliefs are learned. Nobody is born with a head full of abstract ideas - only needs and sensations, which later form into yearnings and thoughts. The forming is done by the caregivers and larger environment. For example, a baby whose cradle is in the bedroom of a devout Catholic couple, develops its colour vision on a madonna and a Jesus with open heart and spiky halo; An Indian baby may, at the same time, be learning to focus on a grinning Buddha with a flower garland around its neck; in a secular western house, the baby's first impressions would be of flying fishies and bunnies. Images, as well as language, are imprinted on impressionable minds, so that it may very well seem as if they always had these beliefs.

The idea of atheism depends on there being theism to reject or oppose. It doesn't have top be learned - it has to be formulated as a response to something about religion - its implausibility, its internal contradictions, its demands of the faithful, its moral shortcomings, the way its advocates behave - any combination of those factors. When someone brought up in a religious home comes to doubt the belief they've been taught, it takes time to figure what they're doubting and why. They rarely go directly from faith to atheism; there are many stages and soul-searchings to navigate.  In that process, people usually consult critiques of their own religion, and apologetics for it, and thus learn the language of unbelief. Only then, having assessed their final response, do they call themselves atheist.   

[MigL]

Religion is a belief.
Similarly, Atheism is a belief that there is no religion.
Neither has effective proof or evidence, so what exactly is the difference ?

The only viable argument is that one is 'more likely' than the other, but, as we are all human, we all have a 'built in ' ( nature ) belief system which can be further influenced by the environment ( nurture ).

[Genady]

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

Atheism is a belief that there is no religion.

I disagree. I was an atheist before I knew about religion. I just didn't know then that I was an atheist. 

[joigus]

Depends on what you mean by an 'atheist'?

Are pigeons atheists? They certainly aren't religious.

I'm guessing when we say 'I'm an atheist' we're refering to some kind of criterion based on a previous framework of ideas.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Depends on what you mean by an 'atheist'?

Are pigeons atheists? They certainly aren't religious.

I'm guessing when we say 'I'm an atheist' we're refering to some kind of criterion based on a previous framework of ideas.

I mean a human who has no religious beliefs, no religious rituals, no religious connection to others, no religious whatever. I don't think it needs a criterion based on a previous framework.

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, Genady said:

I mean a human who has no religious beliefs, no religious rituals, no religious connection to others, no religious whatever. I don't think it needs a criterion based on a previous framework.

The way I see it, you certainly need a certain amount of exposure to the concept in order to be able to tell whether you believe in it or not. Suppose you arrive on a planet where a furious debate is going on about the concept of 'zilch.' The first thing they tell you upon your arrival is: 'Hang on, are you a zilchist or an azilchist'?

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

The way I see it, you certainly need a certain amount of exposure to the concept in order to be able to tell whether you believe in it or not. Suppose you arrive on a planet where a furious debate is going on about the concept of 'zilch.' The first thing they tell you upon your arrival is: 'Hang on, are you a zilchist or an azilchist'?

Sounds like the story of the bigendians v the littleendians to me.

[joigus]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sounds like the story of the bigendians v the littleendians to me.

LOL.

I suppose it's very much about how much stock you put in it. I could become a bigendian --or a zilchist-- in a matter of seconds if my life depended on it.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

I was an atheist before I knew about religion. I just didn't know then that I was an atheist. 

If you don't know it, you aren't one - you couldn't even be agnostic or ignostic without holding some opinion on the matter of god(s). You can't be a Muslim or utilitarian or vegetarian without knowing it. You have to be aware of your convictions and beliefs in order to name them.

Babies are not unbelievers; they are simply unaware of of the world. When you first heard about religion - presumably just one, to begin with, you decided whether to believe it holus bolus, reject it out of hand, or learn more about it.

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Genady said:

In reference to another ongoing thread in this forum, I don't have any feelings about homosexuals and their activities. But I have feelings about religious people. I dislike their religious activities and I feel uncomfortable socializing with them. I'm quite sure that being religious is learned. But what about being an atheist?

I think learned should include 'worked out for yourself.'

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

When you first heard about religion - presumably just one, to begin with, you decided whether to believe it holus bolus, reject it out of hand, or learn more about it.

 

I think most folks don't decide for themselves when they first hear about religion, they are indoctorinated.

I don't think many are indoctorinated as aethists.

I thin aethists are much more likely to 'work it out for themselves'

Perhaps Genady (no criticism) is a self confessed work it out for themselves person.

[Peterkin]

31 minutes ago, Genady said:

mean a human who has no religious beliefs, no religious rituals, no religious connection to others, no religious whatever. I don't think it needs a criterion based on a previous framework.

That is a definition of non-religious or areligionist. Atheist means one who does not believe in god or gods. They can still have rituals; they can be animist or tree-worshippers or Buddhist.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I think most folks don't decide for themselves when they first hear about religion, they are indoctorinated.

So do I and have said so above. I was speaking to an adult who hears about religion for the first time. It's rare, I suppose, but if one grew up in a strict Communist, or isolated humanist environment, religion can be news to someone with developed critical faculties.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't think many are indoctorinated as aethists.

Attempts have been made on quite a large scale in the USSR and China.  Not very successfully, because they didn't kill off all the old folks before taking over the young.

 

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You have to be aware of your convictions and beliefs in order to name them.

Yes, to name them. But not to have them.

 

32 minutes ago, joigus said:

you certainly need a certain amount of exposure to the concept in order to be able to tell whether you believe in it or not.

Yes, to tell. But not believe or not.

Anyway, my question in OP was not about a definition of 'atheist.' It was about feeling of dislike / distrust / suspicion / ... toward religious people by a non-religious person.

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

Perhaps Genady (no criticism) is a self confessed work it out for themselves person.

I think you might be right.

[joigus]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Yes, to tell. But not believe or not.

 

We might agree on more than you think, if we clarify our respective definitions.

Following literally in your defining footsteps, pigeons --or some kind of Kaspar Hauser, for the purpose of making it a person-- are/were/would be atheists. They don't believe in god, even though they're clueless about it.

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

Anyway, my question in OP was not about a definition of 'atheist.' It was about feeling of dislike / distrust / suspicion / ... toward religious people by a non-religious person.

But we need a definition. In a wider sense, I would say there must be both nature and nurture factors in determining how gullible a person is. I very much agree with,

42 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Babies are not unbelievers; they are simply unaware of of the world. When you first heard about religion - presumably just one, to begin with, you decided whether to believe it holus bolus, reject it out of hand, or learn more about it.

34 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think most folks don't decide for themselves when they first hear about religion, they are indoctrinated.

But I also think, eg, that a person with StPD would be far more likely to believe in all kind of supernatural things than a person whithout such condition.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That is a definition of non-religious or areligionist.

Thank you for the term. I'd like to change the topic from 'Atheism...' to 'Areligionism...' if I could.

53 minutes ago, joigus said:

Following literally in your defining footsteps, pigeons --or some kind of Kaspar Hauser, for the purpose of making it a person-- are/were/would be atheists.

Yes, they are. But I don't know if they have the bad feelings about the religious people/pigeons I'm talking about.

So, with the better terminology, my question is not if becoming religious or areligious is nature or nurture. I also think that it is both. My question is about this:

7 hours ago, Genady said:

I dislike their religious activities and I feel uncomfortable socializing with them.

(reminder: a discussion of homophobia was a trigger for this thread)

Where did this come from?

[Peterkin]

43 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, they are. But I don't know if they have the bad feelings about the religious people/pigeons I'm talking about.

That would depend on how they behaved, wouldn't it? They're not colour-coded or labelled, so you can't immediately know when meeting someone whether they are religious, and if so, what brand. Unless they're wearing a habit, turban, yarmulke or hijab, they have to say or do something to indicate their religion. I assume that's what you react to when you become uncomfortable, rather than their physical presence.  

You also asked whether it was learned. I tried to answer both to the best of my ability.

43 minutes ago, Genady said:

Where did this come from?

Your own sense of reality. Obviously, I don't know the particulars; everyone's encounters with religion and those who practice it are different. They said something or did something, or you knew something about their belief, that turned you off.

Long after I made up my own mind about it, I find that some religious people set my teeth on edge the minute I lay eyes on them or hear their voice (of course, so do some non-religious ones). Some of those garments I mentioned are a factor; footballers crossing themselves all the bloody time; the word God pronounced in a certain way (something like Gawhhd'); a colleague used to raise her eyes to heaven and ask for strength whenever someone disagreed with her... And, of course, the TV preachers are odious from top to bottom - but they're not believers, but they're selling religion.  OTOH, I've had enjoyable visits to friends' places of worship and amicable conversations about their moral strictures. In most cases, intel;ligent people cherry-pick their religious convictions; nobody I know is all the way invested in a faith. One of the aforementioned priests conducted useful group discussions about the science/faith problem and a young fellow protester against war was also a missionary - I found these people pleasant and interesting company.       

Edited February 17, 2023 by Peterkin

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Unless they're wearing a habit, turban, yarmulke or hijab, they have to say or do something to indicate their religion. I assume that's what you react to when you become uncomfortable, rather than their physical presence.

Yes. The first time. But the next time, when I already know that they are religious, they don't need to do anything, their physical presence is sufficient.

 

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You also asked whether it was learned. I tried to answer both to the best of my ability.

Yes, you think it is a response to what they do/did. Perhaps, that's it.

[Peterkin]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

when I already know that they are religious, they don't need to do anything, their physical presence is sufficient.

I thought of that belatedly and added it on edit: Something you know about their belief had already turned you off, so you look at them and think: "How can you believe that? What's wrong with you?"

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Genady said:

I'm quite sure that being religious is learned. But what about being an atheist?

Is “not playing golf” learned?

Is “not collecting stamps” learned?

Is “not playing the guitar” learned?

Is “not believing in Zeus” learned?

If not, then why would  “not believing in the current flavor-of-the-day god(s) that happen to be popular” be learned?

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Perhaps Genady (no criticism) is a self confessed work it out for themselves person.

Autodidact 

55 minutes ago, Genady said:

I'd like to change the topic from 'Atheism...' to 'Areligionism...' if I could.

So, against religion, not just secular?

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Are pigeons atheists? They certainly aren't religious.

It’s not hard to understand why 😲

 

[Genady]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, against religion, not just secular?

Yes.

 

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s not hard to understand why 😲

 

LOL

47 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

One of the aforementioned priests conducted useful group discussions about the science/faith problem and a young fellow protester against war was also a missionary - I found these people pleasant and interesting company. 

I know some - very few - people like these and I think, "If only you were not religious, we could've been friends."

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes

Okay, but which religion(s), then?

Are you against Buddhism? What about Jainism? Do your feelings differ at all when it comes to Shintoism?

You probably mean Christianity and Islam, which is understandable, but terribly imprecise. 

[joigus]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is “not playing golf” learned?

Is “not collecting stamps” learned?

Is “not playing the guitar” learned?

Is “not believing in Zeus” learned?

If not, then why would  “not believing in the current flavor-of-the-day god(s) that happen to be popular” be learned?

Autodidact 

So, against religion, not just secular?

It’s not hard to understand why 😲

 

I think this pigeon is a zilchist.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

(reminder: a discussion of homophobia was a trigger for this thread)

Where did this come from?

Ok, sorry I missed the phobic nuance. I think phobias can have both a nature and a nurture component to them too. I'm not 100 % sure about it, but AFAIK many behavioural traits do.

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Okay, but which religion(s), then?

Are you against Buddhism? What about Jainism? Do your feelings differ at all when it comes to Shintoism?

You probably mean Christianity and Islam, which is understandable, but terribly imprecise. 

Mostly Christianity (including Orthodox, Mormons and such) and an orthodox Judaism. The ones that I know something about and had direct contacts with.

[MigL]

The literal definition of 'atheist' is "a person who does not believe in the existence of god or any gods", according to Merriam-Webster.

Can that person prove that ''fact' with any observation or evidence ?
Of course not.

So 'atheism is also a 'belief', until Genady, or anyone else, can prove otherwise.
( claims that he was born a non-believer notwithstanding )