Atheism, nature or nurture?

[Genady]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Depends on the teacher, none of which were God's...

Being an atheist, doesn't have to mean that you don't believe in Jesus, Mohamed etc... 😉 

Somewhere back on page 1, the term 'atheist' in this thread has been replaced by the term 'areligionist'.

[dimreepr]

57 minutes ago, Genady said:

Somewhere back on page 1, the term 'atheist' in this thread has been replaced by the term 'areligionist'.

Bugger, I'm too late again, god only knows what religion will be the latest version...

[TheVat]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s not hard to understand why 😲

 

Thanks for a big LoL!

Areligious seems to be a choice with humans given that we seem to be wired (as Carl Sagan noted in The Dragons of Eden) for supernatural beliefs about mysterious forces in the world.  Until fairly recent times, wherever one grew up there were religious/mystical beliefs widely held and taught, so a dismissal of such beliefs usually involved some process of scrutiny followed by rejection.  

I have no discomfort with religious people if they walk their talk.  Really depends on the individual.  Some are phonies, and use religion to bash others and feel superior.  Some are genuine seekers of spiritual peace, wisdom, compassion, and ways to be their better selves.  Nothing bad about PLAU.

(just saw this thread, so am sorry if I haven't responded to individual (non pigeon-based) posts)

 

 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

we seem to be wired (as Carl Sagan noted in The Dragons of Eden) for supernatural beliefs about mysterious forces in the world

Are we? Maybe mysterious but why supernatural? Isn't the latter quite an abstract concept to be wired for?

Maybe we are wired to assume causal relations or correlations even when there are none, e.g., black cat - bad luck, but I don't see a necessary connection between such assumptions and religion.

[TheVat]

Well I think Sagan was indicating the way that people tend to take folk beliefs about the world and causality and shape them into myths and metaphysical belief systems.  This Oxford study found that people are predisposed to dualism and beliefs in spirits, gods, and afterlife.   

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm#:~:text=The studies (both analytical and,impulse of the human mind.

There's other research as well.  One person believing something might be just personal superstition.  Add a few more  people and pretty soon it's a religion, humans being social animals who like to share and organize their beliefs.

 

 

[Genady]

From the several examples there, I can see that they interpreted the result in that way, rather than found what they say they did. The same results can be interpreted in different ways. Are there peer-reviewed articles on these studies?

[Peterkin]

14 minutes ago, Genady said:

Isn't the latter quite an abstract concept to be wired for?

Not for that abstract concept in particular, but for the capacity to abstract ideas. Imagination, projection, association, generalization, categorization. We have a big brain and a long life: time to have a lot of experiences, form a lot of attachments, ask a lot of questions and store a lot of memories.

When you walk in tall grass, or a quiet forest, you can hear it whisper your name. Why your name? That's the usual reported one, but it might be the name of the girl you love, or 'sizzling steak' - the point being that your brain makes a meaningful pattern out of random noise. Just as we see pictures in clouds, or giants in rock formations. We make narrative out of experience. 

Also, we have these mirror neurons. In a sense, we impersonate one another - and that goes both ways: we project our own personality, feelings, desires and intentions onto not only other people, but inanimate objects - attribute malice to furniture we ourselves are guilty of kicking, for instance. How much more intensely we do with a environment that is anything but inanimate! The world around us --- well, not us modern people, so much, but the real people who lived in nature - moves, changes, makes noises, affects us in so many unexpected ways. It's inevitable that our ancestors would attribute human qualities and volition to the forces of nature. 

And then comes the desire to control. We figured, if the wind and water and and fire are living things like us, we should be able to talk to them, negotiate, bribe, persuade them to treat us well. And on from there.      

[TheVat]

14 minutes ago, Genady said:

From the several examples there, I can see that they interpreted the result in that way, rather than found what they say they did. The same results can be interpreted in different ways. Are there peer-reviewed articles on these studies?

Good question.  I'm just getting started on this, so DK yet.  My guess is this has been a pretty active area of study in anthropology, so probably there's peer review out there.

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Not for that abstract concept in particular, but for the capacity to abstract ideas. Imagination, projection, association, generalization, categorization. We have a big brain and a long life: time to have a lot of experiences, form a lot of attachments, ask a lot of questions and store a lot of memories.

When you walk in tall grass, or a quiet forest, you can hear it whisper your name. Why your name? That's the usual reported one, but it might be the name of the girl you love, or 'sizzling steak' - the point being that your brain makes a meaningful pattern out of random noise. Just as we see pictures in clouds, or giants in rock formations. We make narrative out of experience. 

Also, we have these mirror neurons. In a sense, we impersonate one another - and that goes both ways: we project our own personality, feelings, desires and intentions onto not only other people, but inanimate objects - attribute malice to furniture we ourselves are guilty of kicking, for instance. How much more intensely we do with a environment that is anything but inanimate! The world around us --- well, not us modern people, so much, but the real people who lived in nature - moves, changes, makes noises, affects us in so many unexpected ways. It's inevitable that our ancestors would attribute human qualities and volition to the forces of nature. 

And then comes the desire to control. We figured, if the wind and water and and fire are living things like us, we should be able to talk to them, negotiate, bribe, persuade them to treat us well. And on from there.      

This scenario shows how it could happen. But:

1) Did it actually happen this way?

2) Is religion a necessary ("inevitable") or even the most probable outcome when starting with those innate capacities?

[TheVat]

(more tidbits from the Oxford link)

The project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.

(...)

The...project...sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.

(....)

Project Director Dr Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, said: 'This project does not set out to prove god or gods exist. Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.'

(me: this is pretty sketchy so i will be on the lookout for more detailed papers and PR research)

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

1) Did it actually happen this way?

If the earliest known imagery and narrative from human communities is an indication, then, yes, to the best of my understanding,  that's how it happened.

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Is religion a necessary ("inevitable") or even the most probable outcome when starting with those innate capacities?

I don't know. Some kind of ritualistic practices seem to be common - that is, the fact of it, not the details - to all known human societies. As I mentioned before, they bear little resemblance to the ceremonies of the organized religions we know today. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Genady said:

Are we? Maybe mysterious but why supernatural? Isn't the latter quite an abstract concept to be wired for?

Maybe we are wired to assume causal relations or correlations even when there are none, e.g., black cat - bad luck, but I don't see a necessary connection between such assumptions and religion.

It's a genuine paradox:

Atheist/"arelionist", whatever, state's as a matter of fact, there is no such thing as god/s. (Edit let's not get into semantics here.)

So therefore, in a world without God's, the bible and the idea's therein have to be written by man and accepted by their fellow man.

So therefore, if a lot of people, even in the face of cultural difference, say "that's an idea worth following".

No God needed.

Therefore, God has become a weapon for atheism/<insert word>. 🤔

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by dimreepr

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No God needed.

Therefore, God has become a weapon

"therefore" has been inserted here without a reason.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

"therefore" has been inserted here without a reason.

Please explain.

[Genady]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Please explain.

The second part doesn't follow from the first.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

The second part doesn't follow from the first.

Why not?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Why not?

It's your statement. You need to show, how the second part follows from the first.

[dimreepr]

Besides, I think you're missing some context.

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No God needed.

Therefore, God has become a weapon for atheism/<insert word>. 🤔

 

The paradoxical bit.

[Genady]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Besides, I think you're missing some context.

 

The paradoxical bit.

I don't get to that point because I can't get over the previous one.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't get to that point because I can't get over the previous one.

Therefore, can a parodox ever exist?

[Genady]

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Therefore

This is how your logic goes:

 

It's a genuine paradox:

Atheist/"arelionist", whatever, state's as a matter of fact, there is no such thing as Santa. (Edit let's not get into semantics here.)

So therefore, in a world without Santa, the children's books and the idea's therein have to be written by man and accepted by their fellow man.

So therefore, if a lot of people, even in the face of cultural difference, say "that's an idea worth following".

No Santa needed.

Therefore, Santa has become a weapon for atheism/<insert word>.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, Genady said:

This is how your logic goes:

 

It's a genuine paradox:

Atheist/"arelionist", whatever, state's as a matter of fact, there is no such thing as Santa. (Edit let's not get into semantics here.)

So therefore, in a world without Santa, the children's books and the idea's therein have to be written by man and accepted by their fellow man.

So therefore, if a lot of people, even in the face of cultural difference, say "that's an idea worth following".

No Santa needed.

Therefore, Santa has become a weapon for atheism/<insert word>.

Well, if you're going to use a logical fallacy to explain my faulty logic, I can't take you seriously.

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well, if you're going to use a logical fallacy to explain my faulty logic, I can't take you seriously.

Variable substitution is not a logical fallacy.

Your downvote of my post is a bad mark on you.

[John Cuthber]

Is there a difference between these two definitions?

"an atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists" 

and
"An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist"

Ordinarily the statements are considered equivalent.

But, by one definition a rock is an atheist. A rock doesn't believe anything, so it doesn't believe in God.

A person who has never been told about God is in the same position as that rock. You can't believe in something that you don't know about. By that definition, they are an a atheist.

But, by the other definition, a rock can't believe that God does not exist. The rock is not an atheist.
A person who has never heard about God is, again, in the same position as that rock; they hold no opinion about the nonexistence of God and is therefore not an atheist.

The OP's question talks about nature or nurture.

Being told that God exists (or that some people think He exists) is part of nurture.

By the first definition, if you do not receive that nurture you are an atheist.
By the second definition,  if you do not receive that nurture you are not an atheist.

So the answer to the question depends very strongly on how you define atheism.



 
 

[Genady]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

the answer to the question depends very strongly on how you define atheism.

Exactly.

As for me, for the most of my life I thought that the first definition is the accepted one. Only discussions in this forum convinced me that most members rather relate to the second one. Since then, I don't call myself an atheist, at least not in this forum.