Atheism, nature or nurture?

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, it's because they recognise that they can have a bias, they don't recognise...

Yes, and they recognize this because they tend to doubt and to question.

 

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, it's a semantic difference.

It's two different things.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Yes, and they recognize this because they tend to doubt and to question.

 

It's two different things.

Rito 🙄

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Rito 🙄

Because you use this word the second time and I have never seen it otherwise, I have to ask. What does it mean?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

Because you use this word the second time and I have never seen it otherwise, I have to ask. What does it mean?

It mean's, perhaps you should read my posts a second time too, with your spec's off...

[Genady]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It mean's, perhaps you should read my posts a second time too, with your spec's off...

OK, thank you. But, no, thank you.

[studiot]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

Because you use this word the second time and I have never seen it otherwise, I have to ask. What does it mean?

An abbreviation of british slang expression, common from about 1920s to 1970s.

Right ho.

Meaning I acknowledge what you have said and will carry on on that basis.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

An abbreviation of british slang expression, common from about 1920s to 1970s.

Right ho.

Meaning I acknowledge what you have said and will carry on on that basis.

Thank you. This also explains why I never heard of it.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

OK, thank you. But, no, thank you.

Rito, thanks for not trying... I guess...

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

my point was meant to be, athiesm has to be taught (nuture) because our nature is to believe.

Embedded in that is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. It's not solely one thing, or the other. 

We have tendencies to both believe and to question and disbelieve. Humans have conflicting tendencies in most things, and sometimes one side wins out, sometimes the other.

If you said "in human nature there is a tendency to believe" it would be true, but not the whole truth. Unless you added the tendency to question and disbelieve as well. 

There's a bit of nature in atheism, and there's also a bit of nature in religiosity. And nurture in both too. 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 because our nature is to believe.

I think our nature us to want explanations/answers. We also tend to want neatness. Sometimes we settle for simple and wrong because then no further thought is required.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

There's a bit of nature in atheism, and there's also a bit of nature in religiosity. And nurture in both too. 

Using "nature" to mean "born with" (aka genetics) and "nurture" to mean "learned after birth" (aka environmental factors), I disagree that there's any nature in either. I don't think there's a religion gene, just some genetics that make some more susceptible. You learn about gods and whether they seem credible to you or not, you aren't born that way. You may be born with a curious mind that questions, but what you believe depends on how those questions are answered. Some people get scientific answers, some are told they're lucky, some are told they're worthless, some are given no answers, and some are told about a specific god and its teachings. 

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I think our nature is to want explanations/answers. We also tend to want neatness

Evidence from my kids suggests otherwise. Not possible that’s innate 😂

[TheVat]

9 hours ago, Genady said:

Because you use this word the second time and I have never seen it otherwise, I have to ask. What does it mean?

It's a Frito with a piece of the chip broken off.  And then got the F out of there.  

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Using "nature" to mean "born with" (aka genetics) and "nurture" to mean "learned after birth" (aka environmental factors), I disagree that there's any nature in either. I don't think there's a religion gene, just some genetics that make some more susceptible. You learn about gods and whether they seem credible to you or not, you aren't born that way...

 

If there's any genetic predisposition it is likely to be the general tendency to personify, or vivify, unseen forces and inanimate objects - as found in anthropological cross-cultural studies.  

My personal take is that, as we grow and our parents diminish to mere flawed people, a lot of people are emotionally drawn to finding a big sky-daddy replacement.  Otherwise one has to face the frightening prospect that, on planet Earth  the lunatics have taken over and are running the asylum.

[geordief]

Have there been any studies on children brought up from birth  with no connection to their genetic parents?

 

There must be very many cases where a child is born but the parents and /or other  family members  die .

 

Would such circumstances  shed light on whether there is behaviour that is truly innate and what those behaviours might be?

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

Have there been any studies on children brought up from birth  with no connection to their genetic parents?

Yes. 

a study in 1990 found that genetics account for 50 percent of the religiosity among the population — in other words, both identical twins raised apart were more likely to be religious or to be not religious, compared with unrelated individuals.

https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html

 

Search on studies on twins reared apart or studies on separated twins

[mistermack]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't think there's a religion gene

Of course not. 

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

just some genetics that make some more susceptible.

And how is "some genetics" not nature? It's obvious that genetics won't produce religion on their own, but with millions of humans telling stories, the susceptible part of our makeup means some will develop the stories into religion.

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, mistermack said:

Embedded in that is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. It's not solely one thing, or the other. 

We have tendencies to both believe and to question and disbelieve. Humans have conflicting tendencies in most things, and sometimes one side wins out, sometimes the other.

If you said "in human nature there is a tendency to believe" it would be true, but not the whole truth. Unless you added the tendency to question and disbelieve as well. 

There's a bit of nature in atheism, and there's also a bit of nature in religiosity. And nurture in both too. 

You're forgetting about the power of culture:

100 year's ago this type of debate would look VERY different.

In today's culture, the most powerful belief is the media; almost everyone in the theater cheers when the hero "pops a cap in da bad guy's ass", we all believe he's the Good guy.

Our need to conform is in our nature, what we believe and or question is our nuture, what we're taught is societal.

The parable of the madman it's why a sudden cultural change is quite rare.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

Of course not. 

And how is "some genetics" not nature? It's obvious that genetics won't produce religion on their own, but with millions of humans telling stories, the susceptible part of our makeup means some will develop the stories into religion.

You still have to learn the behavior, and someone has to teach you. The genetics just says whether you’re susceptible to the teaching.

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

You still have to learn the behavior, and someone has to teach you. The genetics just says whether you’re susceptible to the teaching.

Yes of course. That was part of my point. That atheism is a combination of nature and nurture. And in fact, the nurture element itself isn't totally random and independent. It grows out of and is heavily influence by our genetic tendencies. If we didn't have those tendencies, then what we are taught would have evolved to be very different. 

[Genady]

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Our need to conform is in our nature

I don't believe it.

[dimreepr]

51 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't believe it.

What makes you think that?

[Genady]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What makes you think that?

I don't know what would make me think that human need to conform is in human nature.

For contrast, human physiology makes me think that human need to breathe is in human nature. 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, Genady said:

I don't know what would make me think that human need to conform is in human nature.

For contrast, human physiology makes me think that human need to breathe is in human nature. 

If you're trying be sarcastic, perhaps you could inclued an emoji 🙄, just so we're clear; and if you are being sarcastic, what's your point?

If not, then can you please explain how it's not a fundamental reason for our evolution and continued existence?

Or as John Donne would say "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, ..."

[Genady]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

If you're trying be sarcastic, perhaps you could inclued an emoji 🙄, just so we're clear; and if you are being sarcastic, what's your point?

If not, then can you please explain how it's not a fundamental reason for our evolution and continued existence?

Or as John Donne would say "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, ..."

It is a null hypothesis. The hypothesis that needs support is that it is a fundamental reason etc.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

It is a null hypothesis. The hypothesis that needs support is that it is a fundamental reason etc.

Just so we're clear and on topic, are you suggesting that we're taught to want company?