Should babies be regarded as Athiests?

[ytrewq]

This topic came up in another thread, and IMO merits it's own thread.

I am not asking whether babies would be regarded as Atheist by way of this or that definition of Atheist. What I am asking, is whether babies should be regarded as Atheist, and why?

And if consensus is reached on whether it is reasonable to to regard a baby as Atheist, then then it is up to us to either come up with or modify the definition of Atheist as required.

This is a topic that both Theists and Atheist can contribute to, potentially with much agreement. Please do so.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 1 by ytrewq]

In my view, being an Atheist or Theist (eg Christian) is always a deliberate and informed decision. To become either, you require some knowledge of gods and religion, and you then decide where you stand.

If you accept the above, then clearly babies are neither Atheists nor Theists, but in a "religiously ignorant and neutral" category. A baby certainly cannot make any decisions at all in religious matters. An adult with severe mental incapacity that could not possibly understand religious issues would likewise be neither Atheist nor Theist, but similarly in the "religiously ignorant and neutral" category.

If you accept the above, and it seems eminently reasonable to me, then you will also need to accept that any definition of Atheist that gives a different conclusion will need to be modified.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by ytrewq]

In my opinion yes. A baby is incapable of analysing the world around it, it's brain is not developed enough to assess information, it can rightly therefore be described as an atheist.

Most atheists I have spoken to in real life inform me that the only thing we can say about one is that they do not have a belief in God. How that lack of belief came about (whether it be from a deliberate and informed decision or from an underdeveloped brain) is not intrinsic to the word. One thing and one thing only categorizes an atheist, they do not have a belief in God*.

Personal opinion,

JW


* I have been informed that it is not that they believe there is no God, which it seems to me is essentially a faith statement that implies they have at least examined the issue and have adopted a belief position in the affirmative (ie "I do have a belief, and I can make one statement in the affirmative about my belief, my belief is: "There is no God"). Apparently the atheist makes no such affirmation, he simple states his total absence of belief and no more. In that case, his position is no different from a baby. Or an amoeba.





RELATED POSTS

Is believing there is no God scientific?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 51#p813251

Is there convincing evidence to support a belief in a Creator?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 55#p950455

Why believe in a God at all?
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=14579&p=998032#p998032

Could life really have arisen from non-living matter?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p849689

Is ATHEISM on the rise?
viewtopic.php?p=911605#p911605

Does God have to convince atheists of his existence?
viewtopic.php?p=1025125#p1025125

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by ytrewq]

While it's not necessarily my biggest gripe with the 'babies are atheists' claim, it's important to note that if we did decide to put one label or the other onto them we'd really have no basis for deciding which side of the fence they'd fall on - even assuming strict naturalism (which would be fallacious to begin with). Even assuming strict naturalism, it's still entirely plausible or even probable that babies have some conception of a greater, ever-present, nurturing presence, which would tick all the main theistic boxes. That 'god' will turn out to be the being they eventually know as their mother (is it any surprise that mother goddesses are so popular that we even find one in the Catholic church?), but that doesn't invalidate the initial theistic tendencies any more than later learning about astronomy means that moon-worshippers were not really theists.

Of course folk determined to apply the label to early stages of human development could always insist that zygotes are atheists And as long as they can demonstrate that souls and pre-conception existence are both false, they'll win that one hands down.



Edit:

I am not asking whether babies would be regarded as Atheist by way of this or that definition of Atheist. What I am asking, is whether babies should be regarded as Atheist, and why?

I'm not sure I answered that above. I'm not sure posts #2 and 3 did either; they both seem to rely on defining atheism as something chosen or as merely a lack of belief, respectively.

The biggest reason folk might feel that babies shouldn't be called atheists is because historically and by many folk still it's regarded as a negative if not pejorative term, so it seems unfair to thrust that label onto them. Conversely probably the biggest reason folk might feel that babies should be called atheists is in the hopes of removing that stigma, promoting a recognition that atheism is normal and natural. Then again, the question arises whether such an approach would even do as much good as harm; will an atheist telling a Christian mother that her baby is an atheist cause her to react more positively towards atheists, or view it as going after the children and trying to 'claim' them? How would an atheist parent respond to being told that their children are naturally theists and if they become atheists it's because they were taught to be so?

[wiploc]

I don't see the point of your neutral category. Why do we need a forth category?

A. People who believe gods do exist.
B. People who believe gods do not exist.
C. Everybody else.

I call those groups theists, strong atheists, and weak atheists.

Some call them theists, atheists, and agnostics.

I don't know why you want to divide category C into
C'. People who are neutral and not ignorant.
C''. People who are neutral and ignorant.

When the need to distinguish comes up, we can refer to C'' as implicit atheists, and to all other atheists as explicit atheists. Just like, if the need came up, we could divide people in group B into blond strong atheists and not-blond strong atheists.

But, usually, the three groups, A, B, and C, suffice. There is no need for further subdivision.

In your case, since your categories are different and incomplete, maybe you're trying to fill in your gap of categories. Maybe you'll wind up with something like this:

A. People who believe gods do exist.
B. Everybody who thinks gods are at least slightly more likely not to exist than to exist.
C. Those people (implicit atheists) who are exactly neutral because they aren't versed in the concept of gods.
D. Those people who are exactly neutral for all other reasons.
E. Those people who believe gods are more likely than not, but who still don't believe gods exist.

Good luck teaching people all those categories so that you can have conversation. I don't see the point since these categories are so much more clear, easy, and common:

A. Those who believe that gods do exist.
B. Those who believe that gods do not exist.
C. Everybody else.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 1 by ytrewq]

In my opinion yes. A baby is incapable of analysing the world around it, it's brain is not developed enough to assess information, it can rightly therefore be described as an atheist.

I do not understand. I agree with the first part of your sentence in green, but strongly disagree that it therefore follows that babies are atheist. Why does it follow?

Perhaps you are guilty of doing exactly what I asked people not to do, and use an existing definition of atheist to decide whether babies are atheist. But as I explained, that is doing things backwards. What I asked was not whether babies would be considered atheist under any particular definition of Atheist, but whether babies should be considered Atheist, with reasons given.

And after making a reasoned decision on whether it makes sense to regard babies as Atheist, then we create or modify the definition of Atheist to suit. Not the other way around.

[William]

Should babies be regarded as Athiests?

NO.

And they should not be regarded as Theists, either.

As has been pointed out in the answering post already, babies have not come to any knowledge based personal decisions about the subject of GODs and this is what all atheists, agnostics, and theists have in common with each other, but not with a human babies condition.

Agnostics decide to remain in that "I do not know either way" category, whereas atheists and theists have made a decision.

Calling an agnostic a 'weak' atheist then compares the agnostic position with the 'strong' atheist position and this presents a type of sneering in the implication that the 'strong' is better than the 'weak' adding to the barriers built around such notions which appear naturally enough in relation to the implication.

Far better to leave the categories as the different positions they actually are, on the knowledge of ideas of GODs, than confusing things through the introduction of the unnecessary inclusion of baby humans into the mix.


Another thing that all 3 categories have in common with each other is that the individuals who altogether make up the 3 different positions, got to choose to do so of their own volition, and can proselytize from their chosen positions as they will, argue points of difference (as in the case of this thread subject) and work towards the most accurate and honest understanding of the different positions as they are represented by individuals from those positions.

Leave babies out of the equation by agreeing to defer to the natural right of the individual to come to the point they do through those natural processes which the subject of ideas of GODs creates. (((o)))

On the subject of mothers (re babies)...

[Replying to post 4 by Mithrae]

...it's still entirely plausible or even probable that babies have some conception of a greater, ever-present, nurturing presence, which would tick all the main theistic boxes. That 'god' will turn out to be the being they eventually know as their mother...

While I am all for this idea, the oft neglected Mother aspect of ideas of GOD in relation to the 3 main organised religions built on the back of Theism - the Abrahamic ideas of GOD are way too masculine - balance should be restored, and an individual who has chosen theism as their preferred position, who follows the idea of GOD as being feminine, has a wall to work through in relation to said 3 main organised religions...

...one can indeed argue that babies are more connected to the feminine aspect of human nature, and thus it is a natural enough response for a theist to promote ideas of GOD, using parental-based concepts, as Jesus purportedly does when referring to his idea of GOD as 'The Father' ...


... but one still has to draw the line that this "might' indicate that "all human babies are born theists"

It is far better use for Occam's Razor to cut away the unnecessary inclusion of babies into the mix, even for the sake of getting rid of the confusion such inclusions create.

[Mithrae]

I don't see the point of your neutral category. Why do we need a forth category?

A. People who believe gods do exist.
B. People who believe gods do not exist.
C. Everybody else.

I call those groups theists, strong atheists, and weak atheists.

Some call them theists, atheists, and agnostics.

Perhaps in the political sphere we should likewise categorize people as
1. Those who believe monarchy is good government
2. Those who believe monarchy is bad government
3. Everybody else

Hmm...

Actually, it seems a little odd emphasize an arbitrary dichotomy as the primary taxonomic yardstick in a subject with a wide variety of nuanced positions. Trying to label folk who've decided that they are agnostics 'weak atheists' is likely to annoy many of them, as is trying to label folk who've decided that they are weak atheists 'agnostics.' It also blurs or loses any nuances which each of those positions otherwise would have had. If it comes to it, trying to lump deists and pantheists all in together with evangelicals and fundamentalists has similar problems; they're very different ways of thinking about reality, and subsuming them all under the vague term 'gods' (and throwing in the similarly vague term 'believe' on top!) doesn't seem like it would accomplish anything much besides encouraging over-simplified rhetoric and thinking.

Good luck teaching people all those categories so that you can have conversation. I don't see the point since these categories are so much more clear, easy, and common:

And it's far too complicated to have discussions with terms like 'anarchist,' 'socialist,' 'democratic,' 'republic,' 'capitalist,' 'fascist' and so on... As with the left/right scale in politics, some positions on the nature of reality are more theistic (eg. idealism or panpsychism; maybe more theist-ish?), some are more atheistic (eg. physicalism or naturalism) and some lie somewhere in between. But where does the need for clear-cut binary or even ternary categories come from? Why can't folk decide what label suits them best?

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by Mithrae]

But where does the need for clear-cut binary or even ternary categories come from? Why can't folk decide what label suits them best?

Because 'confusion' is 'why'.

If the labels are not strictly differentiated, and babies are brought into the ensuring arguments, then an agnostic might belief that he/she is indeed a 'weak atheist' and wear that label as if it were the truth of the matter.

The truth of the matter is the central focus in relation to such questions.

Confusion has the tendency of clouding the truth of the matter.

So indeed, it should be a matter of respect to allow for people to label themselves as they will in relation to the question of ideas of GODs, but also being respectful enough to bring up arguments such as this, in order that people are not mislabeling themselves, and contributing to the confusion because of that.

[ytrewq]

I don't see the point of your neutral category. Why do we need a forth category?
A. People who believe gods do exist.
B. People who believe gods do not exist.
C. Everybody else.

I call those groups theists, strong atheists, and weak atheists.

Some call them theists, atheists, and agnostics.

Very simple. Babies are in fact in a special category of being religiously ignorant, and thus unable to form any conclusions on religious matters, including whether they do or do not believe in Gods. That's a fact.

This "religiously ignorant and neutral" category exists, and babies fall within it. Given that this category exists, we need to consider it. Can't get simpler or more definitive than that.

The rest of your posting does not address the questions I asked, but instead concentrates on your personal definitions of atheist and theist. But that is not what I asked. I asked for reasons why a baby should or should not be considered atheist.

And after making a reasoned decision on whether it makes sense to regard babies as Atheist, then we create or modify the definition of Atheist to suit. Not the other way around.