“We Are All Born Atheist!” – SciPhi Shortz: BAM!
Delve into the intricacies of atheism with Joe on the latest installment of Fresh AiR, where common understandings are challenged, and definitions are dissected. Through a focused examination, the episode cuts through the layers between active disbelief and a mere absence of belief in deities. This granular look at atheism not only clarifies common misconceptions but ensures listeners grasp the various non-theistic positions that are often overlooked in broader discussions.
In this edition, Joe confronts the prevalent notion that we all begin life as atheists, presenting his critique against such an argument's logical and epistemological foundations. He meticulously deconstructs the reasons why classifying newborns as atheists is not only conceptually flawed but potentially undermines the atheistic stance as one of informed rationality. Instead, he offers an alternative perspective, viewing infants as naturally predisposed to finding patterns and reasons in their surroundings - a trait potentially paving the way to supernatural beliefs rather than a default state of atheism.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Aug 27, 2021 episode of the Fresh AiR
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
Defining atheism
Atheism is often at the heart of debates regarding belief, knowledge, and how we understand both. It's important to differentiate "not believing in gods"—an active rejection of deity existence—and "lacking belief in gods," which signifies an absence of belief, possibly due to no exposure or consideration of theistic ideas. This distinction is important for grasping various non-theistic perspectives and motivations.
Problems with the "born atheist" meme
Joe critiques the popular concept that "we are all born atheists," describing several intellectual shortcomings in this argument. Firstly, it fails to understand knowledge and belief correctly, wrongly implying that newborns can grasp or reject theistic notions. Babies lack the cognitive maturity for such beliefs, making this claim epistemologically incorrect. Additionally, using this meme does little to support atheism and could portray atheists as misinformed rather than rational and knowledgeable. Joe suggests that instead of calling babies atheists, it would be more accurate to describe them as "innocent" or "ignorant." He proposes we view newborns as blank slates with a biological inclination towards attributing agency in their environment, which can be a foundation for supernatural beliefs, rather than inherent atheism.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The distinction between "not believing in gods" and "lacking belief in gods" is crucial in understanding atheism. "Not believing in gods" implies an active rejection of the idea of deities, while "lacking belief in gods" simply means not holding a belief in them, which could be due to various reasons like lack of exposure or consideration. This difference helps in recognizing the diverse perspectives within non-theistic beliefs and the motivations behind them.
- The claim that babies are atheists is considered epistemologically incorrect because atheism involves a conscious rejection or absence of belief in gods, which infants lack the cognitive capacity to comprehend. Atheism is a position that requires a level of understanding and consideration of theistic concepts, which newborns do not possess. Therefore, labeling babies as atheists is inaccurate as they are not actively engaging in the rejection of theistic beliefs.
- A biological inclination towards attributing agency in newborns suggests that infants have an inherent tendency to attribute actions and intentions to entities in their environment. This inclination is thought to be a foundational aspect of human cognition, aiding in the understanding of cause and effect relationships. It can lead to the perception of agency in natural phenomena and may contribute to the development of supernatural beliefs in later stages of life. This concept highlights the early emergence of cognitive processes related to understanding and interpreting the world around us.
- The connection between attributing agency and supernatural beliefs lies in the human tendency to perceive intention and purpose in events, even when there is no direct evidence. This inclination to attribute agency can lead individuals to believe in supernatural beings or forces as explanations for phenomena beyond their understanding. Essentially, the attribution of agency is a cognitive bias that can contribute to the development and reinforcement of supernatural beliefs in individuals and societies.
Counterarguments
- The distinction between "not believing in gods" and "lacking belief in gods" may be seen as overly semantic, as both positions result in the absence of theistic belief.
- The term "atheist" might be used descriptively rather than epistemologically, meaning it could simply denote the absence of belief in a god, regardless of the reason, including the lack of cognitive development in babies.
- The "born atheist" meme could be defended as a rhetorical device emphasizing that belief in deities is acquired rather than innate, rather than a literal statement about the beliefs of infants.
- Some might argue that describing newborns as "innocent" or "ignorant" carries its own set of philosophical implications and may not be a neutral alternative to "atheist."
- The idea that newborns have a biological inclination towards attributing agency could be contested by pointing out that this is a hypothesis with varying degrees of empirical support, and alternative explanations for the development of religious belief exist.
- It could be argued that the critique of the "born atheist" meme does not necessarily undermine atheism as a rational position, but rather addresses a specific claim about the state of belief at birth.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Defining atheism
Atheism is a subject that ignites debates concerning belief, knowledge, and epistemology. This article aims to clarify the nuances of atheism and the implications of its definitions on human understanding and categorization.
Not believing in gods vs lacking belief in gods
The difference between not believing in gods and lacking belief in gods
It's essential to distinguish between "not believing in gods" and "lacking belief in gods." The former implies a conscious rejection or disbelief in the existence of deities, while the latter suggests an absence of belief—often due to the lack of thought or exposure to theistic concepts. This distinction is crucial in understanding various non-theistic positions and the reasons behind them.
Issues applying atheist definitions to babies
Babies cannot consider or understand the concept of gods
One of the contentious topics within the atheism discourse is whether or not babies can be considered atheists. Babies are incapable of contemplating or understanding the intricate concept of gods. Given that atheism and theism concern a person's relationship to beliefs in deities, assigning either label to a being that is unable to engage with the concept seems i ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Defining atheism
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The distinction between "not believing in gods" and "lacking belief in gods" is crucial in understanding atheism. "Not believing in gods" implies an active rejection or disbelief in deities, while "lacking belief in gods" suggests a passive absence of belief, often due to insufficient exposure or consideration of theistic concepts. This difference helps clarify various non-theistic positions and the reasons behind them.
- The debate about whether babies can be considered atheists revolves around the idea that atheism is typically defined as a lack of belief in gods, which some argue aligns with the state of newborns who lack the cognitive ability to hold beliefs. However, others contend that atheism requires an active rejection or conscious disbelief in gods, which babies, due to their developmental stage, cannot engage in. This debate delves into the nuances of belief formation and the application of labels to individuals who may not possess the cognitive capacity to comprehend such concepts.
- The psychological state required to hold beliefs about gods involves the ability to engage in abstract and complex thinking, understand symbolic representations, and grasp the concept of supernatural beings. This cognitive capacity enables individuals to contem ...
Counterarguments
- The distinction between "not believing in gods" and "lacking belief in gods" might be seen as overly semantic and not particularly useful in everyday discourse, where both are often used interchangeably.
- Some argue that babies are atheists by default because they are born without a belief in gods, and atheism is simply the absence of theism, not necessarily an active disbelief.
- The concept of 'implicit atheism' suggests that one does not need to consciously reject theism to be an atheist; thus, babies could be categorized as implicit atheists due to their lack of belief.
- The idea that babies cannot be categorized as atheists or theists might be challenged by the notion that belief systems are not always based on active contemplation ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Problems with the "born atheist" meme
Joe addresses the popular meme suggesting "we are all born atheists," pointing out several flaws and recommending alternative ways to consider the state of mind of newborns.
Epistemological issues
Joe asserts that the claim "we are all born atheists" demonstrates a lack of epistemological understanding. It misunderstands the concepts of knowledge and belief, he argues.
Shows a lack of understanding of knowledge and belief
The notion that babies are born atheists implies that they have a conceptual grasp of theism or the conscious rejection of it, which is not epistemologically sound. Babies do not possess the cognitive abilities to form such complex beliefs or to understand or assess theistic claims.
Limitations as an argument strategy
The meme does little to bolster the atheist position. Joe criticizes the meme, especially the suggestion that "we are all born atheists until someone starts telling us lies." This statement confounds falsehoods with lies, which necessitate an intent to deceive, thus making atheists seem ignorant rather than informed and rational.
Does not strengthen the atheist position
Makes atheists seem ignorant
Joe sees this argument as unproductive and weakening r ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Problems with the "born atheist" meme
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Epistemological issues pertain to the philosophical study of knowledge, focusing on understanding the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, as well as the rationality of belief. Epistemologists explore questions such as what constitutes knowledge, how beliefs are justified, and the conditions required for knowledge to exist. It involves analyzing sources of knowledge like perception, reason, memory, and testimony, and delves into debates on skepticism and the challenges it poses to knowledge claims.
- Babies lack the cognitive abilities to form complex beliefs because their brains are not fully developed at birth. Complex beliefs, such as those related to theism or atheism, require higher-order thinking skills and abstract reasoning, which infants do not possess. Babies primarily rely on instinctual responses and basic sensory perceptions to interact with the world around them. As they grow and develop, their cognitive abilities mature, allowing for more sophisticated understanding and belief formation.
- Theistic claims typically involve beliefs in the existence of deities or supernatural beings that are worshipped or revered. These claims often form the basis of religious practices and rituals centered around these divine entities. Theistic perspectives vary widely across different religions and spiritual traditions, influencing followers' worldviews and guiding their moral and ethical principles. The concept of theistic claims contrasts with atheistic viewpoints, which reject ...
Counterarguments
- Babies may not have complex beliefs, but the absence of belief in deities could technically be considered atheism, which is simply the lack of belief in gods, not necessarily a conscious rejection.
- The meme "we are all born atheists" could be seen as a rhetorical device emphasizing that theism is not an innate position but one that is taught, which can be a valid point in discussions about the natural state of human belief.
- The statement "we are all born atheists until someone starts telling us lies" can be interpreted as a critique of indoctrination rather than an accusation of deceit by all theists, which might not necessarily make atheists seem ignorant.
- Describing babies as "innocent" or "ignorant" might be accurate, but it does not address the core of the meme's argument, which is about the absence of belief rat ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
