Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'd agree with that - morality is subjective: it's what subsets of people think, is not uniform and the zeitgeist doesn't stand still.

I might recognise that different moral viewpoints can be held whether or not I agree with them. Thus I can note that some may view same-sex marriage or contraception as being immoral, though I don't agree with them.

I was just wondering what you meant by a belief not having general value - that it only has personal value for the person holding the belief ? How would you define 'general value'? Or did you mean it has no value to you?

There are a lot of instances where you have to do more than note another person's morality i.e. you have to comply with a moral belief you don't agree with.

e.g. having a monarch - people have decided that they believe in the concept of monarchy - that it is moral for one family or person to rule over commoners i.e. a family gets to have privileges that don't apply to most people. You don't believe in the morality of a monarchy but  regardless of whether we believe or not we have to fund it with our taxes and acquiesce to the privileges the monarchy has.

Would you say that because you don't personally believe in having a monarchy, a belief in monarchy has no general value?

[Gordon]

I was just wondering what you meant by a belief not having general value - that it only has personal value for the person holding the belief ? How would you define 'general value'? Or did you mean it has no value to you?

There are a lot of instances where you have to do more than note another person's morality i.e. you have to comply with a moral belief you don't agree with.

e.g. having a monarch - people have decided that they believe in the concept of monarchy - that it is moral for one family or person to rule over commoners i.e. a family gets to have privileges that don't apply to most people. You don't believe in the morality of a monarchy but  regardless of whether we believe or not we have to fund it with our taxes and acquiesce to the privileges the monarchy has.

Would you say that because you don't personally believe in having a monarchy, a belief in monarchy has no general value?

My original comment about value was in response to the quote, below, posted by Gonners, and my take is that the quote suggests that personal faith would have no value unless it was a consequence of having a religious experience, since those of us without religious experience will not have personal faith (in a religious sense).

So for someone like me 'personal faith' has no value and would only have value for theists, plus it is clearly discretionary in that personal religious faith seems to me to be a wholly internal subjective experience that wider society cannot cater for, and even if society does recognise that people are entitled to enact their religious affiliation, their 'personal faith' is wholly subjective

James emphasizes the importance of religious experiences as evidence for the truth of religious beliefs and the value of personal faith.

Moral positions, as opposed to 'personal religious faith', can't as easily be ignored if they have a more general social policy role that applies irrespective of personal views. So I have to tolerate the monarchy even though I find it morally offensive and would dispense with it by 5pm this afternoon if I had my way, though others may have a different view.

[ekim]

Moral positions, as opposed to 'personal religious faith', can't as easily be ignored if they have a more general social policy role that applies irrespective of personal views. So I have to tolerate the monarchy even though I find it morally offensive and would dispense with it by 5pm this afternoon if I had my way, though others may have a different view.

Another way of looking at it is to see 'morality' in the light of its Latin origin 'mores' meaning 'habit'.  There are personal habits which go to make up our personal egotism and there are collective habits which can arise from upbringing, indoctrination, political persuasion, religious persuasion, social policy etc and can result in a collective egotism.  Whatever form, egotistical will power tends to bring conflict eventually.  Perhaps the 'spiritual' element of religion is to use a method or way which can help eliminate egotistical self centeredness by identifying with that which is said to be present and identical within all. 

[Sriram]

Dear Sriram,

Oh my two favourite pastimes, talking about Meditation and beating the God dodgers over the head with a feather duster

Spiritual awakening, I think I grasp what you are trying to say, spiritual awakening is the same in any religion, yes/no?

And that is a very good question, is Christian awakening the same as Islam/Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist awakening, for me, personally I think it is ( the God dodgers will be all at sea with this, just chemicals in the brain Gonners oh what a cold world they live in ) anyway thank you for mentioning Kundalini or was it old Vlad, that man is such a Christian he really should get out more.

Gonnagle.

Yes... Christian experiences are the same as the experiences of other religious people. But everyone ....christians, muslims, buddhists, many Iskcon followers, some hindu devotees.... believe that their experience is unique and special.

Most Hindus however know that the experience of everyone is the same....which is why they are so open to the beliefs and practices of other religions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes... Christian experiences are the same as the experiences of other religious people. But everyone ....christians, muslims, buddhists, many Iskcon followers, some hindu devotees.... believe that their experience is unique and special.

Most Hindus however know that the experience of everyone is the same....which is why they are so open to the beliefs and practices of other religions.

Why restrict to just religious people.

I image most people, whether religious or not, have similar experiences. The differences, I would have thought, won't be in the experience itself, but in how an individual interprets that experience. So religious people may ascribe the feelings they gain to god or to being 'spiritual', while those who are not religious are unlikely to interpret the same feelings and experience in that manner.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes... Christian experiences are the same as the experiences of other religious people. But everyone ....christians, muslims, buddhists, many Iskcon followers, some hindu devotees.... believe that their experience is unique and special.

Most Hindus however know that the experience of everyone is the same....which is why they are so open to the beliefs and practices of other religions.

I think there are two paths available here. An explanation and justification of the saying “they are all the same”......or don’t explain and just enjoy being “The man who knows”.

[Sriram]

Why restrict to just religious people.

I image most people, whether religious or not, have similar experiences. The differences, I would have thought, won't be in the experience itself, but in how an individual interprets that experience. So religious people may ascribe the feelings they gain to god or to being 'spiritual', while those who are not religious are unlikely to interpret the same feelings and experience in that manner.

Yes...that is right. Atheists are likely to interpret the experiences differently.

[Sriram]

I think there are two paths available here. An explanation and justification of the saying “they are all the same”......or don’t explain and just enjoy being “The man who knows”.

I have prayed to different gods within the Hindu fold. I have also been to church and prayed to Jesus. I have prayed to Allah and and followed Buddhist practices. I have done yoga. All this for varying periods in my life. I have found them all to have a similar effect on my mind and emotions. 

I realized that it is like different food items around the world. Like pasta, bread or roti. They all are wheat though they may taste different. They have the same nutrients and are processed in the same way within our bodies.

[Sriram]

Why restrict to just religious people.

I image most people, whether religious or not, have similar experiences. The differences, I would have thought, won't be in the experience itself, but in how an individual interprets that experience. So religious people may ascribe the feelings they gain to god or to being 'spiritual', while those who are not religious are unlikely to interpret the same feelings and experience in that manner.

But you are still missing the point about Implicit pattern recognition. That ability  makes the difference between believing in a subtle superior power and not believing. That ability itself opens up experiences which atheists possibly would lack.

How we imagine the power would of course depend on the culture and religious background. 

[ProfessorDavey]

But you are still missing the point about Implicit pattern recognition. That ability  makes the difference between believing in a subtle superior power and not believing. That ability itself opens up experiences which atheists possibly would lack.

But the article you refer to doesn't make any claim about Implicit pattern recognition - implicit presumably meaning innate rather then learned. Nor does it make the kind of causal jump you have. All that article suggests is that there is a correlation between young people with higher levels of pattern recognition (which could be learned) and increase in religiosity from child to adult.

It provides no evidence that this is causal nor that the pattern recognition is innate rather than learned.

And, of course, there are also strong associations between enhanced pattern recognition and other traits - e.g. autism as an example.

How we imagine the power would of course depend on the culture and religious background.

Yup - our learned behaviour via cultural background programmes us to be open to certain explanations and to be closed to others. Which is why virtually all adults who believe in the christian god in the UK were brought up to believe in the christian god. Same for adults who believe in the muslim god ... and jewish god, and hindu gods etc etc.

Without that upbringing the claims of those religions seem, frankly, unbelievable. Indeed they seem unbelievable to many adults brought up to believe in a particular religion who often reject those beliefs as adults.

[Gonnagle]

But the article you refer to doesn't make any claim about Implicit pattern recognition - implicit presumably meaning innate rather then learned. Nor does it make the kind of causal jump you have. All that article suggests is that there is a correlation between young people with higher levels of pattern recognition (which could be learned) and increase in religiosity from child to adult.

It provides no evidence that this is causal nor that the pattern recognition is innate rather than learned.

And, of course, there are also strong associations between enhanced pattern recognition and other traits - e.g. autism as an example.
Yup - our learned behaviour via cultural background programmes us to be open to certain explanations and to be closed to others. Which is why virtually all adults who believe in the christian god in the UK were brought up to believe in the christian god. Same for adults who believe in the muslim god ... and jewish god, and hindu gods etc etc.

Without that upbringing the claims of those religions seem, frankly, unbelievable. Indeed they seem unbelievable to many adults brought up to believe in a particular religion who often reject those beliefs as adults.

Dear Prof,

Innate, not learned, innate, not me saying this it is the psychologists and scientists, something to do with the neocortex, end of story, innate, thank you.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Innate, not learned, innate, not me saying this it is the psychologists and scientists, something to do with the neocortex, end of story, innate, thank you.

Gonnagle.

No they aren't - no-one has produced any evidence yet to support the notion that there is innate, rather than learned propensity to believe in god. If it were innate new-borns would pop out believing in god, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. What there is, is ample evidence that kids brought up (i.e. taught) to believe in god have a tendency to do so. And specifically those brought up (i.e. taught) to believe in a particular god (e.g. the christian god) have a propensity to believe in that god rather than any other other gods purported to exist.

[Gonnagle]

No they aren't - no-one has produced any evidence yet to support the notion that there is innate, rather than learned propensity to believe in god. If it were innate new-borns would pop out believing in god, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. What there is, is ample evidence that kids brought up (i.e. taught) to believe in god have a tendency to do so. And specifically those brought up (i.e. taught) to believe in a particular god (e.g. the christian god) have a propensity to believe in that god rather than any other other gods purported to exist.

Dear Prof,

Okay, we are not Homo religious, is pattern recognition innate? I think this is a simple yes/no question.

Gonnagle.

[Sriram]

But the article you refer to doesn't make any claim about Implicit pattern recognition - implicit presumably meaning innate rather then learned. Nor does it make the kind of causal jump you have. All that article suggests is that there is a correlation between young people with higher levels of pattern recognition (which could be learned) and increase in religiosity from child to adult.

It provides no evidence that this is causal nor that the pattern recognition is innate rather than learned.

And, of course, there are also strong associations between enhanced pattern recognition and other traits - e.g. autism as an example.
Yup - our learned behaviour via cultural background programmes us to be open to certain explanations and to be closed to others. Which is why virtually all adults who believe in the christian god in the UK were brought up to believe in the christian god. Same for adults who believe in the muslim god ... and jewish god, and hindu gods etc etc.

Without that upbringing the claims of those religions seem, frankly, unbelievable. Indeed they seem unbelievable to many adults brought up to believe in a particular religion who often reject those beliefs as adults.

Please check out post 925.

Further....from AI

"While the existence of an innate predisposition towards religious belief is a topic of ongoing debate, research in cognitive psychology suggests that humans may be wired to seek supernatural explanations and believe in higher powers. Some studies indicate that children exhibit a natural inclination towards believing in supernatural agents and purpose in the world, suggesting an innate tendency toward religious thinking. However, the specific nature and extent of this "innate" belief remain open to interpretation, with some arguing that cultural and societal factors play a significant role in shaping religious beliefs."




 

[Sriram]

Prof D,

Further to my above post here is a link to a article....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm


************

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.

A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.

The £1.9 million 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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

No they aren't - no-one has produced any evidence yet to support the notion that there is innate, rather than learned propensity to believe in god. If it were innate new-borns would pop out believing in god, but there is absolutely no evidence for that.

What kind of evidence would you find plausible? How would you communicate with a new-born to find out what they believe?

What there is, is ample evidence that kids brought up (i.e. taught) to believe in god have a tendency to do so. And specifically those brought up (i.e. taught) to believe in a particular god (e.g. the christian god) have a propensity to believe in that god rather than any other other gods purported to exist.

Or possibly what we have evidence of is that a tendency to believe is  given expression in a particular way depending on the culture of the family the child is born into.

Children may have all kinds of tendencies that are expressed culturally. Children possibly have a tendency for co-operation and self-sufficiency. In Japan this is expressed by sending 3 year olds out alone in cities to run an errand such as navigating the streets, subway and crossing roads (e.g.to take lunch to their father at his work place 1.2km away from home) because in Japan children are brought up from a young age to believe in co-operation, self-sufficiency and that they have a role to play in their communities and to not believe in stranger-danger like their Western counterparts. https://time.com/6167580/old-enough-netflix/

[Maeght]

Prof D,

Further to my above post here is a link to a article....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm


************

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.

A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.

The £1.9 million 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.

************

How can they have identified whether the tendency for belief is a basic impulse or learnt I wonder?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram,

Good luck trying to convince the Prof and the other God dodgers❤️

I have beside my computer at the moment one of the books which came out of the link you posted Homo Religiousus ?  but it is a book written by academicals for academicals ( lots of long words, the Prof would love it, no Anthropos yet Prof ).

Anyway I have just started reading it and one of the questions it poses is "Why is religion not just fading away" the book cites Russia, China and revolutionary France as example of countries who tried to get rid of religion. It then goes on to say that religion appears ( appears Prof, only appears ) to be primordial in human history and present in some form or another in all human civilisations.
Further ( oh I do like like a wee further ) religion seems to be incredibly resilient and is in some sense irrepressibly natural to human beings.

irrepressibly natural

Anyway thank God for google, I can quickly look up all the long words bloody academicals, your long words don't scare me

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My original comment about value was in response to the quote, below, posted by Gonners, and my take is that the quote suggests that personal faith would have no value unless it was a consequence of having a religious experience, since those of us without religious experience will not have personal faith (in a religious sense).

So for someone like me 'personal faith' has no value and would only have value for theists, plus it is clearly discretionary in that personal religious faith seems to me to be a wholly internal subjective experience that wider society cannot cater for, and even if society does recognise that people are entitled to enact their religious affiliation, their 'personal faith' is wholly subjective

Gonnagle seems to be saying that experiences reinforce beliefs - in this instance he is referring to belief in god i.e. faith/ personal faith - and that these experiences help give value to the faith / personal belief.

So one of the ways that faith has value is if the faith is an ingredient in positive experiences for the person having faith.

Moral positions, as opposed to 'personal religious faith', can't as easily be ignored if they have a more general social policy role that applies irrespective of personal views. So I have to tolerate the monarchy even though I find it morally offensive and would dispense with it by 5pm this afternoon if I had my way, though others may have a different view.

I agree with Ekim's comment (#984) that some of these faith-based subjective experiences are seen as valuable to all, not just to the person having the subjective experience.

Similarly, with personal moral beliefs - they become social policy because people's experiences lead to them being considered as valuable to all, not just the person holding the personal moral belief.

[Gordon]

Gonnagle seems to be saying that experiences reinforce beliefs - in this instance he is referring to belief in god i.e. faith/ personal faith - and that these experiences help give value to the faith / personal belief.

I think that is the case: having 'religious faith' is inherently subjective, and variations of the trappings of religions probably reinforce that.

So one of the ways that faith has value is if the faith is an ingredient in positive experiences for the person having faith. I agree with Ekim's comment (#984) that some of these faith-based subjective experiences are seen as valuable to all, not just to the person having the subjective experience.

Similarly, with personal moral beliefs - they become social policy because people's experiences lead to them being considered as valuable to all, not just the person holding the personal moral belief.

It may be that some faith-based conclusions do have more general application, and that non-theists could arrive at the same conclusions but without a religious faith having any role. For example, valuing altruism isn't dependant on having pre-existing religious faith.

However, where there is attempt to impose certain moral beliefs on the basis of religious faith so that they become social policy for society at large is, I think, more problematic. The issue of same-sex marriage legislation in the UK is a recent example, which religious organisations such as the C of E opposed on the basis of it be contrary to their religious doctrine and would have preferred it if social policy aligned with their religious doctrine - which didn't happen in the end.

So I do think that personal religious faith, and conclusions based on that, might not always have value for all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof D,

Further to my above post here is a link to a article....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm


************

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.

A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.

The £1.9 million 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.

************

We've already discussed this study. It provides no evidence that belief in god is innate rather than learned, given that they have no way of assessing the belief in either in new-borns and by the time they can assess this the individuals will have been subject to years of societal/familial influence on beliefs, so will have had amply opportunity to 'learn' (i.e. nature not nurture) those beliefs.

What is rather more compelling as evidence that religious belief is nurture not innate or nature is that children tend to follow the beliefs they have been taught by parents and society - hence being brought up christian is pretty well essential for a person to belief in christian beliefs as an adult. And the flip side is also true that children brought up in a family that does not belief are almost certain to retain that lack of belief into adulthood. And of course it makes no difference whether these are genetic children or adoptive children so you can discount some kind of heritable belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they aren't - no-one has produced any evidence yet to support the notion that there is innate, rather than learned propensity to believe in god. If it were innate new-borns would pop out believing in god, but there is absolutely no evidence for that. What there is, is ample evidence that kids brought up (i.e. taught) to believe in god have a tendency to do so. And specifically those brought up (i.e. taught) to believe in a particular god (e.g. the christian god) have a propensity to believe in that god rather than any other other gods purported to exist.

Mmmmm I think you might be conflating learning with teaching. That would explain your propensity to think that the religious are indoctrinated with religion but secular humanism or scientism can’t be an acquired thing and are somehow, the more natural state.

Are you not also relating acquiredness with being incorrect therefore?

[ProfessorDavey]

What kind of evidence would you find plausible? How would you communicate with a new-born to find out what they believe?

But that is entirely the point - that there is no evidence to suggest these attributes are innate rather than learned. This is to counter the unevidenced assertions of gonners and sriram that they are innate. If they are making those claims they need to provide the evidence - the onus is on them, not me.

 

Or possibly what we have evidence of is that a tendency to believe is  given expression in a particular way depending on the culture of the family the child is born into.

Children may have all kinds of tendencies that are expressed culturally. Children possibly have a tendency for co-operation and self-sufficiency. In Japan this is expressed by sending 3 year olds out alone in cities to run an errand such as navigating the streets, subway and crossing roads (e.g.to take lunch to their father at his work place 1.2km away from home) because in Japan children are brought up from a young age to believe in co-operation, self-sufficiency and that they have a role to play in their communities and to not believe in stranger-danger like their Western counterparts. https://time.com/6167580/old-enough-netflix/

Which is basically learned behaviour. If that child of Japanese heritage were dropped into a family (e.g. adopted as a baby) from a very different culture (e.g. Western cultures), then they would learn stranger-danger rather than Japanese-style self reliance.

I think there is evidence that young children tend to belief what they are told, albeit as they develop there is a tendency to challenge. But that isn't the same as an innate belief in god - rather than a tendency to believe what they are told is true. So tell them that god exists and they will believe that to be true. Tell them that there is no such thing as god and they will believe that to be true. But in both cases the belief/lack of belief is learned.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mmmmm I think you might be conflating learning with teaching. That would explain your propensity to think that the religious are indoctrinated with religion but secular humanism or scientism can’t be an acquired thing and are somehow, the more natural state.

Are you not also relating acquiredness with being incorrect therefore?

Nope - this is nothing to do with whether god actually exists or does not exist.

My basic premise is that the ability to learn is an innate attribute of human babies. What they learn is dependent on their societal and familial upbringing and will include things that are actively taught and things that are learned more organically by seeing others doing etc.

So new born babies have an innate ability to learn and over years they learn all sorts of things - e.g. language etc. They will also learn from their society to either believe in god/religion or not to believe in god/religion - so young children will largely simply follow their parental belief as it is learned. However lack of belief in god/religion appears to be much 'stickier' than belief in god/religion - as virtually all children brought up in a non religious household will retain that non-religiousness into adulthood. The reverse isn't true as up to 50% children brought up to belief in a particular religion (in the UK) end up rejecting that belief as adults.

[Sriram]

We've already discussed this study. It provides no evidence that belief in god is innate rather than learned, given that they have no way of assessing the belief in either in new-borns and by the time they can assess this the individuals will have been subject to years of societal/familial influence on beliefs, so will have had amply opportunity to 'learn' (i.e. nature not nurture) those beliefs.

What is rather more compelling as evidence that religious belief is nurture not innate or nature is that children tend to follow the beliefs they have been taught by parents and society - hence being brought up christian is pretty well essential for a person to belief in christian beliefs as an adult. And the flip side is also true that children brought up in a family that does not belief are almost certain to retain that lack of belief into adulthood. And of course it makes no difference whether these are genetic children or adoptive children so you can discount some kind of heritable belief.

"And the flip side is also true that children brought up in a family that does not belief are almost certain to retain that lack of belief into adulthood." 

How do you keep saying that.... when it has been established that people with implicit pattern recognition tend to believe regardless of their upbringing and children without implicit pattern recognition tend to be nonbelievers regardless of their upbringing?