'Why humans find it hard to do away with religion'

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Not useful, just me and Outrider sharing some thoughts

Gonnagle.

[Enki]

Dear Outrider,

Well one scientist likened it to ( how he knows this ) jumping out of a aeroplane with no parachute but ten times more frightening.

I am not a mother ( or father ) so I go with the science presented, the child in the womb is connected to his/her mother, the child reacts to its mothers feelings, kicking when it hears its mother favourite music, one mother stated " I wish I had listened to more classical music when I was pregnant".

Higher power, yes I knew I was in trouble using that term and I suppose I am on thin ice with knowing what a baby in the womb is thinking, what I do know, this pattern seeking is part of what we are, it is written into the DNA, we don't learn it, what I think I know, the baby is aware of something greater.

Gonnagle.

Hi Gonners,

Not sure if this bonding process is particularly dependent on genetic influences. As far as I know the bonding process of a new born baby will occur with early exposure and learning. If you think about it, this makes sound evolutionary sense, for instance if the mother dies soon after birth.
There is also plenty of evidence in other animals of bonding between species, often called imprinting. (e.g Lorenz and his goslings)

[Gonnagle]

Dear enki,

I go where the music takes me, well in this case the science.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/

The link between a mother and child is profound, and new research suggests a physical connection even deeper than anyone thought. The profound psychological and physical bonds shared by the mother and her child begin during gestation when the mother is everything for the developing fetus, supplying warmth and sustenance, while her heartbeat provides a soothing constant rhythm.

But I am aware that it is a very grey area and I am also aware that my confirmation bias might be doing overtime

Gonnagle.

[Enki]

Dear enki,

I go where the music takes me, well in this case the science.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/

But I am aware that it is a very grey area and I am also aware that my confirmation bias might be doing overtime

Gonnagle.

No problem. The article you linked to is certainly interesting and informative and, what is more important, doesn't conflict with this article from the same magazine:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-newborns-can-bond-to-mother-from-different-species/

I am suggesting that the bonding process of the newborn sets up the instinctive trust and dependency which may well be one of the reasons that we have a tendency seek something of the same as we grow older, possibly leading to religious belief, amongst other things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear enki,

I go where the music takes me, well in this case the science.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/

But I am aware that it is a very grey area and I am also aware that my confirmation bias might be doing overtime

Gonnagle.

I'll tell you another grey area........The side of a battleship.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Get on stage, no really, quick before it wears off.

Gonnagle.

[Enki]

Dear Vlad,

Get on stage, no really, quick before it wears off.

Gonnagle.

As long as he's got another 49 'grey' jokes in the bag, first.

[Outrider]

Well one scientist likened it to ( how he knows this ) jumping out of a aeroplane with no parachute but ten times more frightening.

I get the reasoning, but that's sort of my point - it's reasoning, and an infant can't reason, it doesn't have the thought structures to do it. It simply reacts - is that 'fear' or instinct?

I am not a mother ( or father ) so I go with the science presented, the child in the womb is connected to his/her mother, the child reacts to its mothers feelings, kicking when it hears its mother favourite music, one mother stated " I wish I had listened to more classical music when I was pregnant".

I am a parent, but I don't for a second think that gives me any sort of insight into how they think, even now they're approaching adulthood... (especially now they're approaching adulthood!)

Higher power, yes I knew I was in trouble using that term and I suppose I am on thin ice with knowing what a baby in the womb is thinking, what I do know, this pattern seeking is part of what we are, it is written into the DNA, we don't learn it, what I think I know, the baby is aware of something greater.

It's aware of things, and it's developing a mental architecture to explore them - whether those things are 'greater' is subjective, I think, and I'm not sure the infant has any capacity to judge. It's probably just about capable of grasping some sense of 'me' and 'not me'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I get the reasoning, but that's sort of my point - it's reasoning, and an infant can't reason, it doesn't have the thought structures to do it. It simply reacts - is that 'fear' or instinct?

I am a parent, but I don't for a second think that gives me any sort of insight into how they think, even now they're approaching adulthood... (especially now they're approaching adulthood!)

It's aware of things, and it's developing a mental architecture to explore them - whether those things are 'greater' is subjective, I think, and I'm not sure the infant has any capacity to judge. It's probably just about capable of grasping some sense of 'me' and 'not me'.

O.

So it is capable of an ''artificial construct'' then.
Doesn't that therefore make your infant a bit more sophisticated than you have gussied?

[wigginhall]

Gonnagle wrote:

Higher power, yes I knew I was in trouble using that term and I suppose I am on thin ice with knowing what a baby in the womb is thinking, what I do know, this pattern seeking is part of what we are, it is written into the DNA, we don't learn it, what I think I know, the baby is aware of something greater.

Well, there has been some psychological interest in the idea of a higher power; for example, for the infant, the parent might be something like that, rather god-like.  And then in the mind (or psyche), there is presumably some kind of executive function or ordering.  So possibly children are internally (psychologically) organized along the lines of a hierarchy of mental functions. 

It wouldn't be surprising if we saw life in the same way, so that we 'see' a higher power in everything.

[Jack Knave]

Does that count as "religion" though?

The definitive marker here is the emotional significance one gives it i.e. does one worship it, that is, are its precepts and ethos 'sacred' and can not be substantially questioned, if at all. It is all about the attitude and reverence one endows it.

[Jack Knave]

The fact that you have to put 'worship' in quotation marks suggests that you are talking about something fundamentally different to religions.

O.

No. It signifies that the word is being used in a broader sense than is usually associated with it but that it still includes, as a part of it, its usual nomenclature meaning.

[Outrider]

So it is capable of an ''artificial construct'' then.

I've no idea if it is or not - exactly what stage the sense of self develops, how it is formulated and what complexities it might entail are impossible to deduce at that stage of development given the lack of any language by which we could communicate the ideas.

Doesn't that therefore make your infant a bit more sophisticated than you have gussied?

Only if you're suggesting that the construction of the self within the psyche is a deliberate act - I wasn't aware anyone had suggested that, but feel free to make the case.

O.

[Outrider]

No. It signifies that the word is being used in a broader sense than is usually associated with it but that it still includes, as a part of it, its usual nomenclature meaning.

OK, but still outside of the conventional use, yes?

O.

[Jack Knave]

I don't see the labelling of babies as atheist any more useful than saying tables are atheist. Nor indeed, that they have a belief in a higher power, they don't have that capability

That's right. The idea of atheism comes after the idea of theism so if the baby has no concept of Gods then it can't choose to be an atheist, or entertain anything along those lines.

[Jack Knave]

OK, but still outside of the conventional use, yes?

O.

Convention is a funny thing.

The notion I'm expressing here came first before the conventional use, as you put it. What came first was man's attitude to things and a sense of awe and wonder etc. This has been distilled to the now limited and narrow monotheistic position. I'm just putting it in its rightful place again.

[Nearly Sane]

That's right. The idea of atheism comes after the idea of theism .so if the baby has no concept of Gods then it can't choose to be an atheist, or entertain anything along those lines.

Not sure I completely agree. Once a child is aware enough to have conscious beliefs, it could be classified as lacking a belief in a god if it had never been presented with or thought of such a concept as a god
 In that sense it would at that point be atheist but not post theism.

[Outrider]

Convention is a funny thing.

Most things are, if you look at them from the right angle

The notion I'm expressing here came first before the conventional use, as you put it. What came first was man's attitude to things and a sense of awe and wonder etc. This has been distilled to the now limited and narrow monotheistic position. I'm just putting it in its rightful place again.

Well, I'd strike a difference between a sense of awe and wonder, and a sense of worship - I'm awed and in wonder of the expanse of the universe, from quantum mechanics to cosmology, but I don't 'worship' any of it.

That said, I can see how awe and wonder without an explanation could lead to worship - however, I think to use 'worship' in that broader sense without clarifying how it differs from the current convention muddied the waters a little.

O.

[Outrider]

That's right. The idea of atheism comes after the idea of theism so if the baby has no concept of Gods then it can't choose to be an atheist, or entertain anything along those lines.

The idea of atheism, yes, but the atheism comes before the idea of it.

Before the invention of the car no-one had any cars - the fact we didn't have a word or an idea for them doesn't change the fact they didn't have one.

Before we have a word for the idea of god we can't believe in that idea of god - the absence of belief is atheism, it doesn't matter why you have that lack of belief.

It might be worth, in some circumstances, clarifying that sort of inherent, ignorant atheism, I suppose, but it doesn't change the classification, just refines it.

O.

[Jack Knave]

Not sure I completely agree. Once a child is aware enough to have conscious beliefs, it could be classified as lacking a belief in a god if it had never been presented with or thought of such a concept as a god
 In that sense it would at that point be atheist but not post theism.

That lacking is due to the fact that it hasn't yet stepped into that particular arena. Atheism is a reaction to the notion of God so that notion and idea has to precede things first.

[Nearly Sane]

That lacking is due to the fact that it hasn't yet stepped into that particular arena. Atheism is a reaction to the notion of God so that notion and idea has to precede things first.

But the lack is all that is needed to be atheist. Theist/atheist is a binary position and if you lack the belief, once you are capable of holding beliefs,  you are in that sense an atheist. Remember this is in a thread where the belief in something like this is being held as being inherent in humans.

[Outrider]

That lacking is due to the fact that it hasn't yet stepped into that particular arena.

I wouldn't describe it as a 'lack', but rather just an absence.

Atheism is a reaction to the notion of God so that notion and idea has to precede things first.

Atheism is not a reaction to anything, necessarily. Atheism is the absence of a belief system that includes gods - whether that absence is due to ignorance of the idea or a conscious analysis that rejects the claim is irrelevant, it's still atheism.

O.

[Jack Knave]

But the lack is all that is needed to be atheist. Theist/atheist is a binary position and if you lack the belief, once you are capable of holding beliefs,  you are in that sense an atheist. Remember this is in a thread where the belief in something like this is being held as being inherent in humans.

No, the lack means it is neither one or the other. It has not yet acquired the concepts to make such a choice. There are no default positions here.

It is a bit like saying you have decided to not like tea even though you have never tried it. Until you try it you are not in either camp.

[Nearly Sane]

No, the lack means it is neither one or the other. It has not yet acquired the concepts to make such a choice. There are no default positions here.

It is a bit like saying you have decided to not like tea even though you have never tried it. Until you try it you are not in either camp.

It isn't a camp, despite what you might read here, it's a description where the postive is like tea, and the binary is no expressed liking for tea, which includes a dislike or a not sure what tea is.

[Jack Knave]

I wouldn't describe it as a 'lack', but rather just an absence.

Atheism is not a reaction to anything, necessarily. Atheism is the absence of a belief system that includes gods - whether that absence is due to ignorance of the idea or a conscious analysis that rejects the claim is irrelevant, it's still atheism.

O.

The first bit : Ok.

Next bit. You can only say that from a position of hindsight. If there are no concepts of Gods (or the concept has not been instilled into the person) then there can be no atheism on their part. How can you disagree with a concept or idea if you have never encountered it? What you are saying is that you are making a judgement about someone else's position as an external agent but it is what the person themselves think and know that is the clinching factor here, and which dictates that person's actual position on the matter. There being three possible ones of theist, atheist and undecided or not even considered.