Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
There's no such thing as an atheist baby [View all]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheismRichard Dawkins' implication that babies have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming a default language or nationality
Andrew Brown
theguardian.com, Thursday 12 June 2014 09.59 EDT

'To reach the state where you can really reflect critically on your own beliefs takes a long time.' Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Some Muslims will never speak of "converts" but only "reverts" because they believe that everyone is born a Muslim, even if some babies have this truth hidden from them by their parents who tell them they're Christians or atheists. And there's a style of atheist rhetoric that makes exactly the same point. To take two random examples from my recent Twitter stream: Joan Smith wrote: "I'm not convinced there are Muslim or Christian children. They have religious parents, but should be able to decide when they grow up." And Richard Dawkins wrote: "When you say X is the fastest growing religion, all you mean is that X people have babies at the fastest rate. But babies have no religion."
But there are no atheist babies, and certainly no agnostic ones. This is for two reasons. The first is that if we're going to be consistent, and to demand that babies only be ascribed identities that they themselves embrace, there are no German, British or Chinese children either. There are simply the children of German and English and Chinese parents, who will in due course learn the habits and the rules of the cultures around them and grow into their parents' language, nationality, food habits and religious opinions. The way in which they express these will become more subtle and more interesting as they grow up or at least we can hope it will but the fact remains that babies are entirely anchored in the world by their parents.
But you don't get Dawkins and Smith complaining because people talk about "Chinese babies". They think religion is different. Well, it is. For one thing, and despite the existence of loathsome and barbaric laws against apostasy, in most of the world it's much easier to change your religion than your language or nationality. It is generally accepted that changing your religion is a human right, but changing your nationality is not. The big difference is that religions usually make it hard to leave and nationalities usually make it hard to enter. But in neither case does an individual get to choose as if no one else were involved. To imply that babies have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming that they have a default language or nationality.
Of course, in an environment where religion is regarded as weird and old-fashioned, children grow up atheist because that's what their parents are. They don't think about it. They may have profoundly superstitious and unscientific beliefs, but they will think of these as rational and atheist because that's what they know all decent people are.
more at link
130 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You have an active belief that babies are born with wonder and curiousity.
beam me up scottie
Jun 2014
#49
People have been making all sorts of claims about babies' religious states
LeftishBrit
Jun 2014
#111
Only if you insist on using a definition of "atheist" that you and the author promote.
trotsky
Jun 2014
#6
wow. this is an unusually idiotic argument. dawkins doesn't complain about the national identity
unblock
Jun 2014
#9
it is indeed inherited, they've done studies on identical twins separated at birth.
unblock
Jun 2014
#15
A propensity to tend towards such faith is certainly a part of the human condition for a vast
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2014
#23
Perhaps an equally valid argument could be made that not-collecting stamps is a hobby.
Act_of_Reparation
Jun 2014
#24
If stamp collectors made a point of having buildings erected specifically to congregate...
trotsky
Jun 2014
#28
You should know by now that what Richard Dawkins actually *says* is irrelevant.
trotsky
Jun 2014
#50
I was commenting more about his recent interview about children and fairy tales.
cbayer
Jun 2014
#52
Of course if a baby is never told anything about superstitious nonsense or gods
randys1
Jun 2014
#26
I'm not making the argument that religion is not responsible for some bad things.
cbayer
Jun 2014
#34
There may be some help from churches but the vast majority of help is from the govt...and should be
randys1
Jun 2014
#35
Perhaps the catholc charities organization could provide services cheaper than the govt could.
pinto
Jun 2014
#65
No, one can be an athiest and also hold a positive belief that there is no god.
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2014
#82
Obviously I don't know and have no right to describe exactly what you as an individual believe...
LeftishBrit
Jun 2014
#88
OK - but I still think that unawareness of a concept excludes either belief or disbelief
LeftishBrit
Jun 2014
#87