It's the position before anyone tells them [to believe] something one way or the other, meaning that they are faced with options. One of those options is to stay the path. Without options, there is no default.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is meant by the term "default position"?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
From my perspective, the willingness to believe *anything* that someone tells you is definitely NOT a default position. But that seems to be what your position of 'faith' and 'openness' means. Instead, what you describe is gullibility.
Instead, the default position is one of curiosity, of being interested in the answer. And, together with skepticism, the lack of gullibility, we obtain atheism. What is required isn't simply being told anything and we believe. Instead, we required that some *reason* to believe be given. And, in the absence of such a reason, a lack of belief is the default rational position.
The reason children are initially so open is that they are programmed to trust adults to give good information. But what happens when the adults have poor information? That gullibility (openness, in your description) is no longer a good thing. Belief without evidence is *never* a way to find knowledge.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Sure. Some people have certainly "disabled" their propensity to believe in such things.
Thank you for addressing the actual points I raised and discussing them directly with your perspectives on them. Before addressing your points, I do want to reiterate and try to focus on a point I made earlier which I don't feel got addressed well which I think enormously helps put things into perspective for both of us in discussing this.
There really is no default "position", as positionalities are only what comes after a question is made; "what is this" and/or "what does it mean". What I see we are actually dealing with is rather a default condition, or a default state. There technically is no default position on anything, as a position on a question is already assumed. You might take a default position of neutrality in listening to a debate of multiple sides, for instance, but that to is itself a position of neutrality. It's already off the ground and a participant in the question, just as a neutral judge. It too is a position. That is not what children do in their innocent open states. They are without a position yet. They do not assume a position of neutrality. Openness is before all of that.
As an example, this would be comparable to saying the default state is rest, and action is what arises after some stimuli provides motivation towards action. "Inaction" is not a condition of rest, a default state, but rather a choice to the stimuli. Inaction, is actually an action of "not acting". It is the result of a choice. It is an assumed position. "At rest" is a state prior to the choice to act or not act. The choice to act or not act, moving out of that default state of rest, is directly comparable to the question of God, whether to believe or not believe. Both are a choice. Prior to that, is a state that lacks choice. Prior to that is the potentiality for either action or nonaction, belief and non-belief. Does this sound like a reasonable understanding to you?
Now to the above points in your quote. To call the natural condition of a child's openness gullibility, is to assume the world is nothing but choices of this or that being true, and if you don't careful chose a position you can be taken to the cleaners. A state of receptivity to truth, an openness to understanding however, is not a flaw that needs to be corrected. It is the natural condition of the human mind, prior to dividing the world up into this or that statements and choices of beliefs to be made. That being called gullible, is only a perspective of someone who deals in positionalities, divisions of the world into true and false statements.
Prior to that world of propositions of truth, exists just simply Truth itself to be seen a received by the mind in a state of innocence. It simply sees what is without a judgment of it being either this or that concept of truth. This by the way, is not only the natural state, it is also the goal of the mystic to now move beyond this dualistic world of divisions to see that Truth, without judgments of it being either this or that, dividing up reality in conceptual pockets of truth held by the dualistic mind as reality.
To the mystic, both theism and atheism are non-realities. What exists is, and some call that God and others call it nature. It can be seen from either perspective and both. The same I see being true of the child, prior to choices of conceptual reality. The natural state is rest, openness, receptivity, or "faith". And again I use faith to mean not as a "belief in" something, but Belief, in the sense of opened hands to the sky without any judgment or expectation of the mind. That does not describe either atheism or theism to me. That describes Faith.
Yes, I would also equate that state of curiosity with faith. I see that as the same thing. Faith reaches out to connect. That reaching is curiosity. That actually has less to do with seeking the answer as it does with connection with. The pursuit of questions and answers is simply a means to that end, but as we find out, there is an end to that pursuit which takes us back to the beginning, where answers to questions is not what makes that connection.
So atheism in your mind is natural curiosity, what I see as faith, along with critical thinking and skepticism? You may wish to compare your differences of what atheism is with @LuisDantas. From my understanding, he doesn't believe we should equate atheism as necessarily a position of skepticism. I agree with you in this that it inherently includes it.
As such, all of these are not default conditions or states. Skepticism only arises after one is thoroughly deep into the realm of questions and answers. It is a tool of reason. And that is a much later development in children whose innocence and openness, or faith, is prior to the fairly sophisticated level of critical thought, dialectical reasoning, empirical analysis, skepticism, and such. None of these are default conditions by nature. They are much later develoments, which actually don't exist in many fully mature adults: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-development-a-stage-theory/483
But it's not a lack of belief at that point. It's the assumption of a neutral position on the question. That is a rational choice. That is not the default condition. That a chosen position on the matter. The very best you could hope to say is the person is simply unaware of the question, and that's fine. If you wish to say atheism equals unawareness, that's another thing. However, if you did, then again why call that atheism and not something else, like "unawareness"? Why a-theism? Why is theism tacked onto the end of it?
But I'll add that unawareness is itself not a position either. It's just ignorance. So unawareness and ignorance cannot be called a position, though you could say that ignorance is the default, but that too is relative to their being a question at all. It is ignorance of something. It doesn't exist without the question either. What does exist without the question is openness to the world, like that of the child.
Not so. How could they be programmed to trust, if they didn't trust the programmers to begin with? Indoctrination and programming is only possible because the default condition is faith. They just pour their crap down that funnel into their heads and create a world full of the likes of all of us.
Children are not programmed to trust by people. They are designed that way by Nature. We all are. Our default state is Faith.Can you imagine an infant that did not trust the mother? They would die.
Gullibility isn't a good thing when you are playing on the gameboard of questions and answers. Little children don't play on that board game. That's a more sophisticated game for age 10 and older.
But here comes the zinger. When one develops critical thought to help protect that faith, it is in service of faith. But it is faith that is what compels the search for objects of belief to look for Truth in. All of this is good and fine, when you are an adult. It's something children need to learn. But needing to learn it, alone proves it is not the default state.
You are correct regarding me. Skepticism is IMO of course well correlated with atheism, but atheism is indeed a default situation that does not require skepticism or even reason.
I'm still not sure why a pre-belief should be identified with any 'ism' of any sort, but that's an answer I don't think I've ever heard, at least not that satisfies my understanding of positions of belief go. This is of course why I see the pre-belief condition to be simply possibility, one which can be said to be equally as much a potential theism or atheism. I find it equally as fraught with inconsistencies to call the default position theism for the exact same reasons. I would argue with the theist these exact same points for the exact same reasons.
Last edited:
Interesting to note from the definition of an ism: "A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory: "Formalism, by being an 'ism,' kills form by hugging it to death" (PeterViereck)."
If Atheism isn't actually an 'ism', perhaps it should just be called "A"? That would seem a better fit to this idea it's a pre-belief condition. I think my calling it openness, or faith, does fit, but "A" might too, since it doesn't attach itself to the God concept and wouldn't be considered "A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory" as an ism.
Of course it doesn't say much anything meaningful then, but so what? At least it can finally be free from the concept of God and its association with being considered a belief anymore!
Last edited:
Practice of what?
It does? You mean there is a default two-step dance style? A default sex position? A default married life? A default religious belief?
Augustus
…
This scientific paper makes a pretty convincing case that the default position is indeed to believe everything people tell you.
What we actually need is a reason not to believe, as comprehension entails acceptance. There can be no 'lack of belief', only a subsequent position adopted 'untrue', 'unproven', etc.
You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read
Can people comprehend assertions without believing them? Descartes (1644/1984) suggested that people can and should, whereas Spinoza (1677/1982) suggested that people should but cannot. Three experiments support the hypothesis that comprehension includes an initial belief in the information comprehended. Ss were exposed to false information about a criminal defendant (Experiments 1 and 2) or a college student (Experiment 3). Some Ss were exposed to this information while under load (Experiments 1 and 2) or time pressure (Experiment 3). Ss made judgments about the target (sentencing decisions or liking judgments). Both load and time pressure caused Ss to believe the false information and to use it in making consequential decisions about the target. In Spinozan terms, both manipulations prevented Ss from "unbelieving" the false information they automatically believed during comprehension.