Quote from ddunbar:
There's a problem with this analogy.
There is also "hard-wiring" in humans for the need of politics. We are after all... social creatures. So what is politics but the addressing of social and personal issues? And there is that drive in humans to address those issues. So while a baby might be specifically ignorant of say, democracy, or a monarchy, or communism, etc, the underpinings of all these political systems are innate.
Much like the propensity for religion or believing in things greater than self is innate. At a minimum, religion addresses a seemingly innate desire to answer the ultimate questions.
So again, no one is born atheist. They are simply born ignorant of the specifics of religion. The the propensity to gravitate towards religion and other fanciful thoughts is quite strong in humans and will probably remain so for many hundreds if not thousands of years to come.
As a paranthetical: There is no known atheist culture in antiquity. We see far too much evidence that religion was widespread even in isolated areas. To look at Buddhism or other non-diety religions or dogmas as atheist is not wholly correct because they believe in things they cannot prove and are at many turns fanciful. And atheism is not simply about "disbelieving" in Gods(theism) but about not subscribing to things that are not evident or irrational.
As mentioned, humans do appear to be 'hard wired' , but by specific limited definition, not by the general descriptions you make. Social creatures yes, but not innately so. Tribal creatures more so, but again not innately. Survival instincts are mostly innate, but not always. Otherwise there would be no suicide and particularly not by comparatively young children.
However, politics are the very last thing which make people social creatures, certainly in the hard wired context. A more partisan sectarian method of fulfilling social activities is difficult to contemplate. I think you are jumping to innacurrate ratiocinations in equating desires to be social creatures and politics to hard wiring. They do not correspond.
No, politics are essentially to do with tribal instincts. It is fair to point out there is nothing of an underpinning innateness in regard to politics, unless politics is only about instinctive survival. The nuances of politics are the complex and sophisticated machinations around learned social advantages on how to best serve yourself and your chosen tribe. Ideals are taught instructed and then discovered. They are not innate. The predisposition to enable and acquire awareness and knowledge is the thing 'hard wired' , not the things acquired.
A propensity for religion reflects a leaning toward superstition. I don't think you are suggesting a baby is innately superstitious or religious. if I read correctly, your argument is it's the things that come from an innate survival instinct that teach superstition. That does not make superstition itself innate.
Being born ignorant of anything means being born without it, without knowledge or awareness of it. You apparently recognize so in one of your later posts, which I think you very reasonably acknowledge many atheists may well not be able to chose religion simply because, they like everyone, are born without theism, but on hearing and leaning of it understand it makes no ground in reason or rational sense and therefore dishonest to accept its claims.
The tendency to drift towards certain accepted social constructs such as religion superstition or such other fanciful ideas, is learned , is not innate and is subject to fashion. What was accepted as inviolate by society at large years ago is not even thought worthy of consideration nowadays. There is nothing innate in religion superstition or politics.
The interesting part of your argument for me is the question of there being no atheist culture in antiquity. This in a way, although I disagree with your statement itself, is at the nub of the meaning I am trying to explain and discuss with you.
It is for the very reason that there is theism in the world that causes every child to be atheist at birth. The baby has no innate knowledge of either states. To the baby there is no consideration past feeling uncomfortable and hungry. To others who have learned that theism exists, the baby is yet without theism, therefore to these onlookers it is factually atheistic.
Those who want to perpetuate religious superstition into the child will then intervene to teach or exert influence. With the intentional effect of -- how not to be atheist.
