A question

[Taoist]

I have just been meditating upon a rather intriguing (at least to me) thought. Imagine this scenario: you have just been born this very moment. You have no knowledge of the past. This is your first moment in existence. What would you believe? Honestly. Would you still believe there is a divine creator that has moulded your existence? Surely, you would believe only what you see? Why would you believe anything more?
Take a child for example; would a child even comprehend any more than what he/she sees? Is religion not only apparent in our lives for we have been told that it is so? For if it wasn't, why is it that we only believe the Gods of those that have "enlightened" us to its presence? If we was to inherently conceive of an all powerful creator, why does it always take the form of that of Jehovah? Or Ganesh? Why not something completely different?
I suppose what i am really asking is, are our beliefs built solely upon what others have told us? If we were to think for ourselves, and not fill in the gaps, what would we truly be left with? If we disregard everything that is supposition, and formulate our ideologies on what is around us would we still believe there is anything more?


This is not an attempt to refute religion, but a curiosity of mine. I am in no way wanting to offend anyone.

 

[wil]

What do we see until we are told what we see? The sky is blue we are told. Our eyes convert light and reflections of light, and lack of light in a matrix within 'view' to electrical impulses which are sent to the brain...and are they anything, represent anything, until more experience comes in or we are told what it is...oops told.

Our ears convert 'vibrations' to electrical impulses which are sent to the brain...are these anything but noise until we are told what they are...this combination of noise means XXX and this means YYY.....

Your mediation makes me think....can we even possibly imagine what it would be like to decipher these electrial impulses without someone else telling us what they are?

 

[Taoist]

Just because we aren't told that the sky is blue, can we not still see the difference between the sky and say, a green tree? Things came before words. We do not need to be told that the sky is there, we are merely told what to call it.

 

[wil]

Just because we aren't told that the sky is blue, can we not still see the difference between the sky and say, a green tree? Things came before words. We do not need to be told that the sky is there, we are merely told what to call it.

Can we?

Yeah probably. But what else. What do we drink? What do we eat? What do we do when we crap our pants?

I wonder if a 40 year old human without any help from another human could survive a month under your scenario.

 

[earl]

Interestingly, I'd stumbled upon a research study in the past 6 months that examined the question of whether very young children would assume a "Divine personage or intelligence" was responsible for existence and even those children raised in families or cultures, (a cross-cultural study), which did not propose that tended to make that assumption-for whatever that's worth. earl

 

[wil]

Interestingly, I'd stumbled upon a research study in the past 6 months that examined the question of whether very young children would assume a "Divine personage or intelligence" was responsible for existence and even those children raised in families or cultures, (a cross-cultural study), which did not propose that tended to make that assumption-for whatever that's worth. earl

Seems so, when you finish explaining the explainable, you explain away the unexplainable.

 

[iBrian]

I would argue that children naturally have a sense of their being "something else" beyond reality, not least after death - but that anthropomorphosised ideologies of God are very much learned.

 

[Thomas]

I agree with Brian —

I think as we grow older we become daunted by the prospect of 'the unknown'.

Today we live in a highly materialist/consumer culture that's founded on fear and denial of what cannot be 'managed' and 'commoditised' — risk, ageing, death, etc.

Meanwhile we become increasingly infatuated with the wonders of technology (materialism/consumerism) which discreetly or even overtly denies any other source or cause of wonder.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Taoist]

Can we?

Yeah probably. But what else. What do we drink? What do we eat? What do we do when we crap our pants?

I wonder if a 40 year old human without any help from another human could survive a month under your scenario.

I believe you may be taking this abit out of context. In regard to someone surviving, well, many necessities are inherent; as we are born with the "knowledge" to breathe we are also born with the knowledge to what we can and cannot eat, not to jump off a cliff, not to step into fast moving objects. Why do we feel put off by rotting food or feel uneasy when close to a steep drop? Why do we want to flee when we percieve a threat? Why do we laugh? Nobody can describe the euphoria of laughing so that we can emulate it. The faculties of survival are with us naturally. How do you think animals survive in the wild? They aren't told. People can survive perfectly well without a text book to guide them.
Nonetheless, i think you have misinterpreted my question. I am interested in the philosophical aspects of no prior knowledge. If you was brought up in a place where no apparent philosophical ideology is present, would you make your own mind up to whether or not there is some form of diety?
I know this question is rather silly as no one can think obkectively enough in these terms, but i'd be curious as to what people believe on the subject regardless. If you could do away with the social upbringing where we are (possibly) conditioned into believing what we do believe would we still attain the same beliefs?

 

[Taoist]

I agree with Brian —

I think as we grow older we become daunted by the prospect of 'the unknown'.

Today we live in a highly materialist/consumer culture that's founded on fear and denial of what cannot be 'managed' and 'commoditised' — risk, ageing, death, etc.

Meanwhile we become increasingly infatuated with the wonders of technology (materialism/consumerism) which discreetly or even overtly denies any other source or cause of wonder.

God bless,

Thomas

So would you think that maybe the fear of the unknown is what leads us to seek assurance from something more powerful than ourselves? Maybe the only reason we turn to one of these many religions is possibly because we seek comfort in the lack of knowledge.
The greatest vice of the wonderful human mind is the double-edged sword of curiosity. Even if we knew everything there is to know we would always wonder if there is more. Maybe taking solace in some omnipotent being that already knows all things with certainty allows us to find some peace so that the matter is no longer in our hands?

 

[Taoist]

Just to clarify: i am not picking on religion, but am asking in regard to all philosophy. I only use religion as an example as one could think that it is the philosphy that requires the least amount of physical evidence - and thus called faith. I know how touchy such things are and i in no way want to offend anyone or try and belittle their beliefs. I am not suggesting anyone is wrong!

 

[wil]

Namaste Taoist.

Earl it appears has seen a study that answers your question, maybe he can post where he found it if he remembers.

But I don't believe we have all the instincts any longer that you suppose. Our trepidation with cliffs has to do with falling. If we lost all memory of everything I believe we would not know what food or liquid was good, and would walk off a cliff.

But once we learned those things and started having some free time climbing maslows heirarchy, we'd invent some stories explaining the unknown.

 

[Lunitik]

Taoism is the Way of Love, the Bible tells us God is love, Islam tells us nothing exists save God, there are many other aspects of this, but every faith essentially teaches us pure love - a permanent state of love that does not leave us vulnerable to hurt.

What state is love best displayed in our development if not in the baby? As we grow we desire more and more, yet a baby only desires what it needs. I think this is the essence of all religion, and we would also seek it or those who have experienced it so we might learn it. Religion is so complicated because it is quite difficult to explain pure unselfish love, we attempt to create objects of adoration to focus and perfect it, stories which tell us why to feel this way. Yet, so often, we are presented with statements such as "I spent many years searching for it, when I found it I realized I had it all along" - we all know and have the ability to love, yet we do not allow ourselves.

Love would always be sought, and thus love would always be taught, thus we would always have religion. If there were no great teachers of the past as we are lucky to have, we would simply gravitate towards new ones.

 

[iBrian]

So would you think that maybe the fear of the unknown is what leads us to seek assurance from something more powerful than ourselves?

Actually, I would focus that on "leads us to seek" explanations.

It's not so much growing children develop a need for a higher power, as much as that their world view allows for more complex explanations, and therefore how do you describe this feeling of "something else"?

Personal spiritual explanations can seem vague; religion asserts claims of authority (I would extend Thomas's point that religion itself packages belief and trades it as a commodity).

As social animals, humans naturally bow to explanations by those in "higher authority" whether science, literature ... and religion. Therefore whichever group claims to be the dominant religious belief, it is therefore seen as "the authority" to listen to and follow - even if that belief is entirely shaped by limited cultural constructs to explain the unknowable.

After all, people like me see no difference between "God" and "Tao". There is a single unifying force of order in the universe that causes all to be. The difference between religions tends to be how personal or impersonal that force will be described as.

2c.

 

[Sam Albion]

I agree with you -- a person, just born, only seeing what is there, would not believe in a divine creator. They cannot conceptualise such unless such concepts are presented to them.

And yet... humans do not only see, or hear. They also feel, they learn, they develop traits... they become... relatively autonomous...

Unfortunately, many individuals never reach a point in life where they accept that most of what they have been told is... fairy stories, approximations, suppositions, traditions with no real... weight.

For instance... I'm British. It was St George's day recently. Lots of people hung Union Jacks up at their windows. "Let's acknowledge our English patron saint".

And yet... in truth, if they wanted to support Old George, then they should've hung a St George's Cross flag instead. (white background, red cross). He was a crusader, after all... or was he? In fact, St George was, actually, a Turk. He came from the old region of Cappadocia. Millions of dumb Brits, festooned with Union Jacks. Delighting in their ignorance, because it's tradition.

I do not agree, though, that our beliefs are built soley upon what others have told us. Some people can think for themselves. It's just a shame not everybody does...

 

[earl]

I agree with you -- a person, just born, only seeing what is there, would not believe in a divine creator. They cannot conceptualise such unless such concepts are presented to them.

And yet... humans do not only see, or hear. They also feel, they learn, they develop traits... they become... relatively autonomous...

Unfortunately, many individuals never reach a point in life where they accept that most of what they have been told is... fairy stories, approximations, suppositions, traditions with no real... weight.

For instance... I'm British. It was St George's day recently. Lots of people hung Union Jacks up at their windows. "Let's acknowledge our English patron saint".

And yet... in truth, if they wanted to support Old George, then they should've hung a St George's Cross flag instead. (white background, red cross). He was a crusader, after all... or was he? In fact, St George was, actually, a Turk. He came from the old region of Cappadocia. Millions of dumb Brits, festooned with Union Jacks. Delighting in their ignorance, because it's tradition.

I do not agree, though, that our beliefs are built soley upon what others have told us. Some people can think for themselves. It's just a shame not everybody does...

Ah, no. Couldn't find the study again I alluded to but young kids are "natural" theists:
Powered by Google Docs earl