Did you start as a believer?

[Harryprice]

Before I was sure there is no supernatural being "up there" I also didn't really believe in such - may it be toothfairys, witches or angels.

What age are we talking here? And how were you so sure there weren't fairies or angels?

[tolman]

My view is that between the ages of 7 and 12 the way we think (rather than what) emerges. So we either develop the ability to think critically (and begin to question and reject what has been passed down to us) or we don't.

Judging from remembered events and the date we moved town, I guess it must have been some point when I was 8 or less when I properly realised how limited the knowledge of most adults was, including various authority figures, which I suppose is a relatively necessary step to questioning them, or privately wondering what the base their claims on.
Once started, that questioning does have some fairly serious positive feedback - even if you can't prove someone is wrong, if they're making grand claims and you can see a lack of good evidence, it does tend to make you doubt them pretty seriously, and then look more carefully at the next person making claims.

The Santa idea is a good example. My experience suggests that some start to question and have it worked out early, while others need to be told (and are often disappointed) that Santa is a fantasy.

I can't remember believing in Santa as such, though that's not to say I disbelieved.
I suppose children are used to having stories told to them all the time that they don't necessarily believe are true, but which they don't violently disbelieve either.
Possibly it's just that they pick up from their parents some unspoken idea of which things are worth pretending to believe in, or develop a mental category for 'neither believe nor disbelieve' without having to explicitly think about it.

I suppose that even small kids are used to being told things by adults that are probably untrue but which are sometimes best left unchallenged, or seeing people telling white lies where it's obvious that it's generally better for the lie to be believed than challenged (if Dad hadn't gone to a party because he couldn't stand the person giving it, it's probably better all round if some other excuse given for non-attendance goes unchallenged).

Certainly, the night when I saw my father carrying Christmas presents into my bedroom (again, I must have been 8 or less due to the location), I don't think I'd already decided Santa Claus it was definitely just a story, but I wasn't disappointed, or surprised by anything other than having caught someone in the act of present-giving.
I suppose that in practical terms, my belief or lack of it didn't make any real difference, so there hadn't been any need to make a decision one way or another.

[L.E.N.]

What age are we talking here? And how were you so sure there weren't fairies or angels?

I was in the age of eight years.
What made me quite sure were the poor "arguments" of the believers.
I realised, that if this is all what they have, then it cannot be true.

And I never believed in the "believing for believings sake". Thats rubbish.

[tolman]

I read somewhere that a child simply isn't capable of the kind of reasoning and abstraction required by rational thought until they're 12 - 13. Before that, thinking is of the magical kind, "point-to-point" and by association. They're just a in different "space", cognitively speaking.

When you think that Aristotle identified and codified the "rules" of correct reasoning less than 2,500 years ago, and that the foundations of the modern scientific method were laid down only 300 or so years ago, is it really surprising that rationality is such a rarity?

Surely, long before Aristotle, even if they didn't write [surviving] books about it, many people would have been able to tell when they were being spun a line, just as many children under 10 are capable of seeing when an argument is based on flimsy evidence or circular reasoning even if they may have no formal philosophical training.

One might well argue that the breakthrough for science wasn't necessarily the writing down of rules and methods, but the impetus created by technological development, combined with the availability of printing for disseminating information, giving a far greater audience to observe (and possibly advance) science than if it was just of academic interest.

[smudge]

I suppose children are used to having stories told to them all the time that they don't necessarily believe are true, but which they don't violently disbelieve either.
Possibly it's just that they pick up from their parents some unspoken idea of which things are worth pretending to believe in, or develop a mental category for 'neither believe nor disbelieve' without having to explicitly think about it.

I suppose that even small kids are used to being told things by adults that are probably untrue but which are sometimes best left unchallenged, or seeing people telling white lies where it's obvious that it's generally better for the lie to be believed than challenged (if Dad hadn't gone to a party because he couldn't stand the person giving it, it's probably better all round if some other excuse given for non-attendance goes unchallenged).

I remember feeling discomfort as I became aware of intentional dishonesty and 'white lies' in adults. I had understood truth to be important. Yet people told fibs! Rather often! And sometimes believed in weird things, seemingly just because they wanted too, while dismissing other 'weird things' as weird!

I wonder to what extent early childhood experience creates or quashes skepticism. Or if it is genetic.

[smudge]

many children under 10 are capable of seeing when an argument is based on flimsy evidence or circular reasoning even if they may have no formal philosophical training.
.

This does seem to be the case. Perhaps skepticism is drilled out of kids? A much more hopeful thought than if credulous behaviour is pre programmed.

That said; I must beware of confirmation bias! >;-)

[tolman]

Belief-based societies can certainly suppress natural skepticism (or at least the public display of skepticism) to a greater or lesser extent.

To what extent they actually stop natural skeptics doubting, I couldn't say.
I'm sure that in even the most rigid theocracies, there have always been a significant number of people who think it's all bollocks, but who outwardly conform for fear of oppression, and/or for personal advancement.

[asydhouse]

I was in the age of eight years.
What made me quite sure were the poor "arguments" of the believers.
I realised, that if this is all what they have, then it cannot be true.

And I never believed in the "believing for believings sake". Thats rubbish.

Hi Len

I'm making good on my promise to help you with your English (I lived "on the continent" as we say on this island for 6 years, and so learning and correcting each other's languages is a normal activity for me ).

"I was 8 years old."


"if this is all that they have"

Finally, believing's should have the apostrophe to indicate that you are talking about the sake which belongs to the believing, and That's should have an apostrophe to indicate that you are really saying "that is" rubbish. Which neatly sums up the two uses for the apostrophe in English! (Of course, they use it here as quote marks too. I grew up in the USA where they use the double quotation marks "like this".)

Your second sentence was perfect!

PS One peculiarity is the word "its" which we use to mean "belonging to it", to avoid confusion with the contraction it's, which means "it is".

[Jin_Shei]

Belief-based societies can certainly suppress natural skepticism (or at least the public display of skepticism) to a greater or lesser extent.

To what extent they actually stop natural skeptics doubting, I couldn't say.
I'm sure that in even the most rigid theocracies, there have always been a significant number of people who think it's all bollocks, but who outwardly conform for fear of oppression, and/or for personal advancement.

Perhaps they prevent skeptics - natural or otherwise - from openly discussing their questions and theories and testing them against evidence. I live in an area that has a high level of homeopathic believers/vaccine refusing, and probably would get lynched if I tried to start a SitP here.

[Dubious Dick]

Perhaps they prevent skeptics - natural or otherwise - from openly discussing their questions and theories and testing them against evidence. I live in an area that has a high level of homeopathic believers/vaccine refusing, and probably would get lynched if I tried to start a SitP here.

That might depend on how you went about things. People may take issue with your conclusions, but if you simply state skepticisms striving for evidence and fact, it is difficult for the believers to argue with the motivation. Presentation?

Also, you may be surprised to find a good number of skeptics or potential skeptics n your area. I think that anywhere you get a bias of view for something then you can get at least a vocal minority to band togethre and speak out against. Either those that have learned homeopathy et al has no history of actually working as claimed, or the ones who have got a modicum of common sense already, and get fed up hearing the bs around them.

Don't let a mere lynching put you off. The cause is wrth martyring yourself for!! O/K. not that important but do not give up hope of forming alliances with the like minded. I think it would be good to try to network local groups and go for concerted action on agreed local woo issues. It may be a way forward.

[RobEarls]

I used to be an "Altar Boy" - I used to help the Catholic priest out when he performed mass. I didn't have any problems with it, other than the usual buggery.

I used to think, fallaciously, that if supernatural things exist (I was thinking alternative therapies) , then there must be something that causes them. ie. A god.

I was told that God is was all good. But Babies would burn in hell if they died before being baptised. It started me thinking that it was all bullshit.

[Tony Williams]

A rugby limerick which stayed in my mind...

There was a young curate named Bings,
Who talked about women and things,
But his secret desire
Was a boy in the choir
With a bottom like jelly on springs...

[JentheUnbeliever]

I was a believer...and I come from a very Catholic family. It took me many years to shrug off the beliefs of my mother and family. I was involved in the church up until my midteens when I started to become curious about "new agey crap". I can remember a conversation with a christian friend where I announced my curiousity in new age and spirituality and was promptly told that I would burn in hell. I think that was my breaking point with catholicism. I began to question the bible and god and subsequently upset everyone around me. I dabbled in various new age religions up until my late twenties, when I then realised all religions are one and the same. All deceive with lies and subjugation of morality (of which I've always thought should be taught by family alone). At that time I turned inward and used buddhism to find peace within. As for questioning and being skeptical of religion, that slowly grew within me. I must admit it was a difficult battle as both sides of my family are religious - to the point that my grandmother is such avid catholic that she has met a pope (or two). I would say that being skeptical has been a learned response to being surrounded by a variety of religious/superstitious beliefs.

Unfortunately I find that I'm a lone atheist in a family of believers...what's a girl to do?!

[bindeweede]

Hello Jen

Welcome to UK-S forum. Enjoy your visits and I hope you find some interesting reading.

What to do? I don't suppose you are the only one in your position, but you might find support with other atheists/skeptics.

I know that's stating the obvious, but it's what I'm best at, as I'm sure some members will rush to confirm :-)

[Croydon Bob]

I know that's stating the obvious, but it's what I'm best at, as I'm sure some members will rush to confirm :-)

A very positive thing compared with what polomint is best at...