Thread: Can a baby know God? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025491
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I say no. A newborn infant ‘knows’ nothing, by any sensible definition of the word. Hell, they don’t even know their own existence. Personhood emerges with knowledge of self, which in turn depends on such developmental processes as language and recollection of abstract thoughts, etc.
So, how can a baby know god?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Is a baby conscious of anything? If so, why would a baby be unable to be conscious of God? He or she of course would not be able to verbalise their consciousness of God, but then many adults can't, either.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
My babies looked incredibly spiritually aware and turned on and tuned in once their eyes could focus on mine. I thought they possessed the answers to life, the universe and everything.
(And it wasn't 42)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Can a baby know God?
Can anyone?
Theosis - becoming like God (a pathetic and weak translation of the word) - is a process. It's primarily an act not of human effort, but of God. And it has to start somewhere.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
If you're trying to argue a case for atheism based on knowledge then you're going to fall into your own pit, aren't you?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
There is an Akan (Ghana) proverb: "You don't need to teach a child about God." or: "No one points out God to a child."
It is atheism and agnosticism that have to be learnt.
Or you can have Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
In my opinion belief in God is hardwired into human beings as surely as selfishness. If not the selfishness that ensured our evolutionary development would destroy the species. Of course, that does not prove God exists.
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
What about the idea of pre-existence, expressed by Wordsworth in "Intimations of Immortality" - "Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home..."? If we have immortal souls, would they not exist before we were born and is it inconceivable that babies may have memories of this although they can't express it? (I apologise if I'm taking the thread into Deceased Equine territory... I did check the guidelines and didn't think I was... )
Nen - wandering lonely as a cloud.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
There is an Akan (Ghana) proverb: "You don't need to teach a child about God." or: "No one points out God to a child."
Which would tend to put most Sunday School teachers out of a job.
Seriously though, if children all come pre-programmed to know all about God, why the intense amount of effort to provide them with religious education? Seems like an enormous waste of effort.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
There is an Akan (Ghana) proverb: "You don't need to teach a child about God." or: "No one points out God to a child."
Which would tend to put most Sunday School teachers out of a job.
Seriously though, if children all come pre-programmed to know all about God, why the intense amount of effort to provide them with religious education? Seems like an enormous waste of effort.
I have also heard that children who are young enough tend to know when they've had enough food (though some do comfort eat, obviously) and if so they are certainly ahead of many adults. Heck, I have seen my daughter leave plates of cake that she loved quite unfinished and that puts her generally ahead of me! Why is it more common at her age group than mine, because she hasn't been misprogrammed by society yet.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Thomas Traherne claimed to be able to remember things before he was born: quote:
Those pure and virgin apprehensions I had from the womb, and that divine light wherewith I was born are the best unto this day, wherein I can see the Universe. By the Gift of God they attended me into the world, and by His special favour I remember them till now.
(Centuries of Meditations, 3.1) Of course, we only have his say-so.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Does the answer perhaps depend on what we mean by the word "know"?
That bit in the gospels where it says that Jesus grew in wisdom, stature and favour with god and people had to have started somewhere...
Surely a baby has all the bits(physical,intellectual,emotional/social and spiritual) that make up a human already there in infant form and so can begin to grow in them all,with the spiritual part containing the idea of "knowing" God as well as things like awe and wonder.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
We can posit all kinds of infant knowledge. For instance, we could say that all babies are born as magnificent pastry chefs, but lose this knowledge as they grow and have to be re-trained in the art later in life. Like the idea that infants are all master theologians, this is technically impossible to prove or disprove, but doesn't seem terribly likely.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I feel that I had experiences of transcendence as a young child, but this is not exactly God. I think it makes the idea of God fairly straightforward though.
I would therefore separate the concept of God - which may be difficult for young children - from transcendent experience, which I don't think is.
By 'transcendence' I mean stuff like beyond-the-ego, non-dualist, numinous, and so on.
As to babies - I don't know. Presumably, they exist in a pre-ego state, but this may not be trans-ego.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Babies can swim. However most forget and have to be retrained.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
A newborn infant ‘knows’ nothing, by any sensible definition of the word. Hell, they don’t even know their own existence. Personhood emerges with knowledge of self, which in turn depends on such developmental processes as language and recollection of abstract thoughts, etc.
But babies have far greater consciousness than we give them credit for. Being pre-verbal, and pre-rational thought in the case of very young babies, doesn't mean they don't 'know' or don't have at least a very primal sense of their own self. Young babies can feel the anguish of separation and abandonment, and these painful experiences imprint on the subconscious. The late Frank Lake touched on this stuff in his seminal work Clinical Theology. 'The child is father to the man' indeed (Wordsworth).
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
What about the idea of pre-existence, expressed by Wordsworth in "Intimations of Immortality" - "Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home..."? If we have immortal souls, would they not exist before we were born and is it inconceivable that babies may have memories of this although they can't express it?
I like. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And agree.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I feel that I had experiences of transcendence as a young child, but this is not exactly God. I think it makes the idea of God fairly straightforward though.
I agree. (I had similar experiences as a very young child).
quote:
I would therefore separate the concept of God - which may be difficult for young children - from transcendent experience, which I don't think is.
Fair enough.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Jung is useful here, as you could argue that infants are in touch with the Self, but not the self. That is, they have to develop that separation from reality which provides boundaries and a sense of personal identity. This is self as ego; whereas Self is a kind of universal and all-embracing identity, which is probably a fairly common experience, but probably also often dismissed as just a brain blip, or whatever.
I think it used to be said that babies lacked ego entirely, but I have a vague memory that this has been discredited, and it might be said that they immediately begin to work out ideas about separation and attachment, and so on, which lead to a formulation of the ego-concept, with its consequent sense of boundaries, alienation and loneliness.
It's often said therefore, that it's at this stage of life that we develop that sense of yearning for wholeness, which can be termed paradise, from which we fell, at an early age, into selfhood, oh felix culpa!
It's astonishing how many religions contain some idea of non-dualism, or beyond-the-ego experience, often termed the 'I am' or the Great Self, which contains all.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
Yes of course it can "know" God. A baby can know anything God wills it to know. A baby could play ten Scriabin sonatas backwards if that was God's will. God indwells in the child in some sense from the very first. Knowing God is not just intellectual belief in the Nicene Creed, it is being moved by grace in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Can a baby know God?
Can anyone?
Theosis - becoming like God (a pathetic and weak translation of the word) - is a process. It's primarily an act not of human effort, but of God. And it has to start somewhere.
Top marks for this post. Agree 100%. Well said.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
There is an Akan (Ghana) proverb: "You don't need to teach a child about God." or: "No one points out God to a child."
Which would tend to put most Sunday School teachers out of a job.
Seriously though, if children all come pre-programmed to know all about God, why the intense amount of effort to provide them with religious education? Seems like an enormous waste of effort.
The purpose of Sunday School is to teach them what WE believe about God, as opposed to what they might come up with on their own. (Sounds harsh, but there you are.)
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Can we have a definition of know please?
Does a baby know its mother for instance? I suspect we can't answer that one either because it depends what we mean by know.
Jengie
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Can a baby know God? No.
I'm with Yorick and Croesos on this one.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Can we have a definition of know please?
Does a baby know its mother for instance? I suspect we can't answer that one either because it depends what we mean by know.
Jengie
When we kicked this off on the Young Atheists thread I was thinking on the lines of an abiding knowledge similar to that that may be experienced through prayer etc. where one might say they are dwelling in the presence of the Spirit. It would be a primal or instinctive knowledge, something felt rather than thought.
I think a conscious belief/ disbelief is learned knowledge.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
It's a fact that all babies know about the existence of zxfcdfgggfrtgcddft.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Two things have made me think about this:
Wordsworth's poem about intimations of immortality in early childhood, which suggests that babies come from heaven but gradually unlearn their memory of it.
What seems to be standard catholic teaching - that Jesus experienced the beatific vision wile still in the womb - the first time i heard this made me laugh out loud but I have pondered this and still wonder.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
I think a newborn baby "knows" discomfort/comfort. And I think there is some tests that show a fear of falling is innate. But the baby's brain is almost smooth, without the learning "wrinkles". So anything outside of those basics has to be learned by experience. The mother is probably the closest surrogate for a god a baby knows.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Firstly, there are people who claim to have retained more than usual awareness of their early childhood and who claim that they were then aware of God. Traherne and Wordsworth have both been cited. (I think it's probably that Wordsworth is consciously finding a symbolic correlate for his early experience rather than directly expressing it; but Traherne is being direct.)
Secondly, even assuming babies don't have any awareness of God that doesn't mean it is applicable to call them atheists. Black is the absence of colour, but electrons are not therefore black. The concept of an absence only applies where the concept of a presence applies. Electrons are too small to have colour; therefore they are also too small to be black. Babies can only be atheists if they are capable of believing in God.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
It's hard to answer this, as surely most of us don't remember being a newborn baby. I remember having a sort of instinctive awareness of God as a child, but my memories only go back as far as when I was 18 months old - which is when I was using language and starting to reason. Even though the awareness of God was instinctive, and outside of reason and language, it took some sort of reason and language for me to recognise that I had this awareness, and to remember this now as an adult. And my memories of awareness of God start when I was three years old - my 18 month old memories are about the garden and the grass. And my two year old memories are of my little sister being in a yellow bath and having what I thought was a black belly button, and the patterns on the wallpaper.
I assume my having a concept of God was shaped by what I learnt from my mother and from Sunday School - otherwise I wouldn't even have known the word 'God' - but my actual understanding of God was very different from what I was taught. And at a deep level. The memory fades a little with time.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Black is the absence of colour, but electrons are not therefore black.
Not to get all sidetracked, but black is a color, not an absence of color. (Wouldn't the absence of color be "transparent"?)
As far as electrons go, if a black surface is one that absorbs all photons, then given that definition an unbound electron is black. An electron bound to an atomic nucleus, on the other hand, will only absorb photons of a certain wavelength, and could thus be color classified accordingly.
Posted by Codepoet (# 5964) on
:
Yorick. Could you please define what you mean by "God", and then we can perhaps sensibly consider how that might relate to the experience of being an infant.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
Does anyone else like the novel Knowledge of Angels by Jill Paton Walsh, which tells of an attempt to find out whether knowledge of God is innate or learned ? In the story trying to find out doesn't turn out to be such a good idea, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't of course.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As far as electrons go, if a black surface is one that absorbs all photons, then given that definition an unbound electron is black.
Free electrons scatter visible light photons elastically (Thompson scattering). This is independent of photon frequency, so free electrons are white.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
My first memory is when I was about 3½ years old. I didn't know how not to pee my pants or when I needed to poo. I didn't even know about the neighbours or my grandparents, let alone some vapourous being with a beard leaning over his computer with his finger on the mouse's smite button.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:
As far as electrons go, if a black surface is one that absorbs all photons, then given that definition an unbound electron is black. An electron bound to an atomic nucleus, on the other hand, will only absorb photons of a certain wavelength, and could thus be color classified accordingly.
I'm not convinced that's how it works! The electon itself does not give a coloured substance colour, but rather the underlying structure of energy levels within which the electrons can transition and absorb energy. I don't think there's that dichotomy between bound/unbound electrons either.
But this is all a bit of a digression from the baby point. My answer to that is "I don't know".
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
My first memory is when I was about 3½ years old. I didn't know how not to pee my pants or when I needed to poo. I didn't even know about the neighbours or my grandparents, let alone some vapourous being with a beard leaning over his computer with his finger on the mouse's smite button.
But you're saying "know about" God not "know God." My son knows me in a sense, but at 1yo, I doubt he thinks enough to know about me. If babies experience God in any sense, I would say they know Her even if they don't have any theological knowledge at all.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
My first memory is when I was about 3½ years old. I didn't know how not to pee my pants or when I needed to poo. I didn't even know about the neighbours or my grandparents, let alone some vapourous being with a beard leaning over his computer with his finger on the mouse's smite button.
I think knowing how not to pee one's pants is a different sort of knowledge - I didn't master that until I was 10. But I had an instinctive awareness of God for many years before that - not what you describe though, about a vapourous being with a beard. It wasn't a complicated knowledge, and didn't involve any form of visualisation. And it wasn't like knowing about the neighbours - whom I didn't know about, as far as I remember, although if they'd visited, then I'd have known them, just as I knew my grandparents, because they visited.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm not convinced that's how it works! The electon itself does not give a coloured substance colour, but rather the underlying structure of energy levels within which the electrons can transition and absorb energy. I don't think there's that dichotomy between bound/unbound electrons either.
If we say that color is the selective absorption of light according to wavelength (and most of us do) then an electron absorbing a photon (or emitting a photon) to move from one electron shell of an atom to another has color. The energy levels are dictated by the type of atom and photons of the wrong wavelength will not be absorbed, hence spectral lines. None of this applies to free electrons which, since they're not associated with a specific atomic nucleus can absorb or emit light at any wavelength.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Codepoet:
Yorick. Could you please define what you mean by "God", and then we can perhaps sensibly consider how that might relate to the experience of being an infant.
Is that the only word in the question that is bothering you? I have problems with all of them, to wit:
"Can": Not "does" but "can". What is meant by that in this context? If it just means "is capable of" then there are further questions. For example, "can" I speak Welsh? Well, I have vocal chords and a reasonably nimble tongue, so I believe that I am physically capable of speaking Welsh. But I don't, because I don't know Welsh. I believe that I am capable of knowing Welsh (I "can" know Welsh) but I don't. So, in one sense, I "can" speak Welsh (theoretically) but I "can't" speak Welsh (because I don't know it). So "can" is a problematic word in this question.
"a baby": What is meant by this? What age range are we including under the term? And is the implication "a baby while still a baby"? For example, I can learn Welsh, but it would take quite some time and I would be considerably older. If I were a baby, I could learn Welsh but I might not be a "baby" by the time that I did.
"know": Adeodatus already touched on this when asking whether anybody can "know" God. What is meant by "know" in this context? What constitutes "knowledge" for the purposes of this question? Also, to use the Welsh example, again, how much Welsh does one need to "know" to qualify as "knowing" Welsh. If I know one word (even if I can't pronounce it properly) do I "know" Welsh? I suppose, in a strict sense, I do (I "know" one word of Welsh) but most would not consider it as "knowing" Welsh. In the same way, to the extent that anybody can "know" God, and assuming that we can agree on what constitutes "knowledge" for this purpose, how much knowledge is needed to make the claim of "knowing" God?
"God": well, that is Codepoet's comment, above.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Black is the absence of colour, but electrons are not therefore black.
Not to get all sidetracked, but black is a color, not an absence of color. (Wouldn't the absence of color be "transparent"?)
It depends if you're thinking of colour as additive or subtractive. If additive, which is I think more intuitive, then the absence of any coloured light is black. If subtractive then white. Transparent is not the absence of colour: copper sulphate solution is transparent and blue.
quote:
As far as electrons go, if a black surface is one that absorbs all photons, then given that definition an unbound electron is black. An electron bound to an atomic nucleus, on the other hand, will only absorb photons of a certain wavelength, and could thus be color classified accordingly.
Perhaps a poor example then. Please substitute for 'electron' any particle that doesn't significantly interact with photons. Neutrinos? Otherwise, some abstract entity would make my point.
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on
:
It would appear that humans are hard-wired for religious belief, and there is an ongoing debate within evolutionary circles (and often atheists) about why this might be so (by-product vs. inherent advantage).
For example.
This is not functionally equivalent to a baby being born knowing God, but the DNA makes it tend to believe in God as it gets older.
Just as it would be odd to buy an expensive TV if there's no signal to receive, it seems odd that evolution has given this hard-wiring if there's no God to be perceived.
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Does anyone else like the novel Knowledge of Angels by Jill Paton Walsh, which tells of an attempt to find out whether knowledge of God is innate or learned ? In the story trying to find out doesn't turn out to be such a good idea, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't of course.
I've read the novel, but I don't particularly like it. It's too much a novel with a programme, and Paton Walsh uses her considerable powers to get you to condemn the religious authorities in the book. And, of course, the book's preferred answer is that babies have no innate knowledge of God, and she uses what she portrays as the betrayal of this innate innocence to stage a highly manipulative account of an auto da fe, designed to make the reader feel revulsion from organised religion.
I liked her earlier novel, The Serpentine Cave, though.
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
Yes. Absolutely!
Let me share with you a memory I have of my infancy. Why do I remember? Because it was both a miracle and a trial.
I was born a MONTH LATE, blue and not-breathing. They had to resuscitate me, and I was being given up for adoption because neither parent wanted to take responsibility for my existence.
Being a month late, I could SEE. Being an illegit kid of a charity case, I was relegated to the common nursery of a Catholic charity hospital run by nuns, who prayed over me.
That's the only reason I made it, because they prayed over this child who was so abandoned and disadvantaged.
I remember, lying on a surface, with curtains hanging between me and everything else, except that there was a clock abov e the door wshere people came in and out. And I remember I was expecting that something OUGHT TO HAPPEN.
But it didn't. People came and they went, and they ignored me because I had nobody here, to bond with me. so, I got to the point where I internally couldn't stand waiting anymore, and without words, I began scream, "What is going on here? Why am I just waiting here?"
And God heard me, and I felt HIM. And HE comforted me ... nobody else ... just God. And I bonded to and with HIM on that day, and I have never left His side til now.
On my honor, that is my truth, and I was fewer than five days old when this occurred.
Emily
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I say no. A newborn infant ‘knows’ nothing, by any sensible definition of the word. Hell, they don’t even know their own existence. Personhood emerges with knowledge of self, which in turn depends on such developmental processes as language and recollection of abstract thoughts, etc.
So, how can a baby know god?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The neurology of infant development would not be consistent with your memory. Thus, you are a miracle. All the neonatally deceased infants in heaven are either singing praises about it, or filing complaints with the Miracles Department, which has been rather extensively downsized.
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
LoL!
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The neurology of infant development would not be consistent with your memory. Thus, you are a miracle. All the neonatally deceased infants in heaven are either singing praises about it, or filing complaints with the Miracles Department, which has been rather extensively downsized.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Babies don't know God, and neither does anyone else, I reckon.
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
Speak for yourself, okay?
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Babies don't know God, and neither does anyone else, I reckon.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I contend that babies are closer to God than most adults. The problem with adults is that we move away from God and do our own thing.
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I contend that babies are closer to God than most adults. The problem with adults is that we move away from God and do our own thing.
That's what makes sense to me, too.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Babies know God, I reckon, in the same way as they know their mothers. That is, they live in and by and through him, and have an experience probably almost wholly sensory-mediated of him--but I wouldn't expect that they can distinguish him very clearly from themselves, or even that they are aware of themselves as persons yet.
You don't have to know what the sun is to enjoy its warmth. Noticing the warmth is a form of knowledge, however primitive, and enjoying it--or not--is a response to that knowledge.
I'd argue furthermore that most adults aren't that far ahead of babies in their knowledge of God, so ...
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
A baby's knowledge of God is not intellectual, it is mystical.
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on
:
With the heart one understands rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.
"The Little Prince"
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A baby's knowledge of God is not intellectual, it is mystical.
Meaning what, exactly?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
How does one separate projection from recollection? How does one quantify the, as yet, unverifiable?
Memories are funny things, we can have old memories of things which only recently occurred, our filing system for memories is far from accurate.
So, we are born knowing God, but as we grow we forget? Not reasonable, but ehh, no harm believing.
Oh, BTW, babies are not born knowing how to swim. Not exactly.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
Do dolphins, dogs and seaslugs also know God?
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
There seem to be two different concepts bouncing off each other here:
1) knowing God (as a presence)
2) knowing about God (as a numinous person with a beard)
Personally I'm agnostic about the beard. It is one of those things that is popular in pre-Raphaelite paintings and perpetuated by cartoons. The trouble we all have is that anything we say or write about God is by necessity symbolic and metaphorical. Sometimes These symbols and concepts are helpful and other times they can be confusing. Humans whether they realise it or not, have a habit of making God in their own image and possibly making a satan as a shadow to their own image too. The God as a monster view could be a sort of role reversal where the images of god become something to be loathed.
These sort of images are characters that The contemplative streams of christianity spend a lot of effort trying to get of or past order to get nearer to knowledge 2.
This issue drags up that old chestnut of original sin. This Is the concept that we are are all corrupted by a tendency to sin or turn away from God. So the new born could be born innocent with a knowledge of God and then this knowledge is progressively eroded by all the stuff that life, family dysfunctions and their own failings throw in the way. Exactly when this might happen is hard to say and is tied up with the issue of when exactly is an infant guilty of their own sin; the only answer for that can be offered here is "God only knows". It is possible that those with a mental disability might even remain in that innocent state to a far grater degree and keep surprising us with profound insights from time to time.
I believe In the need for continued conversion to overcome the theorists tendency to know lots about God but lack the Holy Spirit that is the knowledge of God's presence. I mean an awareness of God that can be a bit like colour blindness that may not be realised because that way of seeing is the way that I am used for. Thinking about it, it might also be said that the renewed knowledge of God a convert might gain could be eroded and corrupted in a similar way as our view gets cluttered by doctrine and practice or not bothering with our own disciplines. All this debate and passion within in the church is important in as far as it is the mechanism by which we seek to clarify and correct our vision. It is frustrating to realise that they very arguments and failings of the church that do so much to damage our knowledge of God are also our best hope of knowing God better this side of eternity.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
@Evensong What does your last post mean? What is mystical?
@Emily I don't know about you but my heart pumps blood round my body. It's not a sense organ.
Surely the only honest answer to this question is "We don't know". Unless we were able to read minds how could it be otherwise?
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
When I was 2-and-a-bit I was taken to an Anglican church to be Christened. Standing with my parents (who were holding my little brother) and 2 sets of God-parents, I remember every single thing (even the pre-ceremony discussion if the Minister would hold me in his arms or I would stand).
I had never been anyplace like that and I so wished they would leave me there to get on with my own life.
The Priest, who probably called himself a Minister, was nothing special, neither was the church (rural NZ, wood inside and out and the usual "certain slant of light" one associates with that).
But I knew I was HOME and never wanted to leave.
Of course Mummy and Daddy took me home kicking and screaming to rot in Presbyterian mediocrity for the next 2 decades.
By the way, this is not my first ever memory (which was grass, the cottage, the vege garden, giving apples to the horse and worms to the poultry) nor my first date-able memory (my mother leaving to give birth to my brother when I was 18 months old)
[ 21. June 2013, 06:09: Message edited by: Galilit ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
What about the idea of pre-existence, expressed by Wordsworth in "Intimations of Immortality" - "Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home..."? If we have immortal souls, would they not exist before we were born and is it inconceivable that babies may have memories of this although they can't express it?
Sounds like Platonic or Origenist metempsychosis which AFAIAA is not professed by any of the major Christian traditions.
Wordsworth was a windbag, and his "One impulse from a vernal wood / Can tell us more of man, / Of moral evil and of good / Than all the sages can" is one of the silliest things ever written.
However, I have my own version of Daffodils, called Pigface, because it is about the only flower I can recognise, and my wife loathes it, so I recite it to annoy her whenever we see any.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
So do premature infants know God? How far back does this knowledge go? Does this happen before the lungs are developed enough to breathe? Before the brain develops?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I contend that babies are closer to God than most adults. The problem with adults is that we move away from God and do our own thing.
I certainly think that young children can have transcendent experiences, possibly because they are not yet consumed by ego.
However, I think adults also have them quite frequently; but, making the journey from that to the idea of God is not always automatic or easy.
It's difficult to say to what degree that is an intellectual shift. As Evensong says, there can be a mystical apprehension.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
As far as I can remember back - when I was very small I assumed God was real because everyone talked about him as if he was. As soon as I started to think independently I became an atheist. At the age of about 6 I thought I was the only atheist in the world and couldn't work out why everyone else didn't realise God wasn't real.
I remained an atheist until I was about 12 or so. So I'm unconvinced about the idea of young children having knowledge of God.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There's a difference between knowledge and experience. I think that young children can experience the divine; but I doubt they can intellectually defend the proposition that 'God exists'.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Just as it would be odd to buy an expensive TV if there's no signal to receive, it seems odd that evolution has given this hard-wiring if there's no God to be perceived.
Ah, argument from incredulity, always a winner.
No doubt you also believe that these lines aren't really straight and these lines are really different lengths. After all, it seems odd that evolution would give us the hard-wiring to see them wrongly.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's a difference between knowledge and experience. I think that young children can experience the divine; but I doubt they can intellectually defend the proposition that 'God exists'.
You could put "experience" instead of "knowledge" in my last paragraph and it'd still stand.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
My babies looked incredibly spiritually aware and turned on and tuned in once their eyes could focus on mine. I thought they possessed the answers to life, the universe and everything.
I get the same impression when I look at a cat. Or a particularly wise-looking face that's appeared in the random growth of a tree's bark. Doesn't mean they do.
Knowledge of God has to be revealed to us, by God, and by those who know Him. To claim it naturally occurs at birth, or is hardwired into us, is to claim there's no point in evangelism, or even in Jesus bothering to come to earth to reveal God to man. If everyone is born already knowing God, what's the point in telling them about Him.
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
What about the idea of pre-existence, expressed by Wordsworth in "Intimations of Immortality" - "Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home..."? If we have immortal souls, would they not exist before we were born and is it inconceivable that babies may have memories of this although they can't express it?
AFAIK Christianity beleives in life after death, not life before life. God may create us and give us immortality, but to claim we are naturally immortal is to say we are of the same substance as God Himself. Which is heretical IMO. Possibly an incursion into our thought from eastern spirituality which is all about immortal souls being incarnated into different bodies one after the other.
Wordsworth was a romantic poet. Which meant he liked to make stuff up that sounded deep and meaningful if you didn't think too hard, (or were high on opium).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
My babies looked incredibly spiritually aware and turned on and tuned in once their eyes could focus on mine. I thought they possessed the answers to life, the universe and everything.
I get the same impression when I look at a cat.
Cats are really good at this, but all the idiotic things are actually thinking is "breathe in.... breathe out.... breathe in.... breathe out...."
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
What about the idea of pre-existence, expressed by Wordsworth in "Intimations of Immortality" - "Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home..."? If we have immortal souls, would they not exist before we were born and is it inconceivable that babies may have memories of this although they can't express it?
AFAIK Christianity beleives in life after death, not life before life. God may create us and give us immortality, but to claim we are naturally immortal is to say we are of the same substance as God Himself. Which is heretical IMO. Possibly an incursion into our thought from eastern spirituality which is all about immortal souls being incarnated into different bodies one after the other.
Wordsworth was a romantic poet. Which meant he liked to make stuff up that sounded deep and meaningful if you didn't think too hard, (or were high on opium).
That's both harsh and wrong. Wordsworth wasn't the one who took opium, and the one who did (Coleridge) was one of the greatest minds of his time. The concept of the life before life has a long pedigree, most notably for the Romantics in neo-Platonist thought. 'Intimations of Immortality in Early Childhood' is generally accepted to be one of Wordsworth's most intellectually-grounded poems. He didn't just make stuff up -- he thought through his poetry about time and space, about love, memory, God, the self, relationships with others.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A baby's knowledge of God is not intellectual, it is mystical.
Meaning what, exactly?
You want me to define mysticism?
I said on the other thread:
quote:
No. We are born theists. God creates souls and they are born. Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
We come from God (we are born) we go to God (we die).
We are helpless and have no mental faculties when we are born. We are often helpless and our mental faculties are often diminished when we die.
Mysticism is knowing God beyond the intellect or the emotions. It's a kind of "at-one-ness" or peace with ourselves, others and God. It's actually much, much more powerful than intellectual knowledge of God.
Seeing as how babies just came from God I don't see why they are not at-one with God in this mystical sense (unless they're hungry etc.)
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Surely the only honest answer to this question is "We don't know". Unless we were able to read minds how could it be otherwise?
Of course it is George Spigot. But this is a bulletin board and 95% of what we say is pure conjecture and opinion. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
It would appear that humans are hard-wired for religious belief, ...
<snip>
Just as it would be odd to buy an expensive TV if there's no signal to receive, it seems odd that evolution has given this hard-wiring if there's no God to be perceived.
Or perhaps the word 'religion' should be replaced by another with far, far fewer connotations of God/god/s.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
When I was 2-and-a-bit I was taken to an Anglican church to be Christened. Standing with my parents (who were holding my little brother) and 2 sets of God-parents, I remember every single thing (even the pre-ceremony discussion if the Minister would hold me in his arms or I would stand).
I had never been anyplace like that and I so wished they would leave me there to get on with my own life.
The Priest, who probably called himself a Minister, was nothing special, neither was the church (rural NZ, wood inside and out and the usual "certain slant of light" one associates with that).
But I knew I was HOME and never wanted to leave.
That's a very cool story.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I've obviously silenced you all.
FTW
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've obviously silenced you all.
In a good way. I'm finding what everyone has said very interesting - especially your comments
Nen - doing lots of thinking.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
It would appear that humans are hard-wired for religious belief, and there is an ongoing debate within evolutionary circles (and often atheists) about why this might be so (by-product vs. inherent advantage).
I once heard a lecture by an atheist academic who posited that belief in God - or rather the sense that we are all being watched - had evolutionary advantages, and developed for this reason. Presumably he also sees this inclination in babies.
The book being promoting was Jesse Behring, 'The God Instinct'. I think it's entitled 'The Belief Instinct' in some countries.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Studies with young children show they cheat less when they think someon is watching. Even should hat someone be an invisible person they do not quite believe in.
One study put a chair in the room and the children were told of an invisible princess sitting there, watching them. Even after feeling for her and not finding her, they cheated less than children who were not told they were being observed.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've obviously silenced you all.
FTW
Yes, silence is just what is wanted on a discussion site.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've obviously silenced you all.
FTW
Yes, silence is just what is wanted on a discussion site.
I'm still waiting for the answer to my question about premature infants from those who believe babies have an innate knowledge of God.
{crickets.....}
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've obviously silenced you all.
FTW
Yes, silence is just what is wanted on a discussion site.
I'm still waiting for the answer to my question about premature infants from those who believe babies have an innate knowledge of God.
{crickets.....}
I think it's possible. But not the sort of knowledge that comes from rational brain processes and senses as we experience them, more of the mystical knowledge that Evensong describes. Hard to prove - or disprove.
Nen - rethinking a lot of things these days.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nenya, have you stopped beating your wife?
It's not binary Nenya. Not 50:50. It's 100:0 I feel a neo-Thomist approach burgeoning (and no IngoB, don't get out the insurance manual please).
Or perhaps an existentially phenomenological one.
Anything else is just poetry.
And no I'm not a rationalist and in fact I'm a vitalist as I do not believe that mind is an epiphenomenon of matter.
My first premiss is God. The hypostasis. The ground of being. He thinks us autonomously thinking. How we develop to that point in our first two years as land animals and previously as aquatics we don't know. We cannot EVER know Him until the resurrection to transcendence and even then.
But it will suffice.
What did Jesus know before He had a conscious narrative? Up until right now I assumed He was in some ineffable way in communion with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Right now I question that for the first time. He had two natures, two wills perichoretic in one person. So He couldn't know God either whilst having His nature. Or He wouldn't have been human.
Wow!
Am I wrong IngoB? Yes or no will suffice if that's what Aquinas says. Your actual adduced, rhetorical opinion would be better.
And IngoB, is quantum mechanics necessary or contingent?
[ 23. June 2013, 10:41: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
I find your post quite hard to understand, Martin. If you want a response from me could you make it clear what you'd like me to address? Although it sounds as though you'd rather hear from IngoB. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Nen - hopefully not being too obtuse.
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Just as it would be odd to buy an expensive TV if there's no signal to receive, it seems odd that evolution has given this hard-wiring if there's no God to be perceived.
Ah, argument from incredulity, always a winner.
No doubt you also believe that these lines aren't really straight and these lines are really different lengths. After all, it seems odd that evolution would give us the hard-wiring to see them wrongly.
Apologies for not getting back sooner, but events intervened.
I'm not sure I would put it in quite this way. Indeed, I'm conscious that, especially in what is a relatively new field, an explanation may be developed which has good explanatory power. However I don't see it yet.
The question of why religious belief has evolved as hard-wired remains unclosed, and “Because God wants us to know He's there” seems a strong workmanlike explanation, while certainly not being conclusively the only one. It still remains odd that we are designed to perceive what doesn't exist.
Now one explanation given for optical illusions, such as you linked to, would be that evolution isn't done with us yet. We see the illusions because our visual processes haven't evolved, not because they have evolved strangely for some reason.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's not really odd to have evolved (not designed) to perceive what doesn't exist. Watch a bird in your garden, or in the park, it is continually on the look-out for what doesn't exist, but what might exist, e.g. predator, food, mate.
In other words, many animals are alert to stuff that doesn't exist, but might.
I'm not saying this is an explanation of religion or God, since I don't really go for just-so stories, but it does explain why animals are on the look-out.
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
There is an Akan (Ghana) proverb: "You don't need to teach a child about God." or: "No one points out God to a child."
Which would tend to put most Sunday School teachers out of a job.
To which Cerosos replied,
Seriously though, if children all come pre-programmed to know all about God, why the intense amount of effort to provide them with religious education? Seems like an enormous waste of effort.
I agree many religious educators are busy telling children about God when they should be asking, "Tell me what you know about God."
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nenya - it's me not you. And no, I wouldn't rather hear from IngoB, but he will have some magisterial opinion on the subject, one way or another.
As no adult knows God, I see no reason to extrapolate the utterly unknowing as knowing Him.
The question being asked and that conclusion crystallizing led to the realization that it must have been so for Jesus.
Despite Him feeling forsaken only as He died. And whatever made John the Baptist leap in the womb at six months.
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's not really odd to have evolved (not designed) to perceive what doesn't exist. Watch a bird in your garden, or in the park, it is continually on the look-out for what doesn't exist, but what might exist, e.g. predator, food, mate.
In other words, many animals are alert to stuff that doesn't exist, but might.
I'm not saying this is an explanation of religion or God, since I don't really go for just-so stories, but it does explain why animals are on the look-out.
It's an interesting parallel, but I don't feel it fits. There are real predators.
The birds have evolved to react to something that does exist, and is sometimes there. Which highlights why it would be odd if we had evolved to react to something that doesn't exist, and is never there.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sarah G
So what's your argument? That God must exist, otherwise we wouldn't have evolved a mind to think about him? Hmm.
Does that mean that unicorns and mermaids must exist?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
I agree many religious educators are busy telling children about God when they should be asking, "Tell me what you know about God."
After editing a paper about ministry to children, I have been asking my daughter (5 yo next week) a few times a week where she found God recently. I don't always understand the answers, but I always find them meaningful, and I believe her.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Ok I googled mystical and came up with this:
1. Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses.
2. Of, relating to, or stemming from direct communion with ultimate reality or God: a mystical religion.
3. Enigmatic; obscure: mystical theories about the securities market.
4. Of or relating to mystic rites or practices.
5. Unintelligible; cryptic.
So in the context of this thread saying that babies gain knowledge of god via mystical means is saying.....what?
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Probably option 2: being what we are born with. Possibly with shades of 1.
Though it has to be said that Mysticism is a slippery term. Bernard Mc Ginn as Cited by Denys Turner in Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (OUP 2000)
quote:
No mystics (at least before the 20th Century believed or practised 'mysticism'
Turner goes on to discuss how experiential mysticism is culturally conditioned. Therefore it is unlikely that practitioners are talking about the same thing.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0