reply to post by wildtimes
This is what results in the ability of the baby (later in life), to form honest attachments; OR, to be hypervigilant to danger; OR to be afraid of a
lion coming to eat them.
Ok. But on the first day of birth, were a lion to approach the new born, there is still no reaction, or is there? Regardless, with the quote above
"later in life" ....still implies a previous point in which none of these things are not yet inherent
NO! Those are not FREE WILL reactions! Those are responses (based on survival instincts), not "choices".
I'm with you. But still a 1 day old does not have these responses. Yeah pain will make a newborn cry, but still there is no idea or sense in what is
happening, labels for things, etc
Nevertheless, I'm sorry but the two first quoted sentences above are incorrect. We DO see "any of this the first day" ..... "week" ............
"month." This is why I asked if you had access to a neo-natal unit.
What are some things you notice on day 1, that become prominent in later life?
As for the rest of your presentation, I guess I have misinterpreted your intentions. I agree with you that 'churches' and 'religions' are
I never said they were unnecessary either. While this alone is enough for a separate thread, I would say I see church/religion as something that may
have been, and still can function as, branches of study that have to do with spirituality. For example for a cavity we see a dentist, car problem =
mechanic, loan needs = bank.
However, as with all portions of society, we find corruption and different levels of honesty in the aforementioned areas of expertise. The thing is,
science is not looking for God or the soul. So if I want to satisfy my curiosity about God/Soul things, I am forced to study religions of various
but to hear you say that (paraphrasing, here): babies are blank slates and the entire scientific community would back me up, is patently nonsense.
When I first studied this branch of psychology, 15+ years ago, the majority view was "blank slate" from my reading, with various other views
revolving around nature vs. nurture. Today I would have to back track that all of science would back me up on this. But I'm still rather firm in my
own theory that we are all born as blank slates, at least as far as the mind goes.
Perhaps I jumped from your claiming "blank slate" to "ultra conservative church-goer".....and if so, that is a reflection of my bias as to the
modernity of peoples' thinking. If one doesn't know that babies are NOT blank slates, how can their "understanding" of God and whatever be taken
I think we can both agree that a newborn is aware. Everything after that is very complex theoretically.
However, comparing "not knowing that babies are not blank slates" to "how can their understanding of God be taken seriously" is a rather frivolous
comparison. If all you've done is study God stuff for the last 15 years, and missed out on the news that researchers are now theorizing that babies
are not blank slates, how does that in any way take away from that person's understanding of God?