Image: Bara K. Kristinsdottir/Aurora Photos
In Brief
- Many people change their religious affiliation during the course of a lifetime. Overall attitudes toward belief, however, are generally stable in adulthood.
- Specific clusters of personality traits correlate highly with particular kinds of religious belief.
- Although environmental influences play a large role in determining a person’s religious beliefs during adolescence, genetic factors emerge as more important in adulthood.
A deep question pervades the debates surrounding religion—whether God exists, sure, but that one is mighty difficult to answer. Instead we can ask a related, more approachable query: Why does God exist for some of us but not for others? Theologians and ministers preach that faith is preeminently a matter of personal choice. Is it, really?
Not everyone is a believer, of course, nor do we all maintain allegiance to a single belief system throughout the course of our life. Almost half of American adults, for example, have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lifetime, and most do so before age 24, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Although religious affiliation may be fluid, once people enter adulthood they tend to stick with one category, retaining either faith in God or the absence thereof.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
77 Comments
Add CommentEven when I was a child, I couldn't find a purpose for religion, and now that I am an adult, I still can't see a purpose for it; unless you just have a deep rooted desire to feel guilty about everything in life, or you need to justify the bad things you do in life by having something to blame it on, or you just like to feel that you are more pompous than your neighbors. I have always hated hearing people say this, "That person calls them self a christian and acting like that." If we really are born to be religious, then I'm glad I wasn't born that way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that one cannot exclude god from their life is, of course, rather ridiculous. It is not difficult at all to determine if there is a god or not. It is a simple matter of abstract thinking. Where did god come from? Who made it? A god is a very simplistic concept invented by people who cannot understand life and their surroundings. However, if people need the 'comfort' of a belief in a god then I can just barely understand their 'comfort'. Building a life around superstition does not work for me. They are so enveloped in their beliefs that they do not notice that they are praying to themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou forgot a few major things here... 1) The recent study linking analytic personalities to the non-religious, 2) Overwhelmingly, people convert into or between religious groups for emotional reasons, whereas the non-religious (often born from religious families) reason their way out. Focusing on agreeable-ness is not going to get you as far as these other things, 3) Have you read Richard Dawkins' discussion of duality at birth, and his other ideas in the God Delusion? They're worth looking into.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this SA or a bible study class. Born religious? You mean are you born stupid enough to believe in magic sky people and talking snakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis could be psych science if you decide where this garbage starts (and I call it garbage only because of those in power who hold their religious beliefs as to how I and my family should run my life-e.g. no birth control, no swearing, no living together, discrimination against gay couples is good). When we are young is when we are first given a glass of Koolaide, after that we have a lot invested in being right. After that it is a matter of deciding that other religions are koo koo for coco puffs but yours is right and just. The contradictory statements made in your sacred book are just god's whimsy and even though written by man, still are his words. Then after 25 years of adulthood, you have spent so much time telling those of non faith they are idiots and going to hell, you really can't go back even after you look at how idiotic religion is. Of course, if there is a god, maybe he is the old testament god, who else would kill a plane full of people only to have one survive. But to some of us skeptics, did you survive cuz god had greater plans for the others (ascending to heaven is the big enchilada) and you suck, or were you chosen as better than all the others (better get to work feeding the poor in India after that).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, believe in whatever hooey you want, the first amendment means however your religious beliefs shouldn't show up in the laws I have to follow. AH's
Totally agree. Religion is not inborn. I follow my religion because my parents told me so. Most wars on Earth are caused by different beliefs in religion, since associating a religion to a group of people causes division among us. I also believe associating God to religion is a big mistake. 'God' is a state of mind we must struggle to achieve and we will realize everyone is interconnected in some way. We are surrounded by all kinds of Illusion created by society and we must overcome them to progress and realize Truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTotally agree. Religion is not inborn. I follow my religion because my parents told me so. Most wars on Earth are caused by different beliefs in religion, since associating a religion to a group of people causes division among us. I also believe associating God to religion is a big mistake. 'God' is a state of mind we must struggle to achieve and we will realize everyone is interconnected in some way. We are surrounded by all kinds of Illusion created by society and we must overcome them to progress and realize Truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply to Oyelin: Is it really any less simplistic to assume that their is only stuff (i.e. the furniture of the universe, so to speak...the material world) even though we cannot say where it comes from or who made it. Please note your logical flaw: the assumption that everything had to have been made by something else that preceded it. Surely the discoveries of quantum mechanics should by now have disabused us of such notions. Surely the discovery of dark matter and dark energy should infuse us all with at least a wee little bit of humility: we don't know nearly as much about the universe as we like to claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply to Jaames Davis: You've picked up the wrong end of the stick when it comes to the purpose of religion...or maybe you just had a warped introduction to it as a child. True religion has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or blame; rather, it has to do with finding the harmony of the universe (think of the Sanskrit OM), finding one's place in it all, taking joy in the blossoming of the universal Geist, in the being-ness of the Dasein. In short, you would do well to read more philosophical and spiritual texts.
Besides Dawkins this topic is discussed in Jesse Bearing's highly readable, "Belief Instinct." His is a very fresh and lively look at the psychology behind as well as the tools to break free of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWE, the people, do not place / impose Republican or Democrat slogans, pictures, posters, cards, medals to our children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, why do WE place religous legend objects to our children from day ONE.. Some people even baptize them at an early age, when children have NO idea what is going on !!
Religion is our hearts and has no legends!
It's no more rational not to perceive a 'higher power' - define it how you will - than it is to perceive one. The argument for or against is tantamount to debating taste. Behavior, not belief, is the important issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly the drones who toil for their monied betters are "born to be religious."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is quite possible to believe in a supreme force without believing in any religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Are we born to be religious" what an inferior way to ask such a fundamental question; first, grammatically, the answer is simply no, we are not born to be religious, we are born to enter the world, to get out of the womb; that is what we are born to do; to live. Beyond that, birth has nothing to do with religion - you picked the wrong end of the stick - the better question and focus would be does our certain knowledge of Death send us running irrationally and headlong into creating delusional ideations of something "beyond" our certain end, some rescue mechanism, not unlike dark energy that will solve our existential dilemma. Unfortunately, the latest results indicate no change in the inevitability of extinction for all sentient beings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To believe is to ignore the truth", coming from a well known German philosopher.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI resolved the conflict between Darwin and the creation of Adam and Eve. The story is sound . It is truly amazing the reaction I get . They run away like scared little children . Unfortunately, we are animals and day 6 is not for at least 1000 years. The garden of Eden is where the second human genetic bomb is made. Needless to say, this event might be averted. That would require more intelligence than us animals have demonstrated. It is not too late to avert most of the damage from the 1 o'7
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder who sponsors all this research into religiosity as something somehow "natural". I think the whole line of thinking is utterly absurd. Religion is an attempt to understand the world. The same desire eventually turns into science. A lot of people just haven't woken up and smelt the science yet, so they still have religion. They'll come around one day. Meanwhile, I'd prefer not to have my time wasted with stupid questions like this article's headline. Let's focus on actual science, please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeorge Carlin once said that religion is selling an invisible product. True by me. My father, a Greek immigrant, spoke very rarely about religion but one time when religion and the afterlife was under discussion he merely commented that nobody has come back after death to tell us about it. I keep those things in mind. While religion is certainly not hardwired in me it seems to be for others and if it gives them comfort and doesn't make demands on me that's fine. One final comment. The fact that we don't have a theory for quantum gravity, or a compelling one about dark matter or dark energy may make us humble but it doesn't mean that there is a God (or whatever) who is omniscient and arranged all things is true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been my reasoned conclusion that we are all born "religious" (this conclusion, reached over half a century ago, is independent of studies & popular books that have popped up on the subject over the last few decades). Further, not only are humans hard wired "religious"; but, for the same survival reasons so too are all intelligent creatures (my speculation is that even an advance artificial intelligent thing would require "religiousness" (in a basic form at least).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Carlson
Most people are taught religion before being capable of rational thought. They believe it because it offers causal explanations, and the need for some kind of coherence or closure precedes (and outlasts) rationality. Most americans, probably most people, never think about it again, except, not uncommonly, to regress to something more "fundamental," i.e., more primitive and more totalizing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDale wrote "True religion has nothing whatsoever to do with guilt or blame; rather, it has to do with finding the harmony of the universe (think of the Sanskrit OM), finding one's place in it all, taking joy in the blossoming of the universal Geist, in the being-ness of the Dasein."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, all of that is very nice, kind of cute, even. And I do hope you achieve it, because even without all the academic descriptive terms it is, I know, transcendent, memorable for many decades. However, it has nothing to do with the beliefs and practices generally known as "religion."
Note the conniving, deceitful tactic employed here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey speak of people being "born to be religious", as if they are outfitted with certain genes that cause them to accept the presence of God. God doesn't exist, they don't accept the presence of God because it's reasonable, it's all a tendency caused only by levels of hormones.
But it can be phrased just as much as are certain people born to ignore the evidence of God? Are some people compelled by their genetic make-up to insolently demand that God give them whatever they want, even if they didn't dseserve it and, if they don't get it, to contemptuously deny the presence of God? Is it their nature by inheritance to be vicious and arrogant; to mock those who do accept the presence of God; to use weaseling contrivances like "You can't prove a negative" to get around eastablishing the veracirty of their unconditional denial of God; to insipidly engage in inane pre-occupations like spelling God's name with a lower case "g", basically admitting that they know He exists but they spit in His face!
they phrase it as acceptance of God's presence is not reasonable, but just the unfortunate outgrowth of genetic predispositions, but they refuse to say that denying the presence of God might be the result of genetic deviations from the norm.
More of the lies the atheists use to promote their empty, vacuous system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost wars are not caused by religion!
The Revolutionary War was the restructuring of govenrment to fit a different geographical dynamic. The Civil War was based on the establishing of the limits of states' treaty and political powers. The Spanish-American War wa a craven exercise to try to seize the island of Cuba for clandestine manipulation for the corporate benefit of United Fruit. The Hundred Years War, the French and Indian Wars, the Boer War, the Spanish Civil War, the First World War, the Korean War, the Second World War, the Falklands War, Vietnam, the English Civil War. None of them were caused by religion.
Not that the liars in the atheist cause don't promote it cravenly.
On another website, the same issue came up. Atheist quislings started ladeling doggerel to try to maintain thei lie. They said all wars were caused by dictators and dictators see themselves as answerable only to their deity and that made religion the source of all wars. When I asked where either George Washington or even George III qualified as a "dictator", the lie was spread that all wars start because of overpopulation and overpopulation is caused by every religion having proscriptions against killing the unborn.
This study could have been far more interesting had the researchers differentiated among personality types. It has long been known that people have their own propensities toward different types of spirituality. Input form theologians would have made this much more useful. As it is, it just caters to stereotyping.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think belief in an eternally existing creative force as progenitor of the universe is any more absurd than belief in the universe as self-contained and self-creating (ie: there is nothing [not even nothing] outside the boundaries of the universe and that the universe was generated out of nothing due to nothing acting upon nothing to generate something).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf nothing was created from nothing, then argument of quantum fluctuation, etc, as progenitor is meaningless. Nothing would mean there were no fields (or anything for that matter, pun intended) to fluctuate. If fields existed, then it means there was something (ie: the fields themselves) and the argument becomes 'where did the fields come from and why do they have the values and attributes that they do?' This gives rise to the question of 'what framework does this frame work exist in?' ad infinitum.
Argumental proof is always levelled at belivers needing to provide evidence of God or whatever; however, if you ask me whether I believe that you can get something from nothing by nothing doing nothing to nothing, or by quantum fluctuations of nothing occuring in a realm of non-existence... I'm not entirely sure I believe that, either.
It's really weird that the argument that science makes for the non-existence of such a model of reality is the same argument that is used on the opposite side: 'just be cause you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there', when neither argument is logically sound, based on their mutual non-provability. Both sides use the same 'evidence' for their argument.
Quantum physics asks me to accept evidence for quantum entanglement with its 'spooky action at a distance', or asks me to accept evidence for future events influencing the present. This latter is especially counter-intuitive, yet the evidence suggests that we believe that it is fact.
Science will not consider the possiblity that there is a level of existence beyond the material universe that is unassessible to anything within the material universe, with the material being an extension of that non-material existence. This is especially where inability to evidence the existence of such a further external framework arises as a natural constraint of the framework of the material universe we inhabit. Science then takes the tack of stating that if it can't be experimentally evidenced, we assume that it doesn't exist on the premise that it cannot provide an influence upon the material and, thus, cannot evidence its own existence.
This view is as illogical as that of believers without proof.
I understand your point about the definition of the term 'religious' in a behavioural sense; ie: as a set of beliefs and practices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I have been watching the 'believers' vs. 'scientists' debate for a number of years now and, generally, both sides of the fence take 'religion' as including a fundamental belief in an extra-material 'creative impetus' giving rise to the material universe.
The scientific side, particularly those with an atheistic bent, are frequently at fault of including this basic belief as part of the copus of 'religiosity'. As this is the case, both sides of the fence will see an article about 'reglion' and turn it into an argument about the existence of an, ultimately, unprovable concept.
The fallacious argument of 'reglion is behind nearly all human wars' is also usually tabled during these debates, even though some minimal research into the history behind wars (where known) will show that it is usally resources, power or ideology (religion may be ideology, but ideology is not necessarily religion).
For the argument to be turned directly back to 'religion as behaviour' as opposed to 'religion as belief in unprovable concepts', both sides need to step back and provide an agreed definition of 'religion'.
It doesn't help when the article itself contains the question of: "Instead we can ask a related, more approachable query: Why does God exist for some of us but not for others?" in it's opening paragraph, thereby immeidately changing the definition of 'religion' (at least for the article) away from a behavioural science concept right at the outset.
Interesting analysis. The Indian philosophy recognises a supreme force as the super soul and the individuals as the soul. The super soul is often referred as "bhramam / paramarhma" and the individuals as "jeevathma". As the individuals vary in their level of intelligence or understanding, the god(s) were created for one to derive a comfort or satisfaction for his deeds and the results of his deeds. Therefore, the faith of god is derived by an individual mainly from his/her parents and close associates whom he/she believes. It may be said that the religeous behaviour owe to the circumstances and the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSridhar
Too much black and white thinking going on here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI separate religion into at least three components; each person balancing them in different ways:
1) Philosophical tenants (mostly shared and agreed upon)
2) Supernatural beliefs (many times divisive)
3) Socialization (the community of a church)
The "intellectually" religious person will start with the philosophy and then decide if the supernatural can be accepted on faith, or whether to accept the philosophical tenants as true and good in and of themselves.
The supernaturally religious person will start with the assumption of a god (or a literal interpretation of the Bible). In extreme cases, the truth of the philosophy is then only based on the supernatural. This can be dangerous to the person's belief system when the supernatural is contradicted (eg by science).
The socially religious person doesn't care. They need the community, and sometimes-critical support provided (either physical or emotional). Or they will use the church for their own purposes (good or bad).
It is probably obvious I tend to (1), but there is a bit of (3) there too.
Religion is a tool that has been cast in many forms to support many personality types. If you assume that genetics is a strong influence on personality, then you will see a correlation to "belief".
Duh.
we are programmed to make sense of our surroundings. That could be some type of religion. This is eventually supplanted by science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is not irrational unbtil evidence is accepted that proves otherwise . It makes sense, given limited understanding of astronomy and physics, that the Sun is drawn across the sky by Apollo's chariot...until one is facded with a more rational explanation.
It is rational for Christians to worship a dead-guy-on-a-stick until knowledge of the Universe is gained and that worship is revealed as absurd.
Without reading the article, it's hard to judge, but still - we can't be born with something that has only been around for a scant few thousand years... I mean, if we recognize that evolution rules species diversity, and that modern humans are roughly 200k old, it seems safe to say that religion isn't a genetically inherited trait. What is a common to the human animal is the need to belong - group membership - safety in numbers - herd mentality. If anything lends or bends the human psyche towards religion, it's that. And that doesn't proscribe a belief in heaven or hell, anymore than I believe Bo Schembechler was a god (he was) and Jim Tressel is the devil (he is). In my mind, anyone who belittles a religious man is proving his own ignorance i ignorance in the human need to bond - to believe in something greater than himself. Humans do not survive alone; they need to be part of a group to live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think I outgrew this innate religiosity by about 9 yrs. old. Thereafter I took great pleasure in pointing out all of the obvious problems with the religion I was raised in. In my later years though, and really through the beautiful world that science reveals, I've come to believe there is a mind behind the laws of the universe that bring about the amazing reality we are all a part of. I'm not sure why there is such a fuss over what beliefs are innate though. Does the primacy of such beliefs give them some sort of epistemic superiority or inferiority? I doubt anyone would want to argue that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy 2 cents worth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion and spirituality are 2 separate things. Religion is a creation in order to express one's spirituality. Spirituality is the belief in a guiding energy or spirit that provides order in the universe.
Next why does Spirituality and science have to be mutually exclusive. Since I am christian I will use the bible as an example. In the begining there was darkness. Hmm doesn't that sound familiar. Everything was without form or substance. More familiar science concepts. And the Lord said Let there be light. And there was light. Hmm sounds like the Big Bang concept to me. The only difference in Science's origin of the universe and the Bible's is the presence of a guiding force. So what caused the Big Bang to occur. Why is the universe so well distributed instead of concentrated in the middle and thin at the edges. Why did life grow from a bunch of unliving goo?
Now, no where in the bible does it rebuke evolution. It has the appearance of man (human) springing wholy made. But it says he was made from dirt. Hmmm, microbes live in dirt. Maybe he was evolved into the human he is today. Please no one take any book be it religious or scientific literally. They are all interpretations of the truth as seen by the authors. Even this one.
No closed mind will ever see the truth. Only the truth as they see it.
In ancient time, virtually every human population of any significant numbers that survived for several generations, no matter how isolated, had a formal belief system. There was a god in the sky or a god of the earth, of nature, always a god or gods of something. Why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a characteristic of human behavior to believe. Why? Because we evolved that way?
Murky semantics confuses me so I invoke my own definitions that arrange a stable understanding in my mind ... fairly formed in my nurture ... to understand my nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Religious' 'spirited' and 'moral' are the primary three words I conform for three different meanings. Comments in this thread so far present my ideas (and better-said) among the three words. But let's add just this: adopting a (an 'organized') religion does not make you moral, does not change your inborn morals or morality. And my reference is Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for 'inborn morality' (also intrinsic, innate, and yes genetic), found with my definition of 'moral(s)'.
And now for something different, being original: The Great Spirit (as First Peoples say) might be money; (Money = God; funny to read, too true to laugh at).
As a proactive plan To PRECLUDE some (plausible) worldwide 'religion' contest and then a winner that gets to dictate Earthlings' motto, whether:
In God we trust
In Allah we trust
In Abraham we trust
In Confuscious we trust
In Dharma we trust,
instead let's coin a new word, change the semantic, which designates the object of humankind trust.
Let's say Luck -- branding (objectifying) the sense of superstition.
In Luck we trust.
Go with Luck.
OML (Oh My Luck)
Almight Luck.
Praise be to Luck.
Luck bless America.
The expression makes plain that in each now, T(n), anticipation of a next moment in time, T(n+1), exists of our forming (anticipation) ... well, we are pressing our Luck.
By translating the article's title into my language, I can answer its question: Yes, all are born Lucky ... and if it wasn't for bad Luck, some have no Luck at all.
One final tangent digression: Great Spirit infused in three Gotham skyscrapers provided (produced?) Energy for kinetic release (Reaction) 2 orders-of-magnitude greater than the potential (Action) Energy of the matter, (being 92,000 Tons 1,000 feet tall).
As Luck would have it 'spired' in Nine-Eleven Op.
The most rudimentary (heat) Energy calculation, regular back-of-a-napkin for the unbalanced equation is here: tinyurl.com/2p8kep
Who knew heat was dynamic force? The suppression of such fundamental science (in Sci.Am.'s pages and missing from the other accredited journals, too, since N.E.O.) sounds a deafening silence and prompts me to consider the source.
Could it better comprehend the Big Bang if its name (brand) were changed to the Big Therm?
That is to say, there was all-time nothing and nowhere until some spirited moment heated 'it' above 0.0 degrees Kelvin ... the Big Therm happened.
An University school mate, then member of the Communist party, and that not much after this offered me joining a masonic society, said in reference to some ethical issues: "You can't imagine the bizarre rationales people looks at for giving themselves the permit to engage in fornication". With no intention of insulting, atheism is for some a denial mechanism, and denial mechanisms are a trait of borderline personalities. (Sorry, I put almost the same comment before, but there are things that admit very few alternatives, please note that describing a fact does not necessarily involve a critic, and even less indicating a punishment for those endorsing or acting in an individual way, as long as your acts are not described as crimes by the law, absolute freedom should prevail, and even when in conflict with the law, nobody has a rigt to impose a though, a belief, or a shape of personality to others by violence and without a properly obtanined informed consent or with the action not being supported by the general agreements on what the "Rule of law" means). Law remains a behavioural science, as it predicts and describes with a reasonable certainity the actions judges and law enforcement bodies will do. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe may be born more prone to accepting ideas from others without any analysis? I do think there are people who just cannot grasp certain ideas or compare them. Variation exists in populations so not all have the reasoning ability or the analytic mind to grasp certain topics. This makes them prone to drinking Kool Aid one day in some camp but they may not can help it! We are for sure products of our raising to an extent. Some will hold onto what they have been told and never question it. If you ask the super religious southern baptist if he or she thought they would be hindu had they been born in India you would get a hell NO I LOVE JESUS...he is the only way he gave his blood fer ur sins....:) If you point out that Jesus only had to die for your sins because his dad placed a tree on earth that was not supposed to be touched knowing full well his creation would touch it you would then get a really confused look. You could then ask what god's obsession with blood and sacrifice was...maybe tide with bleach would take out sins??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFaith and reason are mutually exclusive. A reasoning person will choose the most likely explanation for something until a better one is found. A person of faith will view events as manifestations of God, and be deprived of the ability to adjust perspective as more information becomes available. Holding to a Principle is not the same as blind faith in God. A person can be moral and of high principle without God. Indeed, God has become a tool for validating petty prejudices, racism, xenophobia; virtually every kind of selfish thinking is supported by some religion. Unbelievable atrocities have been committed in the name of God since the beginning of history, yet adherents still maintain that God is good, great and positive. In other words, faith is a euphemism for delusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder why JULIANPENROD has such a hate on for non-believers. They use "conniving deceitful tactics". are "vicious and arrogant", use "weaseling contrivances", "insipidly engage in inane occupation", believe in an "empty vacuous system" and are "quislings ladeling doggerel".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI presume this person is well educated judging by the language used. This is living proof of the trouble that religion promotes. No tolerance for others who do not have the same beliefs as they do. No use arguing with this kind of people. The bad news is that if it is "in our genes" we will not succeed in bringing about the tolerance and respect for each other which is so drastically needed to live together in harmony.
I could cry!
I think it is possible that homo sapiens have evolved (through the millenia)a sensitivity in certain receptors in the brain which are involved in the experience of religious euphoria. In that sense religious euphoria is somewhat like the euphoria experienced by drug users. This explains the neurophsiological component. There are also strong psychological and sociocultural components that are mutually reenforcing. I do not think we are born to be religious, but there are individual variations in physiological and psychological susceptibility throughout our species. Early indoctrination in religious beliefs can reenforce the prediliction toward religious belief in susceptible individuals. In a similar manner, those who have a physiological and psychological susceptibility to alcohol or drug addiction, may become full blown alcoholics once they are exposed to the requisite sociocultural triggers. Christina Anne Knight
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best oxymoron in the English Language:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
One has to keep in mind that there is a difference between the monotheist God (of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and our inborn religious feelings. The last is an inheritance of our hunter/gatherer ancestors who experienced the world religious, dancing and singing the creation story of their world. The monotheist God is a Judaic political patriarchal invention of 622 BC, parasitizing on our inborn religious inclination, in later ages adopted by the church and still later by the Arabs. Dawkins' aggression against God-belief is totally right. Aggression against our inborn religious inclination is not right: is is the foundation or feelings of togetherness. And this feeling is precious. See www.humanosophy,org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study says that agreeable and conscientious children are more likely to stay religious, but they attribute that to "a preference for social harmony and personal order -- in other words, stability." I wonder if instead children who are agreeable and conscientious are simply less likely to reject the preferences and traditions of their parents. I don't really see how agreeableness and conscientiousness lead to a desire for stability, but I see clearly how they will lead to a desire to do what is expected of them, i.e., be responsible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe correlation between having openness and being more spiritual than religious seems like a very good way to compromise between doing what is expected, and being true to the mature, well-reasoned spiritual beliefs that are developed later as as adult.
The correlation between having little openness and being fundamentalist likewise seems natural, as a rigid fulfillment of the exact expectations of the parents, and not open to exploring new spiritual beliefs as an adult.
There seem to be strong benefits to belonging to religions, so I would not be surprised if we evolved to be more likely to believe in God, if that means that we are more likely to be in cooperative communities. I could speculate that that benefit would be true for the less open fundamentalists living together in rigid communities, and also for the more open people who may be able to adapt better to moving to a new community (or who were conquered by a different community). A few thousand years is plenty of time to evolve significantly in that way (especially with the widespread habit of conquering others), but I believe that humans have had religion for many thousands of years, judging by cave paintings, or perhaps even hundreds of thousands, judging by possible burials.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan is born ignorant and soon becomes enchained in religion. The fire and serenity of scientific knowledge will blaze religion to oblivion, eventually. All we have to do is wait - and wonder. Openmindedness lets science in and religion out. Religion makes no scientific sense, no matter how many articles SciAm writes about it. It may be natural for a rational brain to invent explanations (i.e. religions) when it doesn't have any, but it is just as natural for the mind to eventually reject irrational ideas when proper rational knowledge takes its place. And that is what is happening and will keep happening. Religion is ignorance and ignorance is the only sin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI posted this on a different article, but it seems appropriate here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince much of the discussion deals with belief in God, I would say that because of many personal experiences, I do believe in God, but I could not possibly say what God is. I prefer not to use a pronoun for God (you could choose any one of them: He, She, It, I, You, We, They) and I also believe that whatever the nature of God is, we are not intended to be able to prove God's existence or understand God's nature. The only thing that I really know is that the universe is not the mechanistic object that it appears to be, but we already know that from the existence of quantum mechanics, and also from the existence of consciousness.
I also don't believe this is an unscientific view. I have experienced so many unexplainable phenomena, and received so much personal help, that it would be unscientific, ungrateful, and cowardly not to acknowledge that they happen.
On the other hand, I don't believe that religions really represent God very well because of all the man-made stuff that creeps into even the best of religions. But maybe some of what religions say is true and good for us. The bad parts of religion are cause for many people to fall away in anger and disgust and deny anything good about any religions at all, which I did myself at one time. But eventually I recognized that I was having an emotional response, not a logical one. Eventually I decided that a valid logical position was that anyone who has never experienced any evidence of God cannot prove either God's existence or non-existence, but so many trustworthy people profess to have experienced evidence of God that it would be rash to conclude that God does not exist. Miracles may have happened, but of course they are only proof to the person they happened to. To everyone that person tells about the miracle, it becomes just a story about a miracle, not the miracle itself, and therefore unprovable.
One thing I don't believe in is Infinity. I don't have any reason to believe that anything at all is actually infinite, including God, God's love, the universe, or time. Sure, there is a great deal of exaggerated language about how very big God is, but infinite? I don't believe it.
As for evolution, I am a firm believer that it happened the way that evolutionary biologists describe, but I cannot rule out the idea that Aliens or Time Travelers or God intervened to produce a result that they wanted in one particular species.
To say that spiritualism is an inherent part of human mentality, is not to say that belief in a god or gods is necessary. And organized religion, especially Christianity and Islam, has become a protection racket for the leaders of these religions. They control their congregants by fear, and they use the power they feel from their leadership to impose values on society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"weaseling contrivances like 'You can't prove a negative' ?
"eastablishing the veracirty of their unconditional denial of God"?
It's unfortunate that that is your experience but I've seen this from both sides. Being called stupid or told that one will 'perish' for lack of belief doesn't help the search for truth.
Make a list of ALL FACTS you know regarding God's existence. For example:
-Our parents who are generally good, tell us there is a God.
-There are holy books that describe the being called God.
-These books were written by men (some 100's of yrs after the fact).
-We don't hear of anyone rising from the dead/walking on water/etc anymore.
-We can't explain how the universe was created.
-God promises an eternal afterlife of happiness (if you meet the criteria).
-We see what appears to be order and design in the universe.
-Our best technology dates the universe at ~13.7+ billion yrs and the Earth at ~4.5 billion yrs.
-There appear to be mysterious forces at work in the universe, i.e. dark matter, dark energy, etc which we barely understand.
-Humans are generally afraid of death, or more accurately, don't want to die.
-The idea of an afterlife is comforting to the majority of humans.
-Humans have been wrong about lots of assumptions about the universe that science has later shed light on.
Remember this isn't a list about whether we SHOULD have religion or not, so "comfort" and "feels good" have no place on this list. This exercise is purely about existence. Now in reality, this list should be 100+ items long.
As a child you probably will have heard enough by #1 on the list that you feel you can rightly draw a conclusion. I have no problem with that PROCESS. As you mature you should reevaluate your conclusion with each addition to the list. An Atheist who refuses to add an item to the list because of fear it may force them to conclude God exists or a Theist that does the same because it may force them to abandon God, is doing a disservice to themselves. Some have concluded God does not exist, some the opposite and some say they need to add more items to their list before they can draw a conclusion. There is NO WAY to "absolutely" PROVE or DISPROVE God so it all comes down to how we draw conclusions. That is, are we honestly looking for the truth, or have we formulated an answer before even asking ourselves the question?
Without having a predisposition one way or another, I'm curious as to everyone's THOUGHT PROCESS while evaluating your lists. Your conclusion is less relevant to me than your sincerity.
It is not that simple as religion being only a personal feeling. Did the Apostles see something that could not be explained on that remote Easter Sunday? I have studied history thoroughly and can't believe that a Jewish carpenter with no money and no army preaching a couple of years would produce such an impression in all the ancient world, except by performing something completely unexplainable for them and for us. I have looked at the shroud of Turin and can't find any scientific explanation for it, and have also heard first hand stories of miraculous curations related to religion. Science is also being open to the unexpected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA friend of mine sent me the following link (which I found very interesting, and it relates to the subject topic):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm
It was a debate (in Australia) between Richard Dawkins and George Pell, chaired by Tony Jones. I do not know if statistics is a science, but 76% of the people (who watched the show) agreed that religion does not make a better world for us (human beings).
We are born clean plain slate but if our parents are religious them imposed their whim upon us in first tow years and make us religious.If parents are atheist we are became atheist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the claim that religion is innate, is mainly based on the conflation of two distinct concepts: ‘religious thinking’ and 'magical thinking'. The difference between these two concepts is essential. Magical thinking is something all children do, and they do it individually. A toddler hurting himself when running against a tree will blame the tree: tree is bad! Another example: Some kids try to conjure ‘luck’ at school by wearing a particular piece of clothing. Growing up, we gradually learn to consider things and events (and our powers to influence them) in a more realistic (or naturalistic) way. But a tendency to fall back on magical interpretations will often persist: even adults often burst out in anger at recalcitrant cars or evil computers. Magical thinking is mainly something personal, and undoubtedly has a strong innate component.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligions however are quite different. Religions exists only in groups and are characterized by cultural components, by culturally determined manipulation of our juvenile tendency for magical thinking. So the fact that they have roots in magical thinking is not its most important aspect. What is characteristic for religions is that they are cultural belief systems that are not innate. Why do we have religions? Because they are quite efficient instruments in order to control big groups of people (mostly to the benefit of a small elite).
Here is a general definition of religion: A metaphysical system built on a framework of superstition and mythology, that is perpetuated via cultural transmission for the relief of existentional anxiety, and is epistemologically dependent on magical thinking and delusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would not consider myself as complete Atheist, because I still believe in some form of God. I grew up as a designated Roman Catholic as my Mom is quite religous. I stop my practice 2 decades ago when I started to be convince in the belief of god or super natural must be part of our human evolution. There must be something in our DNA that acts like a safeguard for our species to survive longer than it may exist without it. Our potential for destructions are already more and more apparent. The Earth is a living entity that takes precedence than any form of life in it. It protects and maintain itself. For me that must be the purpose of believing in God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find SciAm's recent obsession with religion to be both disappointing and disturbing. Inevitably, the discussions turn into theological debates rather than scientific ones, with both atheists and believers trying to prove something that is eminently unprovable. Both sides have to take their theology on faith alone, and whatever construct they use to "prove" their belief is still based on non-empirical evidence, again, their "proof" is as unsupportable as the their belief or non-belief in God is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond point: The SciAm authors and editors are trying to disprove God's existence in a very peculiar way: by showing that belief is somehow hardwired into our genome and social constructs. Presuming one or both of these are true (and they probably are) does not "prove" God does not exist. One point has nothing to do with the other. This is simply bad science.
Third point: Amongst the people who believe God does not exist, there is a very childish view of God as some old man with a long beard pulling the the strings on a marionette. Christianity took that view, incorporating the Roman god as a man, and created Jesus. I think a lot of atheists are rejecting that view of God, not God as a non-corporeal entity that cannot be explained or understood by man. Further, there is an assumption that belief in God leads to all sorts of other beliefs, such as life-after-death and resurrection of the dead (rejected by the Sadducees), and angels (rejected by the Karaites). These are beliefs that are distinct from belief in God.
Fourth, there is an assumption that science answers all questions. It clearly does not, and there is a great arrogance in that. What is taken as "fact" in physics is often only "proven" through mathematics and thought experiments, not empirical observation and inductive reasoning. The concept of multiverses, string theory, branes, work because the math works, not because there's a body of empirical data, and are still hotly debated. And nobody has yet to explain quantum physics, which is a probabilistic model that happens to predict atomic and subatomic behavior very well. These conclusions are the result of deductive reasoning, so if the assumptions are simply beliefs, then your conclusions are just as unsupportable as the assumptions from which there were derived.
Finally, who cares that some people believe in God and some don't. This whole issue is not subject to scientific debate. I wish SciAm would get back to its roots and discuss some real science rather than a cloaked theological agenda.
Belief in a higher guiding power is delusional, irrational, and superstitious. But belief in the universe coming into existance spontaneously and without outside action is not. As for everyone that talks about how people kill, steal, and enslave in the name of god, how many people kill, steal, and enslave in the name of money, personal power, or anything else. Religion is the creation of man. Most people will agree with that statement. Many people on this forum are calling people who have religious/spiritual belief stupid or irrational the very things that they say are wrong with religion so has theeir lack of reason made them any better? This shows that the things people say religion causes people to do are truely parts of human nature. If you cannot "prove" God exists then it is irrational to believe in him. The using the same metric, many things that science holds fast and true should also be considered irrational. If someone makes a statement about a higher power he is an irrational fool But if someone make a statement about an unproveable Scientific discovery he is "brilliant". Are humans so arrogant that they can't accept that there is a guiding force out there that is so much more powerful than they are. So how about everyone show a little of that tolerance they keep talking about and not insult people who believe differently than they and listen to what they have to say. I feel the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It never lies in an extreme. Statistics tells us that. In closing, I always remmeber everything I read was written by a human or group of humans and it is all written through there perspectives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry this line "Many people on this forum are calling people who have religious/spiritual belief stupid or irrational the very things that they say are wrong with religion so has theeir lack of reason made them any better?" should read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany people on this forum are calling people who have religious/spiritual belief stupid or irrational the very things that they say are wrong with religion so has their lack of religion made them any better?
tcutick (comment 54) said: "I wish SciAm would get back to its roots and discuss some real science rather than a cloaked theological agenda."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree with your conclusion! (Point 3 is debatable; just not here.) Many readers join you in objections against SciAm writers and editors who use it as a "bully pulpit" to attack religion. (I don't see any alternate opinions permitted by SciAm editors. When I offered evidence of this bias,the blog editor simply threatened to ban me from the site! How unscientific.)
I hope that you add this comment to all of the pseudo-scientific shouting matches over religion. In particular, Michael Shermer and Lawrence Krauss flagrantly abuse SciAm to identify "science" with their own personal beliefs and those of the militant atheists. If the editorial staff doesn't change this behavior soon, readers will be calling this site SciAth, the "Scientific Atheist".
SciAm editors: Go back to real Science!
Apologies: Comment 57 was a reply to comment 54 by tcutick
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an atheist with a scientific world view I reject any explanatory mechanisms that are outside of the natural order (transcendant) unless one can demonstrate that it makes sense to extend the notion of causality beyond that which is currently understood. How causal processes operate within the natural world can be easily appreciated and understood. However, it does not appear reasonable to extend the concept of causality outside of the natural framework to involve entities as causative agents which have no logical connections to natural processes. I assure you I do not reject theism by faith, but because I maintain that there is no rational basis for theistic belief (and certainly no evidence to support it). One does not have to prove that there no unicorns or leprechauns in order to dismiss the notion that such creatures exist. In like manner, one does not need to prove that god does not exist to dismiss theism. The burden of proof lies entirely with those that make the exraordinary claim-namely theists. Moreover, religion and religious beliefs should be examined as natural phenomena unless one can give reason why these should be isolated from the natural order and natural causal processes. As regards the limits of scientific knowledge I must strongly disagree with you as well. There is really no reason to believe that there is anything about the universe that we as parts of that universe can not understand given the time and the requisite advances in knowledge and technology. Current ignorance is not necessarily permanent ignorance, and there is reason to be optimistic given our past history (just look how far we have come in the last 200 years). It is true that our current state of knowledge as regards quantum physics is a mess, but that will eventually be sorted out. In addition, there is reason to be optimistic that some version of a cyclic model will eventually become the accepted paradigm (probably an evolutionary cyclic model), and that would eliminate the notion of an ultimate beginning to the universe as well as explain the complexity of our current universe. By the way I bare no malice to the faithful so long as they refrain from influencing public policy to conform to their unsupported belief system (after all I am a former evangelical Christian myself and I have a great deal of firsthand understanding of the physiological, psychological and cultural influences involved in religious belief). Christina Anne Knight
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it so difficult to accept the simple TRUTH of life: the experiences you experience through your personal interaction with your environment informs your perception of your environment and yourself. This perception is not debatable, nor is it imposable on others. That is how you see things, and every one of us has got their own way of seeing things. These ways may seem foolish to others, or otherwise. That is okay, as long is we do understand that these perceptions are not necessarily universal. We don't have to have the same perceptions on matters of the mind, and we can build laws of civilization on such premises, although, unfortunately, a number of countries have done so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, we generally agree that summers are hot, winters are cold, killing is not good, stealing is not acceptable, making our neighbors uncomfortable in anyway is not cool, etc. On these premises, we have built our laws of civilization. Unfortunately, I note that in leading democracies such as the US, matters of the mind are suppressing free thinking right from birth! What a shame!
Religion is not in the genes, it has been indoctrinated into our minds as from birth. Please note, this is my opinion, my perception, okay? If anyone out there has the same views, it is a lovely coincidence; if not, that is normal, it is expected. Just don't go to war simply because your minds have failed to converge.
Sorry, correction on comment 60: line 5 should read: "... and we CANNOT build laws of civilization on such premises ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion it is to be applauded that nowadays scientists show interest in phenomena like religion and religiosity. It is high time to start serious research into the possible biological aspects and implications of religiosity. And of course it is to be applauded that Scientific American is reporting on these new developments in the science of man and mankind.
In my view, intellectual curiosity, is a sufficient reason for this new scientific endeavor - according to the Greek philosopher Aristotle a main feature of the human species is its drive to know.
Do I have to point out that there also is a much more pragmatic necessity? Is it not the duty of science to promote welfare and happiness? Is it not the task of science to (try to) explain – and so help to remedy – the unfortunate tendency shown by most religions to deter human emancipation and to hinder people in their pursuit of happiness?
This is amazing: that intelligent, educated people continue to focus on and "explain" the motivation of the victims (oh, sorry, I meant to say "followers"). Better to focus on the motivation of the so-called "priest class." Also known as: manipulators for personal gain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPriests are always trying to hide their own self incriminating knowledge: that being that they don't know whether God exists or anything else about the subject. Likewise, scientists and atheists both like to skirt around the fact that they don't know either. The REAL answer is for everyone to understand: humans at this point have no way of knowing this kind of thing - AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.
The amazing thing is that no one points out that believers are believers regardless of what religion is involved. They are "fans" in exactly the same way as football fans and supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties. "Fan" is derived from fanatic, that's all that needs to be said except that fanatics are a danger to everyone, including themselves.
The Big Q: Are we born to be religious?
The Big Answer: No, we are born as part of the great ape family. All of our ape family have the NEED to belong to a group!!
Modern civilization and current divisiveness both conspire to isolate us and make us seek "more privacy" and greater "individuality." REMOVE those to psycho-cultural factors and we'll see a quick decline in the number of "religious people."
Remove the protection priests enjoy from being prosecuted for fraud: you'll see an even greater and quicker decline in all religions in the land.
GAME OVER
Sorry, but while applauding scientists for showing interest is fine: that they start by asking the WRONG question cancels my impulse to applaud.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Are we born to be religious?" ---
NO!
It's simple: we are of the great apes. We great apes all show this strong need to belong to a group. Joining a religious group gives people the sense of belonging alright, but then they're told the PRICE OF ADMISSION is to give up their capacity to think and judge and take any actions but those prescribed by the fraudulent, parasitic priest class.
So there's your genetic connection but the connection is one of feeling the need to belong to a group - which provides reassurance against all the darkness and threatening beasts beyond the light of the campfire.
Violating the dogma of the priests is punished by banishment into the darkness and ultimately into the claws of the beasts (demons) where they (they are told) will suffer undying, eternal agonies. So every "believer" has to repetitively perform the ritual signals proving their loyalty to what, in reality, is a group of duped victims. They really never get the satisfaction of belonging and being protected because they are always under the observation of their fraudulent "saviors." Followers also have to pay extortion money to their priestly masters, lest they be banished for their "selfishness and lack of appreciation."
I'm not a scientist: but I've clearly beaten the scientists in giving the correct answer to the question: Are we born to be religious. You may applaud now.
Your initial assertion is false. I can use my abstract reasoning and understanding and realize that my mind will NEVER fully understand the origins of the universe. No scientific experimentation will ever be done on live human brains, we will always be limited by size constraints, there are some things we will NEVER understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn "Initiator", "Creator" or "Universal Intelligence" that is greater then me is a reasonable conclusion and does not violate any current PROVEN scientific theorems. Our universe operates under certain laws and there seems to be some power in prayer, and believing in some type of greater good.
That being said, the notion that this "God" somehow judges our every thought and action and determines whether it is good or bad and doles out reward and punishment based on such things is downright silly. It is amazing how many millions believe in such silly things.
Yes, we were born to be religious. The way our religiousness expresses itself varies from person to person. The vehemence some pagans use to attack Christianity demonstrates the same fundamentalist zeal as that of some right wing Christians. The religious zeal is there. The ways of expressing it differ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe communists enforced their atheism with religious zeal. The Chinese replaced their old scriptures with the new scripture by Chairman Mao. The form of the worship services changed.
People will have their religious activities and rituals. The question is what purpose will they serve.
Julianpenrod I would suggest you do some history lessons before you sprout off about the ‘the lies the atheists use to promote their empty, vacuous system. Most wars are not caused by religion!’. In fact every war you mentioned except for your War of Independence WAS started by religious belief or the lack thereof. In fact every war through out history except your War of Independence has been of a religious nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact there are historians in America that feel that war was religious, and as for your Civil war, it most definitely was a religious war, you had Honest Abe on one side who believed every man was born equal, and you had the south you believed firmly that God gave them the Black man to enslave, so if that was not religious, what was? It was not started just as war of state versus state is was a war of freedom from slavery, and that came down to religion, whether you wish to believe it or not. Even as an Australian I know your history better than you.
It doesn,t matter whether I am a theist or an atheist what should matter to all is whether I have the right to believe in a God or not, it is when that right is taken away from you that wars are started, as in the case of all the other wars you mentioned in your post 23.
What about those who talks with "the spirits" and can predict the future of yours? Why does no one interested in making research there instead of making issues like "Are We Born To Be Religious?" Mean, maybe the first one could give more answers if not all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion, if the future is predictable(fully or partially) then there should be something like system or control.
This is an interesting proposition and reading the dogmatic responses against the possibility of a genetic predisposition of an individual towards a "god" or "faith" are almost laughable. Obviously, you do not have the "proposed" or "hypothetical" genetic predisposition! Just a few decades ago, similar cynics of religiosity were mocking the effectiveness of prayer and meditation as an aid to physical healing. Now, "scientific" studies indicate that there does appear to be some positive effect and benefit, albeit, explicable in physiological terms. May I suggest you do a bit more research into historical philosophy, religion, and psychology; and perhaps seek to be more open-minded? It is amazing how those without faith our blind to their own brand of dogmatic indoctrinating beliefs that they accuse the religious right as possessing. Plus, before you cast those who follow their religious convictions (no matter how hypocritically or inconsistently)into your collective that you call "idiots," -- convincingly resolve the issue of "first cause." Until then it seems logically reasonable for a truly open mind to consider an "intelligent being," or "force," or "God." Wouldn't be something if there was "god-gene?" And imagine the implications!! It would seem man has been blaming and/or seeking a "god" ever since man appeared on earth. Frankly, the more I explore the minute intracacies of human anatomy, physics, and biology, the more I realize how petty, small, immature, closeminded, and arrogant mankind has become.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince religion is a common feature of most of human groups it may have served a purpose in stabilizing social structure and/or providing a socially acceptable escape route when encountering otherwise unbearable and tragic events. This safety valve might allow many, incapable of rationalizing their miserable situation, to circumvent otherwise socially unacceptable reactions, that might fringe on or be considered 'insanity'. If in the long term this is good for humans, it is most likely that the ability to 'believe' (i.e. to accept apparently unlikely causality in the absence of an immediate alternative) has been under evolutionary selective pressure. The corollary is that any genetic predisposition which would aid this goal would also be selected for. The likely reductionist (rational) conclusion is that there are gene variants which predispose many of us (if not all of us for at least part of our lives) to regularly or occasionally suspend our disbeliefs. How could we enjoy fiction, novels, films, Disney Land etc. without doing so?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely not. Religion is taught to us by our parents. I'm living proof that we are not inherently born with faith. I was not raised with any kind of religion, and never desired to have it. I still remember kids in 3rd grade that were shocked I didn't "believe in god," nor even know what they were talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead if indoctrinating children from birth, let them grow up and make their own decisions. After all, no religion is "true." It's all mythology and philosophy. Teaching the bible as fact to children is setting them up to have issues separating reality from fantasy as adults.
You are right, we are all quite literally born atheists. If one (like yourself) is never exposed to religious teaching at an early age (and is instead encouraged to develop a scientific world view) the odds would be infinitessimally small that the individual would become religious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy never being exposed to religious teaching at an early stage I mean to include exposure from the surrounding culture as well as exposure within the family unit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllow me to recommend two books...one free to read and or download at Google books is "Bible myths and their parallels in other religions" by Doan, and the other (not free) is "Putting away childish things" by Uta Ranke Heinemann, the only woman IN THE WORLD to have ever held the chair of religion in a Catholic University. Both of these books will make some angry and others smile. And that alone is worth the recommendation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your input. Christianity like all other religions are natural phenomenon and did not evolve in a sociocultural vacuum. Given this fact it is not surprising that Christianity evolved as a hybrid of jewish and 'pagan' ideas especially given the high likelihood that it evolved in the Asia Minor region outside of Palestine. The multitude of geographical errors found in the gospels (which were written after Paul's letters) reenforces this view. It is precisely because of the strong evidence supporting an origin outside of Palestine, along with the multiple savior god parallels (and there is no mention of a controversial figure named 'Yeshua' preaching in Israel in jewish writings of the time) that have convinced me that there was no historical Jesus. Christina Anne Knight
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply to Dale: You are a better writer than this portraitist. But not a better student: you refer to old German philosophers! Dear Dale (x kiss!)we live in a time wherein free market-prosperity yielded money enough to enable western societies to disburse field research etcetera. Today we can know a. the origin of the religious feeling in us (our early ancestors lived their world in a religious way)and b. when and why and 622 BC Israelic patriarchs started with their idea of a One and Only God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you want to know it too, see www.humanosophy.org
To Buck SkinMan: "The Big Q: Are we born to be religious? The Big Answer: No, we are born as part of the great ape family. All of our ape family have the NEED to belong to a group!! "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear BSM, we are part of the ape family indeed. But our specific ape ancestors embarked to an 'unnatural' road to us. We became the only 'linguistic' species in nature. One of the consequences was that our species became religious. [Too long story for here, see www.humanosophy.org]
"we'll see a quick decline in the number of "religious people."
No, we will not see this, because our human nature has become religious. What we will see is a decline in God-believers, because our actual economic system (free market)can nothing with a fragmented consumers market and insists on our common human nature: being free and happy. The defect is: free market economy is only an economical situation, nothing more. To know our human nature is a philosophical task. However, western philosophy has always be the servant of the theology, it has still to re-invent itself. Therefore again, see www.humanosophy.org We have to 'organize' a new belief (in the power of being human) ourselves.