Religious people are NOT "born believers," landmark study reveals

[trotsky]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/877527/religion-belief-faith-god-belief-oxford-coventry-research-born-Christianity

New research by the universities of Oxford and Coventry has quashed the idea that religious people are 'born believers’.

Instead it is now thought that factors including upbringing and socio-cultural processes are more likely to influence whether a person is a religious believer.

The study, conducted by academics from Coventry University's Centre for Advances in Behavioural Science and neuroscientists and philosophers at Oxford University, included tests on pilgrims taking part in the famous Camino de Santiago pilgrimage and a brain stimulation experiment.

...“Religious belief is most likely rooted in culture rather than in some primitive gut intuition.”

Go figure. You'd think the lack of Christian children born to Hindu parents, or the lack of Jewish babies in Muslim communities might have been a tip-off.

[guillaumeb]

1. This should be posted in the "stating the blindingly obvious" group.

Imagine, that humans must be socialized into behaviors. Who could have imagined that? Does the same apply to non-theistic beliefs?

[Angry Dragon]

2. I thought not too long ago you posted that people were born religious??

[guillaumeb]

3. Really? eom

[trotsky]

5. YA RLY

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=258944

[Angry Dragon]

7. Great minds and all that

[Angry Dragon]

6. REALLY!!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=258944

[yallerdawg]

8. Genetically predisposed?

Hardwired to be receptive?

Reading is fundamental!

Where does it say "Born religious!" I mean, literally?

[Angry Dragon]

9. tying to split hairs??

[guillaumeb]

13. Or trying to point out your mistake?

A suggestion on my part that you may accept or reject.

[Angry Dragon]

14. Please explain more fully so i can find out what my mistake is so I might

have a chance to correct it

[guillaumeb]

15. Yallerdawg did so in #8. eom

[Angry Dragon]

16. I asked you not Yallerdawg----he did not explain anything

[guillaumeb]

17. Perhaps not to your satisfaction.

But you made a claim that is simply not supported by the post.

[Angry Dragon]

19. and I asked you politely to explain my mistake

has nothing to do with satisfaction

[guillaumeb]

21. You posted a link to another post.

It is actually your challenge to prove what you claimed. Agreed?

[Angry Dragon]

22. I posted a link to one of your posts

you said i made a mistake
please explain the mistake that i made that this post is not in contrast to your recent post

[guillaumeb]

23. To head off any misunderstandings,

please briefly explain what you feel the contrast or contradiction is.

Thank you.

[Angry Dragon]

24. A suggestion that humans are hardwired to religious belief----First one

Second one---This should be posted in the "stating the blindingly obvious" group.

Imagine, that humans must be socialized into behaviors

I read these as two different positions

[guillaumeb]

25. Thank you.

The article suggested that humans are hardwired to beliefs, including religion. And given that humans are born dependent on others, humans are social creatures. And humans must be taught most of our behaviors. Socialization. Humans cannot exist outside of a larger society, so what promotes co-existence and harmonious relations is a desirable trait.

Religion, tribalism, language, are all traits that promote group solidarity.

Evidence also suggests that humans have shown religious traits for over 300,000 years.

I read these as interdependent positions on the essential nature of humans.

[Angry Dragon]

26. Or perhaps the old age question of: Why am I here??

and the belief in a god is just a quick easy answer

[guillaumeb]

27. That also. I agree.

But if it were a quick and easy answer, why all of the debate?

[marylandblue]

33. There was almost no debate in the pre-scientific era

At least as long as there has been writing, God or gods were the quick and easy answers to everything from creation to warts, but through science we have the real answers to many of those things and no evidence that divinities played any part of it. Hence the modern debate. But we aren't even talking about the same God anymore. In ancient and medieval times, gods were active and real forces, they created the heavens, they got angry they made it rain, they caused disease, and could be propitiated by prayer. Now that we know these things are actions of physics and biology, God has become an abstract thing of pure spirit that at best interacts with the world in some secret and forever undetectable manner or maybe a blind clockmaker who hasn't touched his creation for 13.7 billion years.

[marylandblue]

34. Not blindingly obvious

The researcher state that their research indicates that we do not pick up religion spontaneously in the way we pick up language and that this research contradicts other research (such as in the previously linked thread) which suggested we do. So the jury is still out and the answer is not obvious, even if we've been doing it for 300,000 years. We have probably been cooking our food even longer than that, and we still aren't sure why.

Calling things interdependent is scientifically unsatisfying. EVERYTHING is interdependent, but some things are instinctual while others are learned. Behavioral research tries to distinguish between the two but the research is surprisingly difficult to do.

[guillaumeb]

35. Humans learn most things.

Unlike reptiles, we must be taught nearly everything. But unlike reptiles, we think about things, and thinking about the afterlife, or gods, seems to be one thing that we have always done.

[marylandblue]

36. We are genetically primed for certain lessons

Last edited Mon Nov 13, 2017, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Language for example. Children learn language spontaneously, without much effort on their part. By the age of 5, most children have most of the vocabulary and grammar they will ever need in their native language, even in the most complex languages. Some children have genetic makeups that make it harder for them to learn language - some autistic children for example. These children have to be taught language by special methods even if they are of normal or high intelligence.

On the other hand, our brains are not designed to learn physics. Becoming proficient in physics requires high intelligence and effort. Even people proficient in physics may still have intuitions contrary to the laws of physics. Unlike language, we do not learn physics spontaneously.

Is religion like language or physics? This is the question posed by research in this area, and if you think the answer is obvious, you are either not looking deep enough, or you are a genius who has missed his calling.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Who is 'we'?

Is that the royal 'we' perhaps?

[guillaumeb]

38. Did you not understand what I wrote?

And if you did, the pronoun usage should be obvious.

[marylandblue]

39. I think you did not understand what Atheist Crusader wrote

And if you did, his pronoun use should be obvious as well.

[guillaumeb]

40. Feel free to explain how the generic pronoun use of "we"

magically becomes the royal we.

[marylandblue]

41. Not up to me to explain, but I think it's clear you misunderstood his point

I'll give you a hint, though - he wasn't discussing a point of grammar.

[guillaumeb]

42. No, he clearly missed the point.

But proceed with the victory celebration.

[marylandblue]

43. As far as I am concerned, this is a failure.

But you may celebrate in full snark if you like.

[guillaumeb]

44. It is definitely a failure.

But the choir will not learn the lesson.

[marylandblue]

45. I fear that neither will you

[guillaumeb]

10. But if it did............

I have been accused of many things here, and the accusation is necessary to the subsequent argument against a position that I did not take. But I understand.

[yallerdawg]

11. A lot like the 'gungeon' groupies.

They really enjoy talking amongst themselves about how we want to bang down their doors and pry their...well, you know.

'True believers' broach no rational argument.

[Lordquinton]

28. And I thought your post about humans being born religious was stretching

Pointing out that you indeed post what you claim you did not, with a link to an active thread, is not an accusation.

I thought the bar couldn't go any lower, and yet, here we are.

[guillaumeb]

31. Your framing is stretching things a bit.

But I am accustomed to those tactics.

[Lordquinton]

32. My framing...

Yes, my framing of "no, you did, and there are two posts linking to where you did post it" that framing?

[msongs]

4. babies have no religion. religion is learned behavior that must be carefully taught and can be un

learned.

[guillaumeb]

18. Babies have no language either.

Nor have they the ability to walk.

[Lordquinton]

29. Visual representation of post #18

[NeoGreen]

20. Let's be honest and call it what it is...

...indoctrination.

It is not merely learned behavior, it's not some simple cooking class, or a better way to tie your shoes, it is an all encompassing indoctrination from birth to death.

And it has to remain so, to survive.

[Brainstormy]

12. DUH. n/t

[Lordquinton]

30. I dunno...

Oxford and Coventry vs Science20.com

Hard to call this one.