Children are born believers in God, academic claims

[koshergrl]

PS...I have never once said the bible was a scientific book. Where that came from, I don't know. Probably from the vast wealth of completely unrelated claptrap from which you pull all the rest of your so-called *argument*.

 

[Underhill]

Yeah. That wasn't the discussion. You keep changing the topic.

Which is...there is a god gene, so atheists can leave off arguing "it's not NATURAL for people to believe in God" and "if you put all the babies on an island and never exposed them to religion, they would never believe in a supernatural deity". The SCIENCE says otherwise.

How can a psychological study reveal a gene? You are just making this stuff up.

The study has nothing to do with genetics.

 

[Underhill]

PS...I have never once said the bible was a scientific book. Where that came from, I don't know. Probably from the vast wealth of completely unrelated claptrap from which you pull all the rest of your so-called *argument*.

Why do I bother? It's like discussing calculus with a 2nd grader.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah. That wasn't the discussion. You keep changing the topic.

Which is...there is a god gene, so atheists can leave off arguing "it's not NATURAL for people to believe in God" and "if you put all the babies on an island and never exposed them to religion, they would never believe in a supernatural deity". The SCIENCE says otherwise.

How can a psychological study reveal a gene? You are just making this stuff up.

The study has nothing to do with genetics.

Well you just proved that you haven't read the material.

Hamer is a genetecist, and he found the God gene.

The Oxford study simply proved that children find it easier to believe in a supernatural power, and are more likely to develop their own belief system in one, than they are to develop without a belief system that includes a supernatural power.

Two different things going here. The Oxford study (one of many...which are also cited)...which is supported by the existence of a God gene...and which blasts the uneducated atheist meme that children must be indoctrinated to accept a supernatural creator. It turns out that the exact opposite is true...they must be indoctrinated to accept atheism, and to reject the idea of a supernatural deity.

I've already pointed this out multiple times. At this point, we're just going in circle, if you aren't able to remember from one moment to the next what has already been discussed. Though probably, you just aren't reading what's been posted. Typically, atheists suppose their own ignorant understanding trumps all other, and don't bother with actually delving into the particulars of their own idiocy, or the information that disproves their garbage.

 

[koshergrl]

PS...I have never once said the bible was a scientific book. Where that came from, I don't know. Probably from the vast wealth of completely unrelated claptrap from which you pull all the rest of your so-called *argument*.

Why do I bother? It's like discussing calculus with a 2nd grader.

I agree...but I'm not the 2nd grader.

Where did I say the bible was a scientific book? Where did I make any comment about the age of the earth, the universe, or any of the other completely unrelated jabberings you've attempted to drag into the conversation?

 

[Underhill]

PS...I have never once said the bible was a scientific book. Where that came from, I don't know. Probably from the vast wealth of completely unrelated claptrap from which you pull all the rest of your so-called *argument*.

Why do I bother? It's like discussing calculus with a 2nd grader.

I agree...but I'm not the 2nd grader.

Where did I say the bible was a scientific book? Where did I make any comment about the age of the earth, the universe, or any of the other completely unrelated jabberings you've attempted to drag into the conversation?

Because obviously it is relevant. You cannot claim your religion is scientifically sound and then be accepting of the fact that your book is a mess on the science.

 

[koshergrl]

WHAT is "obviously relevant"??? Please define your ridiculous statements. All your unrelated jabberings are relevant?

Focus.

 

[Underhill]

Yeah. That wasn't the discussion. You keep changing the topic.

Which is...there is a god gene, so atheists can leave off arguing "it's not NATURAL for people to believe in God" and "if you put all the babies on an island and never exposed them to religion, they would never believe in a supernatural deity". The SCIENCE says otherwise.

How can a psychological study reveal a gene? You are just making this stuff up.

The study has nothing to do with genetics.

Well you just proved that you haven't read the material.

Hamer is a genetecist, and he found the God gene.

The Oxford study simply proved that children find it easier to believe in a supernatural power, and are more likely to develop their own belief system in one, than they are to develop without a belief system that includes a supernatural power.

Two different things going here. The Oxford study (one of many...which are also cited)...which is supported by the existence of a God gene...and which blasts the uneducated atheist meme that children must be indoctrinated to accept a supernatural creator. It turns out that the exact opposite is true...they must be indoctrinated to accept atheism, and to reject the idea of a supernatural deity.

I've already pointed this out multiple times. At this point, we're just going in circle, if you aren't able to remember from one moment to the next what has already been discussed. Though probably, you just aren't reading what's been posted. Typically, atheists suppose their own ignorant understanding trumps all other, and don't bother with actually delving into the particulars of their own idiocy, or the information that disproves their garbage.

This is the first time it has been pointed out to me.

So where is the article on the subject of this god gene? Because this is the opening article and it says nothing about it.

"Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.

In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied "to make nice music" and "because it makes the world look nice".

Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.

Dr Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.

He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.

Dr Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.

"Children's normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe.""

Here is an article, from a leading neurologist, on the subject. You might want to read it if you have any interest in the truth. Here is an opening exert.

"Two major newspapers did what all mainstream media do best: Get the story wrong. The New York Times published "The Evolution of the God Gene" by Nicholas Wade in which we are told that, "religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning it exists because it was favored by natural selection." We are further informed that religion is "universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland."

As a neurobiologist specializing in evolutionary biology these twin assertions about natural selection and the brain caught my attention. Both claims are wrong. But they are made so frequently as to have become conventional wisdom, like the canard that we only use 10 percent of our brains. Such folklore is a powerful force so these claims largely go unchallenged no matter how false.

From these incorrect assertions, the author makes an incredible leap from innocuous myth to something more dangerous: "For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless." Amazing how many absurd ideas can be packed into a single sentence. Let's see.

First, religion did not evolve through the mechanisms of natural selection. The idea of god perpetuates itself through cultural transmission. Second, atheists as a rule do not claim that religion is "useless" at all, fully recognizing that an appeal to an unseen force had benefits to early human societies unschooled in the sciences. Third, even if the absurd claim were true that religion evolved through natural selection, that would in no way challenge the tenet that god is nothing but a silly myth. The "evolution" of religion would simply mean that perpetuating a ridiculous myth had a selective advantage, nothing more, and would certainly not lend credence to the myth itself.

To the author's credit, the article takes a middle ground and seeks to demonstrate how religion as an evolved trait is not terribly helpful to believers, either. But no matter how balanced the presentation, the basic premise of an "evolutionary perspective" on religion is deeply and fundamentally flawed.

Religion was born not from some god gene, but of fear of the unknown, of the drive to control the uncontrollable, of the need to have mastery over one's fate in the face of an uncertain world. The first ideas of religion arose not from any awe of nature's wonder and order that would imply an invisible intelligent designer, but rather from concerns for the events of everyday life and how the vast unknown of nature affected daily existence. To allay fears of disease, death, starvation, cold, injury and pain, people fervently hoped that they could solicit the aid of greater powers, hoped deeply that they could somehow control their fate, and trusted that the ugly reality of death did not mean the end. Hope and fear combine powerfully in a frightening world of unknowns to stimulate comforting fantasies and myths about nature's plans. "

Now, if you wish to discuss this civilly, I am up for it. But if you wish to continue to be rude and dismissive you can go fuck yourself.

 

[koshergrl]

Keep reading through the thread. Hamer. Hamer is the one who found the God gene.

And link your citation.

I've been perfectly civil. The fact that you're wrong, and have failed to argue intelligently on the actual topic, is not indicative of a lack of civility on my part. I don't equate civility with giving credit where none is due.

 

[PratchettFan]

I never said we are engaged in science when we attend church or anything even remotely like that, and I do know what science is. As does Hamer, the #1 genetecist in the WORLD, who maintains there is a God gene, and it compels humans to seek out supernatural explanations for the natural world.

BTW, male and female may be pointless and nonsensical to you, if there is no reproduction...but that is based on your limited understanding of relationships and in fact, the world.

I was not aware geneticists rated themselves. However, you are taking a study and reading into it that which is not there. Which is also unscientific. I do not quibble that human beings tend to create answers when they don't have them readily at hand. Thus, the sun going across the sky is actually the god Apollo in his chariot. Lightning is Odin throwing bolts at people he doesn't like. It is clear that human beings have always made up answers in order to avoid that more horrible of statements... "I don't know". if you wish to insist that your made up answers are the right answers and other people's made up answers are wrong, you are free to do so.

As to your comment about my limited understanding of relationships and the world.... you don't know me. You are simply putting me in a convenient box. That too is unscientific.

I've no doubt that what you aren't aware of could fill a tome...

But I was confusing Hamer with Collins....it does get confusing because so many of the ground-breakers in genetic research DO believe in God, they're easy to mix up.

"Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health, gave a lecture Friday evening on “God and the Genome,” reconciling the Bible’s creation story with evolution and sharing how science should actually bolster a person’s faith instead of dismantling it."

Read more at Nation's Top Christian Geneticist Defends God and Evolution "

Hamer is just " an independent researcher at the National Institutes of Health for 35 years, where he directed the Gene Structure and Regulation Section at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. He has won numerous awards including the Maryland Distinguished Young Scientist Award and the Ariens Kappers Award for Neurobiology."

Dean Hamer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My bad. But obviously, they're plebes compared to you.

​

You continue to misunderstand the nature of science. A scientist may well believe in one god or another, or that none exists. However, science simply does not address the issue because, in the absence of relevant facts, it cannot address the issue. The only things the various studies address is the nature of human beings, which says absolutely nothing about gods. Any attempt to connect the two things has nothing to do with science.

 

[PratchettFan]

My point was that atheists lie when they claim that atheism is the natural default of children.

It's proven to my satisfaction, certainly, and apparently to the satisfaction of scores of pre eminent researchers the world over.

Feel free to hold out, if you like. You just illustrate my second point...which is that atheists are anti-science, when the science topples their most dearly held myths.

I think the point trying to be made is that infants are a tabla rasa. A clean slate. Which some indicate is the nature of atheism, though I would disagree with that argument. However, I would agree that children are basically sponges. They will accept pretty much anything they are told. They are natural believers because they do not, through lack of experience, differentiate between the believable and the unbelievable. They will believe that babies are delivered by a stork or found under a cabbage leaf. They will believe in the Easter Bunny. This tendency to believe never goes away. But, as in anything, one gets better at things with practice.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yeah. That wasn't the discussion. You keep changing the topic.

Which is...there is a god gene, so atheists can leave off arguing "it's not NATURAL for people to believe in God" and "if you put all the babies on an island and never exposed them to religion, they would never believe in a supernatural deity". The SCIENCE says otherwise.

Once more, your understanding of how science works is lacking. If you took a group of babies and refrained from exposing them to any type of religious belief of any kind, then you would be in a place to determine if they would develop those beliefs. However, this has not been done so any conclusion is nothing but speculation -which is not science.

I have already pointed out that there have been quite a number of cases involving feral children and asked you to point out a single one which developed the concept of a deity. You have failed to do so. I expect you have not even made the attempt. That too is not science.

If you wish to use science as an argument you should at least make an attempt to understand what science is and to follow the rules.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah. That wasn't the discussion. You keep changing the topic.

Which is...there is a god gene, so atheists can leave off arguing "it's not NATURAL for people to believe in God" and "if you put all the babies on an island and never exposed them to religion, they would never believe in a supernatural deity". The SCIENCE says otherwise.

Once more, your understanding of how science works is lacking. If you took a group of babies and refrained from exposing them to any type of religious belief of any kind, then you would be in a place to determine if they would develop those beliefs. However, this has not been done so any conclusion is nothing but speculation -which is not science.

I have already pointed out that there have been quite a number of cases involving feral children and asked you to point out a single one which developed the concept of a deity. You have failed to do so. I expect you have not even made the attempt. That too is not science.

If you wish to use science as an argument you should at least make an attempt to understand what science is and to follow the rules.

You need to read the material.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yeah. That wasn't the discussion. You keep changing the topic.

Which is...there is a god gene, so atheists can leave off arguing "it's not NATURAL for people to believe in God" and "if you put all the babies on an island and never exposed them to religion, they would never believe in a supernatural deity". The SCIENCE says otherwise.

Once more, your understanding of how science works is lacking. If you took a group of babies and refrained from exposing them to any type of religious belief of any kind, then you would be in a place to determine if they would develop those beliefs. However, this has not been done so any conclusion is nothing but speculation -which is not science.

I have already pointed out that there have been quite a number of cases involving feral children and asked you to point out a single one which developed the concept of a deity. You have failed to do so. I expect you have not even made the attempt. That too is not science.

If you wish to use science as an argument you should at least make an attempt to understand what science is and to follow the rules.

You need to read the material.

I did. You need to understand the material.

 

[koshergrl]

Your confidence in your superior understanding is sadly misplaced. Number one, you have yet to correctly grasp the conversation that you are engaged in here. Number 2, your logical fallacies and unjustified proclamations of superior understanding really don't further the conversation.

 

[varelse]

Atheism is a learned concept that is unnatural to the human brain, is what it teaches us.

kinda like Germ Theory?

 

[varelse]

By that standard, so is driving a car. Leaning is not unnatural to the brain. Therefore a learned concept is not unnatural. In point of fact, Atheism is no more a learned concept than Theism. It is merely another attempt to create answers where none exist.

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

see weak or agnostic atheism, if you're looking for what I think you are



Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Only in the cases of gnostic or strong atheism Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

theism, by definition, seeks superatural explanation. An atheist necessarily seeks/accepts explanations consistent with the natual world

I put my two cents in red

I didn't say leading a good life leads to happiness, and that certainly isn't what Hamer said. What he said is that the God gene compels humans to interact in a way that creates a more functional society, and thus brings happiness to the participants of that society.

Through holy war and honor killings? Ethics are what do what you claim, not the misapplication of the theory of mind resulting in supernatural interpretations which attribute sentience to the universe or natural forces.

And whether or not you acknowledge it or even understand it, goodness does not exist separate from God. When you are good, it is because you are obeying God.

I happen to find it good to not murder all my neighbors who don't worship the 'right' god. By not murdering them, I am disobeying your 'god' and the laws attributed to it. I can also cite many good and bad people who do not/did not believe in your god (or any god), as well as many who do/did.

'Good' is entirely subjective, as it is a value judgment based on one's personal morality and preferences.

I do not deny that human children develop a theory of mind. In fact, this seems to be what enables us to ask questions of eachother, develop complex systems of ethics and a 'moral instinct' [for more on this, see Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and related fields]) and sets homo apart from the rest of the apes. I do not deny that people, including youth tend to project their own mental states and motivations outward to explain the actions of perceived actors/agents outside themselves. One need only observe someone dealing with a cell phone that isn't working to see how they begin to react as if the device were a sentient creature willfully disobeying- they yell at it as though telling it to work wil convince it or it might be convinced to obey. This (as well as being programmed to see faces everywhere) is why we tend to anthropormophize everything.

To equate this with a natural inclination to seek out your monotheistic deity (or any other), however, is a dishonest misrepresentation I can only assume you keep repeating to serve your own purposes.

I would argue that, insomuch as this equates any natural tendency toward religion or metaphysics, animism is the closest description, as it attributes a Mind or Spirit to just about everything on every scale. Religion persists in large part because the human mind is programmed to seek explanations and understanding of the perceived world (that is, to construct a working model of the perceived universe which allows one to function in daily life), and the human mind, when lacking any other explanation, easily falls back on this instinctive desire to explain (perceived) outside actors by assuming what seems like the most reasonable proposition- assuming that outside agents function the same way as the Self. It's a side effect of a system which has generally been quite successful from an evolutionary perspective, much as our love of small neotonous ('cute') animals is a side effect of an instinct which leads us to protect our young, increasing evolutionary fitness.

 

[koshergrl]

In the sense that it has to be taught, sure.

 

[koshergrl]

If you're going to compare atheism to a belief system, (such as a religious belief system), you need to offer some relevant comparisons. Can you define Atheistic scripture? What are some of the long held traditions and practices of atheism? Where are the atheistic places of congregation where atheists assemble to not believe.

What theists of all stripes and caliber weapons fail to understand is that Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world while theism completely dismantles the natural world. There is certainly a difference in the level of trust and evidence necessary to hold the positions.

What theists need to account for is that as soon as they begin dismissing the claims of others' gods, they have inadvertently condemned the arguments for their own gods. The sectarian theistic (supernatural), contention is dependent on claims of a particular god(s). As soon as one begins to approach any discussion of a specific sectarian version of God(s), you must hold that god(s) to the same standards of proof that all gods must meet. To dismiss the Greek gods as an absurd claim while holding different gods to be extant supplies the Greek god did it'ists with all the necessary ammunition to shoot down in flames your version as absurd.

You are attempting to apply a structure to this and that is not the same thing as creating answers where none exist. I know that it is the argument that atheism is the absence of belief in gods, but I have yet to see a practical application of that definition. In the absence of information, any position or opinion is a belief. It can't be anything else. The only position of no belief is neutrality. I have yet to meet any proclaimed atheist who was neutral.

see weak or agnostic atheism, if you're looking for what I think you are



Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Only in the cases of gnostic or strong atheism Both engage the same process to create answers, the difference is just what answer is created.

We can take your statement as an example: "...Atheism is consistent with the evidence of the natural world..." Precisely what evidence do you base this upon?

theism, by definition, seeks superatural explanation. An atheist necessarily seeks/accepts explanations consistent with the natual world

I put my two cents in red

I didn't say leading a good life leads to happiness, and that certainly isn't what Hamer said. What he said is that the God gene compels humans to interact in a way that creates a more functional society, and thus brings happiness to the participants of that society.

Through holy war and honor killings? Ethics are what do what you claim, not the misapplication of the theory of mind resulting in supernatural interpretations which attribute sentience to the universe or natural forces.

And whether or not you acknowledge it or even understand it, goodness does not exist separate from God. When you are good, it is because you are obeying God.

I happen to find it good to not murder all my neighbors who don't worship the 'right' god. By not murdering them, I am disobeying your 'god' and the laws attributed to it. I can also cite many good and bad people who do not/did not believe in your god (or any god), as well as many who do/did.

'Good' is entirely subjective, as it is a value judgment based on one's personal morality and preferences.

That's what anti-Christians claim. They are wrong, and thank goodness normal people recognize that, or our societies would just be..packs.

I do not deny that human children develop a theory of mind. In fact, this seems to be what enables us to ask questions of eachother, develop complex systems of ethics and a 'moral instinct' [for more on this, see Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and related fields]) and sets homo apart from the rest of the apes. I do not deny that people, including youth tend to project their own mental states and motivations outward to explain the actions of perceived actors/agents outside themselves. One need only observe someone dealing with a cell phone that isn't working to see how they begin to react as if the device were a sentient creature willfully disobeying- they yell at it as though telling it to work wil convince it or it might be convinced to obey. This (as well as being programmed to see faces everywhere) is why we tend to anthropormophize everything.

To equate this with a natural inclination to seek out your monotheistic deity (or any other), however, is a dishonest misrepresentation I can only assume you keep repeating to serve your own purposes.

I would argue that, insomuch as this equates any natural tendency toward religion or metaphysics, animism is the closest description, as it attributes a Mind or Spirit to just about everything on every scale. Religion persists in large part because the human mind is programmed to seek explanations and understanding of the perceived world (that is, to construct a working model of the perceived universe which allows one to function in daily life), and the human mind, when lacking any other explanation, easily falls back on this instinctive desire to explain (perceived) outside actors by assuming what seems like the most reasonable proposition- assuming that outside agents function the same way as the Self. It's a side effect of a system which has generally been quite successful from an evolutionary perspective, much as our love of small neotonous ('cute') animals is a side effect of an instinct which leads us to protect our young, increasing evolutionary fitness.

Thanks for sharing the above incomprehensible claptrap. When you have something coherent to say, let me know.

 

[koshergrl]

I have noticed that atheists seem to adhere to some secret code that requires them to use as many words as possible to say as little as possible.....they get extra points for words/phrases used out of context, and if they can slip a complete fabrication in then apparently they get a box of hohos....