Children - religion the default position ?

[ProfessorDavey]

Being non religious is readily tractable generation to generation, religion isn't, even when kids are specifically brought up to be religious.

And this is what makes the OP notion non-sense when it is actually 'tested' in the real world.

PD, your comment that I've underlined can be taken to mean that the indoctrination that non-religious parents gave to their children is that much more effective than that of religious parents.  Could it suggest that they try to reduce the amount of freedom of thought their children are allowed to exercise?

No it doesn't mean that at all although it does suggest that the indoctrination of religious parents isn't very effective.

The reality is that for non religious parents religion simply isn't a feature of their lives, or the lives of their children. That is no more 'indoctrination' into being non religious that parents who aren't interested in Opera somehow indoctrinate their children into being non opera lovers.

Indoctrination needs to be active, and most non religious parents aren't 'active' in ensuring their children become non religious in the way that religious parents are in ensuring their children become religious.

The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.

[Hope]

The reality is that for non religious parents religion simply isn't a feature of their lives, or the lives of their children. That is no more 'indoctrination' into being non religious that parents who aren't interested in Opera somehow indoctrinate their children into being non opera lovers.

Indoctrination needs to be active, and most non religious parents aren't 'active' in ensuring their children become non religious in the way that religious parents are in ensuring their children become religious.

The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.

Unfortunately, PD, this forgets that a lot of teaching, let alone indoctrination, is NOT active, but passive.  How often do parents say something along the lines of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'

The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.

So how do you explanation the decision of people to turn away from non-religiousness and embrace religion in their adulthood?

[ProfessorDavey]

The reality is that for non religious parents religion simply isn't a feature of their lives, or the lives of their children. That is no more 'indoctrination' into being non religious that parents who aren't interested in Opera somehow indoctrinate their children into being non opera lovers.

Indoctrination needs to be active, and most non religious parents aren't 'active' in ensuring their children become non religious in the way that religious parents are in ensuring their children become religious.

The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.

Unfortunately, PD, this forgets that a lot of teaching, let alone indoctrination, is NOT active, but passive.  How often do parents say something along the lines of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'

I'm sorry Hope but you really are stretching a point.

To be indoctrinating someone there must be a deliberate and active approach by parents (or others) to inculcating an idea or belief into the next generation. Sure there are parents who set out to inculcate a view that religion is wrong in an active sense (in a similar but opposite manner to religious indoctrination) but that isn't I believe the norm. For most non religious parents religion simply isn't a part of their day to day lives - they aren't actively bringing up their children to be non religious, they are simply not bringing them up to be religious.

And if this is indoctrination then a christian bring their children up as christians is not only indoctrinating them to be christian, but also not to be buddhist or atheist or jedi etc. That's non-sense. Indoctrination must be deliberate and active.

[ProfessorDavey]

The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.

So how do you explanation the decision of people to turn away from non-religiousness and embrace religion in their adulthood?

Sure there are very rare exceptions and my comment was necessarily generalising. But the point remains that only 3% of kids brought up in non religious homes end up becoming religious as adults, 97% remain non religious.

So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.

[Hope]

So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.

I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence for this, PD.  After all, everything is extrapolated from the soft evidence of statistics, which don't always tell the reality since so often they are based on subjective Q&A sessions.

[ProfessorDavey]

So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.

I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence for this, PD.  After all, everything is extrapolated from the soft evidence of statistics, which don't always tell the reality since so often they are based on subjective Q&A sessions.

Sure there is hard evidence - go and read the work of David Voas, probably the most respected academic studying religiosity and its generational transference in the land.

And why is 'statistics' soft evidence. Actually statistics is what allows us to understand and interpret evidence and its significance.

So Voas' data actually suggest that:

Less than 3% of children brought up in a non religious household become religious as adults.

If both parents are religious, 46% of children are likely to be religious as adults.

If one parent is religious and the other not only 23% of children choose to be religious as adults.

And your basically get exactly the same proportions whether you consider religious affiliation or active church-going.

[wigginhall]

The idea that kids have a sense of agency about toys and so on, has been known for a long time.  But to go from that to 'a religious sense' is something of a wild leap, I think.  For one thing, children's views are evolving all the time - I think Prof. D. made the point that young children have the peekaboo illusion, which involves various 'errors', e.g. that objects disappear, when you can't see them, and that I am invisible if I cover my eyes.  But they don't remain at that stage.

So the term 'default' is a real pig's ear, I think, since children don't 'freeze' in a particular cognitive position.

This week's free gift - a very charming painting of peekaboo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peekaboo#/media/File:Kou-Kou_by_Georgios_Iakovidis.jpg

[jjohnjil]

So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.

I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence for this, PD.  After all, everything is extrapolated from the soft evidence of statistics, which don't always tell the reality since so often they are based on subjective Q&A sessions.

Sure there is hard evidence - go and read the work of David Voas, probably the most respected academic studying religiosity and its generational transference in the land.

And why is 'statistics' soft evidence. Actually statistics is what allows us to understand and interpret evidence and its significance.

So Voas' data actually suggest that:

Less than 3% of children brought up in a non religious household become religious as adults.

If both parents are religious, 46% of children are likely to be religious as adults.

If one parent is religious and the other not only 23% of children choose to be religious as adults.

And your basically get exactly the same proportions whether you consider religious affiliation or active church-going.

I am not up on the statistics but as a father I know that when my kids came home and told me the things they had learned in Religious education, I always told them my views of the matter in question.  Whether that's indoctrination or not I don't know, but I would imagine most fathers would try to right the things they hear their kids have been taught that they think are wrong.. 

[ProfessorDavey]

So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.

I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence for this, PD.  After all, everything is extrapolated from the soft evidence of statistics, which don't always tell the reality since so often they are based on subjective Q&A sessions.

Sure there is hard evidence - go and read the work of David Voas, probably the most respected academic studying religiosity and its generational transference in the land.

And why is 'statistics' soft evidence. Actually statistics is what allows us to understand and interpret evidence and its significance.

So Voas' data actually suggest that:

Less than 3% of children brought up in a non religious household become religious as adults.

If both parents are religious, 46% of children are likely to be religious as adults.

If one parent is religious and the other not only 23% of children choose to be religious as adults.

And your basically get exactly the same proportions whether you consider religious affiliation or active church-going.

I am not up on the statistics but as a father I know that when my kids came home and told me the things they had learned in Religious education, I always told them my views of the matter in question.  Whether that's indoctrination or not I don't know, but I would imagine most fathers would try to right the things they hear their kids have been taught that they think are wrong..

That's probably right, but that is a purely reactive situation. If asked you may (or may not) give your opinion on the matter in hand. However if they hadn't told you about what they learned in that particular class, or indeed if they weren't including religious education in their school's curriculum then I suspect you would be bringing up the matter as a routine.

That is a world away from a 'typical' actively religious household bringing up their children in their faith where there will be proactive 'indoctrination' - the parents don't just wait until their children tell them (or not) about what they learned at school. Nope they will be being actively taught the faith at home, quite possible sent to a school which the parents have chosen because it will also reiterate that learning of their faith, and likely will make sure the child engages in the ritualistic practices of their religion which may well include preparatory lessons and learning of the faith (e.g. Sunday school, preparation classes for holy communion etc etc).

There is a world of difference. And of course don't forget that on top of the religious parents proactively inculcating their children with their faith they will also probably give exactly the same reactive views if their children come home and say they'd been learning about hinduism for example, where a christian parent might say 'very interesting darling, but we don't believe in that'.

[Hope]

There is a world of difference. And of course don't forget that on top of the religious parents proactively inculcating their children with their faith they will also probably give exactly the same reactive views if their children come home and say they'd been learning about hinduism for example, where a christian parent might say 'very interesting darling, but we don't believe in that'.

I notice that you have suddenly jumped to a new term in this paragraph - 'inculcate'.  I wish I'd thought of using it in any of my earlier posts as it has a far less perjorative meaning than indoctrination or brainwashing, which over the months seem to have been the terms of choice amongst several posters.

However, your post still ignores the importance of passive means of teaching one's children one's world view. 

[ProfessorDavey]

There is a world of difference. And of course don't forget that on top of the religious parents proactively inculcating their children with their faith they will also probably give exactly the same reactive views if their children come home and say they'd been learning about hinduism for example, where a christian parent might say 'very interesting darling, but we don't believe in that'.

I notice that you have suddenly jumped to a new term in this paragraph - 'inculcate'.  I wish I'd thought of using it in any of my earlier posts as it has a far less perjorative meaning than indoctrination or brainwashing, which over the months seem to have been the terms of choice amongst several posters.

However, your post still ignores the importance of passive means of teaching one's children one's world view.

Yes I think inculcate is a good term because it is less pejorative than indoctrinate.

And no I don't ignore passive 'teaching' (if that's the right term) - but I don't see how that differentiates between a religious household and a non religious one. In a religious household kids will be 'taught' religion in a passive manner by simply being aware of the religious elements in their daily lives, just as a kid in a non religious household will not get that passive 'teaching'. But the child in a religious household is much, much more likely to receive active inculcation on the faith (direct teaching of bible stories, being required to go to church, Sunday school etc etc) than the child in the non religious household. What do your think happens there - Dawkins colouring books, learn the next chapter of your Hitchens for you Saturday atheism school classes. Non-sense.

There is no equivalence.

[floo]

As my husband and I had been indoctrinated by religious parents, and lost our faith when we were mature enough to see its flaws, we decided that our kids would be free to follow their own path without any indoctrination from us. They attended church and Sunday school and decided Christianity suited them, we are grateful of course that they aren't Biblical literalists.

[ProfessorDavey]

As my husband and I had been indoctrinated by religious parents, and lost our faith when we were mature enough to see its flaws, we decided that our kids would be free to follow their own path without any indoctrination from us. They attended church and Sunday school and decided Christianity suited them, we are grateful of course that they aren't Biblical literalists.

If they were brought up in a non religious household but have become religious as adults then they are a rare breed indeed - less than 3% will do that. Of course that doesn't mean kids that become religious following an upbringing in a non religious household don't exist (that would be non-sense to suggest) merely that it is a rare occurrence.

[ProfessorDavey]

However, your post still ignores the importance of passive means of teaching one's children one's world view.

Lets try it this way with an analogy which hopefully illustrates the point without entering the religious/non religious debate.

Imagine two families.

In family 1 the parents are passionate about fishing, spend as much of their spare time fishing as they can and are really keen that their children develop a love for fishing too, so want to inculcate their children with knowledge and practice. So they start to teach their kids to fish from an early age and for the kids seeing their parents fish is second nature, as is all the fishing paraphernalia around the house. A trip to a tackle shop is commonplace. There are fishing magazines all over the place and the parents get the kids mini-fishing rods for birthdays/xmas from an early age. As the kids grow up they become interested in fishing and that love lets a lifetime.

Family 2 have never been into fishing and throughout their upbringing fishing is never a part of their or their children's lives. They aren't overtly anti fishing and actually the parents can never remember any significant conversation with their kids about fishing. It simply never comes up. There isn't any fishing equipment in the house (although the kids may see it at some friends or on holiday) and they know there is a fishing tackle shop down the road (not that they've ever been in). The kids never show any interest in fishing as adults.

Are you really suggesting that family 2's inculcating of 'non fishing' in their kids is equivalent to family 1's inculcating 'fishing' in theirs. Of course they aren't.

[torridon]

The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.

So how do you explanation the decision of people to turn away from non-religiousness and embrace religion in their adulthood?

Sure there are very rare exceptions and my comment was necessarily generalising. But the point remains that only 3% of kids brought up in non religious homes end up becoming religious as adults, 97% remain non religious.

Maybe it is those 3% that are the ones that are somewhat concerning. It seems often the case that jihadists are people who suddenly 'get religion' for the first time as young adults, not having been exposed to it during their upbringing.  But there again, these people probably have some underlying issues with mental stability.

[Jack Knave]

Just goes to show that all religious people are just big kids!!! 

But seriously folks, this is an interesting proposition.

Jungian psychology could of course explain why this is so.

[Jack Knave]

The problem with this study is that it seems to fly in the face of the largest body of evidence we have and one which has also been extensively studied. Namely the religion or otherwise of kids brought up in religious or non religious households.

If religion was indeed the default for children even if they had little or no teaching about it by family or schools, then you would expect a large proportion of kids from non religious households being religious as adults. And for those brought up in a religious household the addition of a religious upbringing plus the default religious position should surely ensure that virtually all kids from religious households become religious as adults.

But of course the reverse is true. Virtually no kids brought up in households which aren't religious end up religious as adults - just 3%. And even with a religious upbringing purportedly adding to a default religiosity the likelyhood of a kid brought up in a religious household becoming religious is just 50:50, compared to 97:3 for kids in non religious households wending up non religious.

So this study is blown to pieces by real 'fieldwork' evidence.

Actually the picture may be a little more complex, needing assessment of different stages in development to adulthood. It is possible that at one stage in development kids are likely to have a default of belief but as they progress they grow out of it (unless specifically being brought up religious). That means that the default through to adulthood is non belief not belief as the evidence domonstrates.

And frankly religions have known this forever which is why they impose requirements for children to be brought up to believe, develop complex rituals at stages through childhood to cement that belief and often expect education to emphasise their religious belief.

I think the nub of your data is saying is that people are very different and will respond to life in different ways, bucking some aspect of their upbringing. Some will try to buck it but may fail and so will contribute to an uncertain variance in the data.

[Jack Knave]

Dearie Me,

Man!! you would thought Rose had just posted real scientific evidence of God.

I would suggest various posters read it again without their atheist vests on

Gonnagle.

Nope reading this with my scientific research and evidence 'vest' on. It's what I do as a profession and that world is full of 'models' that end up not supported by the evidence and being unable to predict what we see in the real world. This would appear to be a case in point.

If their notion was correct we'd see loads of kids from non religious households ending up religious as adults. But we don't.

I suspect they are looking at developmental stages too narrowly. So to give an analogy, there is a developmental stage where kids think that if they can't see you, you can't see them. Is this a 'default' - no, merely a specific point in development an understanding the world. And one that is rapidly overtaken by a recognition that others can potentially see them when the child has his or her eyes closed. It is a key point in development of empathic behaviour - being able to see things through the eyes of other (kind of literally in this case).

Humans as a species are both intelligent and inquisitive, so there may well be a default to understand the world around us, and sure at a particular stage that might result in a common conclusion of something that made it. But this isn't a fundamental default, because later (without specifically be taught that religion is correct) most kids develop a non religious outlook therefore the inquisitiveness has taken a more sophisticated turn with increased cognitive development to recognise that religion isn't needed to explain the world.

But that presupposes being brought up in our present world. The question would be what would happen if, as they say in the OP, people grew up on an island away from all civilised influences, including science and religions?

I would guess some basic form of paganism could develop just from our inquisitive human nature and projection of anthropomorphic tendencies.

[Leonard James]

Dearie Me,

Man!! you would thought Rose had just posted real scientific evidence of God.

I would suggest various posters read it again without their atheist vests on

Gonnagle.

Nope reading this with my scientific research and evidence 'vest' on. It's what I do as a profession and that world is full of 'models' that end up not supported by the evidence and being unable to predict what we see in the real world. This would appear to be a case in point.

If their notion was correct we'd see loads of kids from non religious households ending up religious as adults. But we don't.

I suspect they are looking at developmental stages too narrowly. So to give an analogy, there is a developmental stage where kids think that if they can't see you, you can't see them. Is this a 'default' - no, merely a specific point in development an understanding the world. And one that is rapidly overtaken by a recognition that others can potentially see them when the child has his or her eyes closed. It is a key point in development of empathic behaviour - being able to see things through the eyes of other (kind of literally in this case).

Humans as a species are both intelligent and inquisitive, so there may well be a default to understand the world around us, and sure at a particular stage that might result in a common conclusion of something that made it. But this isn't a fundamental default, because later (without specifically be taught that religion is correct) most kids develop a non religious outlook therefore the inquisitiveness has taken a more sophisticated turn with increased cognitive development to recognise that religion isn't needed to explain the world.

But that presupposes being brought up in our present world. The question would be what would happen if, as they say in the OP, people grew up on an island away from all civilised influences, including science and religions?

I would guess some basic form of paganism could develop just from our inquisitive human nature and projection of anthropomorphic tendencies.

And then progress onto all the different kinds of religious belief which we have at present.

BUT ALL PRODUCTS OF THE HUMAN MIND.

[SusanDoris]

1 - I put a * in #93 but forgot to say what it was for … and now I can’t remember!
-
2 - All children’s thinking is as a result of information received through the senses. It is, therefore, a non—starter to say that children have an in-built anything in terms of beliefs. Their genetic make-up will affect the way the nurture they receive is adopted; and Prof Davey has said something on similar lines with which I agree.

[Gonnagle]

Dearly beloved,

Boy!! If ever a thread has went sideways, the OP, the study, the science is simply saying we are born believers, it does not say we are born believing in God or that kids are religious.

It's simple, we are mean seeking animals, if kids don't have an answer, Godidit.

It's a bloody human instinct, we all do it, how does that lightbulb work, magic, no! We all want to know, we all have inquiring minds.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dearly beloved,

Boy!! If ever a thread has went sideways, the OP, the study, the science is simply saying we are born believers, it does not say we are born believing in God or that kids are religious.

It's simple, we are mean seeking animals, if kids don't have an answer, Godidit.

It's a bloody human instinct, we all do it, how does that lightbulb work, magic, no! We all want to know, we all have inquiring minds.

Gonnagle.

We are not born believing anything, that is the point.

We are through evolution geared to accept what we are told so that we survive. Children at a young age just accept what you tell them. It is very important at that age NOT to tell them that there IS a god.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dearly beloved,

Boy!! If ever a thread has went sideways, the OP, the study, the science is simply saying we are born believers, it does not say we are born believing in God or that kids are religious.

It's simple, we are mean seeking animals, if kids don't have an answer, Godidit.

It's a bloody human instinct, we all do it, how does that lightbulb work, magic, no! We all want to know, we all have inquiring minds.

Gonnagle.

We are not born believing anything, that is the point.

We are through evolution geared to accept what we are told so that we survive. Children at a young age just accept what you tel

What a low opinion you have of your fellow humans!  Whatever they are told when young, if they have half a brain, as they grow up, they will make up their own minds.  It is arrogance, if not ignorance, to assume that people are so gullible when adult.

[Jack Knave]

I saw this.

Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth

"

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

"
Here  is a bit about it from science daily

"A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.

The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.

The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.

'The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project' led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies.

The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology and Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

That throws a spanner in the idea atheism is the default position and children only become religious because they are brainwashed by society and parents.

Rose,
I can relate to this:

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.

I knew their was a God and I have always believed that because of that people make a choice later in their life.
God has always been with me since a child. He never left me and luckily my partners never had a problem with my faith.

I think that Jesus comment of faith like a child is very relevant...

In response to the quote, it all depends on what one mean by God.

And to your personal bit, which God was it, that you knew as a child, was always with you?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Berational,

Is it me!! The article is just about child development, it is not about God or religion.

Bloody hell!! Is this not one of the old atheist arguments regarding how religions started, a volcano erupts, early man, the child, blames the volcano gods.

Gonnagle.