Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[ProfessorDavey]

Anyway I have just started reading it and one of the questions it poses is "Why is religion not just fading away" the book cites Russia, China and revolutionary France as example of countries who tried to get rid of religion.

But you are using examples of societies that attempted to repress religion, over several generations - but, of course, the cultural religious mood-music remains and there is also a tendency for people not to be told what they can and cannot belief. So it is completely to be expected that if these societies no longer attempt to repress religion that there will be a resurgence.

But is works the other way - there are plenty of countries that repress atheism (probably to a great an extent as the repression of religion in the countries you mention). Does that mean that atheists don't exist in Saudi (for example) - of course they do, but any atheist will likely keep quiet for fear of prosecution and even death. If (hypothetically) Saudi became less repressive and moved to a position where it allowed its people to be religious or atheist without fear - what do you think would happen. Suddenly there would appear to be a huge surge in atheism as atheists would feel free to be honest about their lack of belief in god.

But where we have societies that neither repress religion nor non-religion/atheism (where people are free to choose to be religious or not religious) and provide sufficient education to allow individuals to understand the options of belief or lack thereof (both religious/atheism and non-religious philosophies), guess what we see. Across the world (from Europe to the Americas to Australia to Japan etc) we see not a growth in religion but a growth in the so-called 'nones'. 

[ProfessorDavey]

"And the flip side is also true that children brought up in a family that does not belief are almost certain to retain that lack of belief into adulthood." 

How do you keep saying that.... when it has been established that people with implicit pattern recognition tend to believe regardless of their upbringing and children without implicit pattern recognition tend to be nonbelievers regardless of their upbringing?

How do I keep saying that, or why do I keep saying that? Well, because of the huge amount of research that demonstrates this.

Perhaps the most respected being David Voas' seminal work on the subject (but many other studies have shown the same).

So I think Voas found that 97% of children brought up in a non-religious household retained that non-religion as adults.
But for children brought up in a religious household with both parents being religious roughly half retained their childhood religion into adulthood.
If a child has one religious parent and the other non-religious then the likelihood of being religious as an adults dropped to 25%.

[Maeght]

"And the flip side is also true that children brought up in a family that does not belief are almost certain to retain that lack of belief into adulthood." 

How do you keep saying that.... when it has been established that people with implicit pattern recognition tend to believe regardless of their upbringing and children without implicit pattern recognition tend to be nonbelievers regardless of their upbringing?

Where has it been established that some children don't have implicit pattern recognition? Have I missed that?

[ProfessorDavey]

Where has it been established that some children don't have implicit pattern recognition? Have I missed that?

The articles actually talks about children with 'greater' or 'lesser' abilities for pattern recognition. Sriram also acknowledges that all children appear to have an innate ability for pattern recognition:

"Implicit pattern recognition, the unconscious ability to identify and learn patterns, is generally considered to be an innate ability with some degree of individual variation. While experience and learning undoubtedly refine and strengthen this ability, the underlying capacity appears to be present from a young age."

So again it is unclear whether children with greater abilities for pattern recognition were those at the 'top end' of the innate ability variation or that their upbringing had strengthened their ability.

[Gonnagle]

I think that is the case: having 'religious faith' is inherently subjective, and variations of the trappings of religions probably reinforce that.

It may be that some faith-based conclusions do have more general application, and that non-theists could arrive at the same conclusions but without a religious faith having any role. For example, valuing altruism isn't dependant on having pre-existing religious faith.

However, where there is attempt to impose certain moral beliefs on the basis of religious faith so that they become social policy for society at large is, I think, more problematic. The issue of same-sex marriage legislation in the UK is a recent example, which religious organisations such as the C of E opposed on the basis of it be contrary to their religious doctrine and would have preferred it if social policy aligned with their religious doctrine - which didn't happen in the end.

So I do think that personal religious faith, and conclusions based on that, might not always have value for all.

Dear Gordon, ( Sanity clause and Sir Terry Pratchett impersonator extraordinaire )

Now you fine sir, to me, are a perfect example of this whole discussion/argument/Contretemps that we are having.

From reading your posts, you Sir have been shielded, kept away, removed from any hint of religion, yes/no?

So in my very uneducated mind I would say that your Atheism is 100% learned.

But my discussion with the good Prof ( and he keeps bringing God in to it ) is not God, God is learned, just like your Atheism, Atheism is learned, you from an early age have had that innate quality suppressed, but you still have that within you, it is a human thing.

To end, you Gordon are a perfect gentleman in every sense of the word, your Atheism as far as I can see has shaped you, just Gordon being Gordon❤️ but my argument, my whole argument is, we are pre programmed to believe, it is a very human quality ( I keep using the word quality, trait, characteristic ) something we are born with.

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But that is entirely the point - that there is no evidence to suggest these attributes are innate rather than learned. This is to counter the unevidenced assertions of gonners and sriram that they are innate. If they are making those claims they need to provide the evidence - the onus is on them, not me.

Based on your argument, there is no evidence to show these behaviours are learned either. Because you don't know what existed before the child could communicate. 

Which is basically learned behaviour. If that child of Japanese heritage were dropped into a family (e.g. adopted as a baby) from a very different culture (e.g. Western cultures), then they would learn stranger-danger rather than Japanese-style self reliance.

I think there is evidence that young children tend to belief what they are told, albeit as they develop there is a tendency to challenge. But that isn't the same as an innate belief in god - rather than a tendency to believe what they are told is true. So tell them that god exists and they will believe that to be true. Tell them that there is no such thing as god and they will believe that to be true. But in both cases the belief/lack of belief is learned.

What is your evidence that it is learned behaviour? On what basis do you conclude whether or not children are naturally self-reliant and therefore that being fearful of being self-sufficient, independent and self-reliant is not the learned behaviour?

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting article here which focusses not just on quantitive research - whether or not religion and non-religion are transmitted generation to generation, but also looks at the mechanisms and, in particular, the way in which children brought up in non-religious households come to recognise this and also why they are almost certain to retain this non-religiousness into adulthood.

Hopefully you can read the full article:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0038038519855307

But just a snippet to emphasise my earlier point about non-religiousness being more 'sticky' than religion (e.g. christianity):

" Woodhead (2017) notes, drawing on data from the British Social Attitudes Survey, that there is a 45 per cent chance that those raised as Christian will end up identifying as non-religious, but for those raised as non-religious, the chance that they will remain non-religious is 95 per cent. Thus, she argues,

‘no religion’ is currently ‘sticky’ in a way Christianity is not … [N]ot only are ‘no religion’ parents more likely to produce ‘no religion’ children, those children will do the same – so the pool of the non-religious goes on growing. (Woodhead, 2017: 252–253)"

[Maeght]

The articles actually talks about children with 'greater' or 'lesser' abilities for pattern recognition. Sriram also acknowledges that all children appear to have an innate ability for pattern recognition:

"Implicit pattern recognition, the unconscious ability to identify and learn patterns, is generally considered to be an innate ability with some degree of individual variation. While experience and learning undoubtedly refine and strengthen this ability, the underlying capacity appears to be present from a young age."

So again it is unclear whether children with greater abilities for pattern recognition were those at the 'top end' of the innate ability variation or that their upbringing had strengthened their ability.

Thanks. Not a surprise that there are degrees of this.

Identifying what is nature and what is nurture is of course difficult and I wouldn't want to declare that anything is 100% one or the other as I don't see how you can.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is your evidence that it is learned behaviour? On what basis do you conclude whether or not children are naturally self-reliant and therefore that being fearful of being self-sufficient, independent and self-reliant is not the learned behaviour?

But why should a child being brought in a western society by western parents (even if their heritage, e.g. genetics, is Japanese) have an innately different natural propensity for self-reliance rather than being fearful of stranger danger, compared to the same child if they are brought up in Japan by Japanese parents. Surely the obvious conclusion isn't that this is innate, but learned behaviour based on the societal expectations where they are brought up.

[Gonnagle]

Interesting article here which focusses not just on quantitive research - whether or not religion and non-religion are transmitted generation to generation, but also looks at the mechanisms and, in particular, the way in which children brought up in non-religious households come to recognise this and also why they are almost certain to retain this non-religiousness into adulthood.

Hopefully you can read the full article:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0038038519855307

But just a snippet to emphasise my earlier point about non-religiousness being more 'sticky' than religion (e.g. christianity):

"‘no religion’ is currently ‘sticky’ in a way Christianity is not … [N]ot only are ‘no religion’ parents more likely to produce ‘no religion’ children, those children will do the same – so the pool of the non-religious goes on growing. (Woodhead, 2017: 252–253)"

Dear Prof,

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Lend us a fiver I promise to pay you back at the end of the week

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Lend us a fiver I promise to pay you back at the end of the week

Gonnagle.

Sorry - one of the benefits of academia being access to the full articles in many cases.

I guess the interesting point from the article is about the socialisation of non-religion compared to religion for children being brought up in non religious and religious households.

Now for those being brought up religious you have all the expected ritual, customs etc etc of that religion. But for non-religious household there is no 'non-religions' ritual/customs. The point is that religion simply isn't something that comes up, it simply isn't a topic of conversation. Unlike Vlad's view there isn't some attempt to install anti-religion, indeed no attempt to install non-religion, it just isn't something that comes up in the family home. Interestingly the study also suggests that encounters with religion in schools, e.g. RE lessons, friends who are religious acts to amplify their own non-religious identity - by knowing what others do it emphasises what they don't do in their own homes.

'While growing up as a Muslim (Scourfield et al., 2013) or an evangelical Christian (Strhan, in press), for example, entails the child learning to situate themselves in relation to a body of teachings, practices and institutional authority, our data suggest that non-religious socialization in children’s home lives is mediated in more subtle and unremarked forms, bound up with a relative absence of overt discussion about religion. RE lessons however make explicit for non-religious children what is implicit and unremarked upon in home life. Although children were not asked ‘are you religious’ in RE, focusing on the beliefs, practices and traditions of religious groups prompted the children to reflect on and acknowledge their own non-religious identities. For these children, their non-religiosity was relational, as they recognized the importance of other family members’ perspectives in shaping their own. At the same time, they articulated a sense that they had the freedom to choose their (non-)religious identity and beliefs, demonstrating a commitment to the ideal of individual choice and freedom that is a central commitment for the non-religious more broadly9 (Woodhead, 2017).'[/]

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But why should a child being brought in a western society by western parents (even if their heritage, e.g. genetics, is Japanese) have an innately different natural propensity for self-reliance rather than being fearful of stranger danger, compared to the same child if they are brought up in Japan by Japanese parents. Surely the obvious conclusion isn't that this is innate, but learned behaviour based on the societal expectations where they are brought up.

I wasn't considering genetic differences between Japanese children and non-Japanese children - I was asking whether there is evidence to show whether or not children are innately self-reliant and whether culture makes some children behave differently and supress their innate self-sufficiency?

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon, ( Sanity clause and Sir Terry Pratchett impersonator extraordinaire )

Now you fine sir, to me, are a perfect example of this whole discussion/argument/Contretemps that we are having.

From reading your posts, you Sir have been shielded, kept away, removed from any hint of religion, yes/no?

So in my very uneducated mind I would say that your Atheism is 100% learned.

But my discussion with the good Prof ( and he keeps bringing God in to it ) is not God, God is learned, just like your Atheism, Atheism is learned, you from an early age have had that innate quality suppressed, but you still have that within you, it is a human thing.

To end, you Gordon are a perfect gentleman in every sense of the word, your Atheism as far as I can see has shaped you, just Gordon being Gordon❤️ but my argument, my whole argument is, we are pre programmed to believe, it is a very human quality ( I keep using the word quality, trait, characteristic ) something we are born with.

Gonnagle.

Not really - I wasn't actively taught to become an atheist, and nor do I hold any beliefs specific to atheism. All it means is that I don't hold any theistic beliefs.

[Gonnagle]

Not really - I wasn't actively taught to become an atheist, and nor do I hold any beliefs specific to atheism. All it means is that I don't hold any theistic beliefs.

Dear Gordon,

Oh Riley who is a close cousin of Blarney Stone

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really - I wasn't actively taught to become an atheist, and nor do I hold any beliefs specific to atheism. All it means is that I don't hold any theistic beliefs.

And that's what the study I linked to.

This suggests that people aren't actively taught to be non religious or atheist, but that it is the absence of being taught to be religion or theist means that they default towards being non-religious (not so sure about atheist).

[ProfessorDavey]

I wasn't considering genetic differences between Japanese children and non-Japanese children - I was asking whether there is evidence to show whether or not children are innately self-reliant and whether culture makes some children behave differently and supress their innate self-sufficiency?

Ah - I see your point.

Effectively whether in the absence of societal push towards self-reliance (Japanese style) or stranger-danger (Western style) would they naturally default towards self reliance or stranger danger.

Well I think that is a pretty hard experiment to try, given that you'd need to throw children into some kind of societally-devoid setting for several years of their upbringing. Good luck with getting that one through the ethics committee!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ah - I see your point.

Effectively whether in the absence of societal push towards self-reliance (Japanese style) or stranger-danger (Western style) would they naturally default towards self reliance or stranger danger.

Well I think that is a pretty hard experiment to try, given that you'd need to throw children into some kind of societally-devoid setting for several years of their upbringing. Good luck with getting that one through the ethics committee!

Yes - unlikely to get some baby in Sparta or Lord of the Flies type scenario past the ethics committee.

But doesn't that same problem of identifying what is innate in a new-born apply to theism or any abstract value? How will we know what the default setting is, given we can't throw children into a societally-devoid setting for several years of their upbringing.

If you are brought up in a society that favours religion or brought up in a society that discounts religion, how will we know what your default setting is?

Religion presumably meets some kind of human need - if you substitute something else to meet that need rather than religion, it doesn't mean you don't have an innate need that is being met, it just means the same need is being met by something other than religion. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that is the case: having 'religious faith' is inherently subjective, and variations of the trappings of religions probably reinforce that.

It may be that some faith-based conclusions do have more general application, and that non-theists could arrive at the same conclusions but without a religious faith having any role. For example, valuing altruism isn't dependant on having pre-existing religious faith.

Agreed that the same value can be expressed in religious or non-religious language.
And amongst theists, some might express a value through a story that they consider to be metaphorical, while other theists might express the same value through the same story but take the story literally rather than metaphorically.

However, where there is attempt to impose certain moral beliefs on the basis of religious faith so that they become social policy for society at large is, I think, more problematic. The issue of same-sex marriage legislation in the UK is a recent example, which religious organisations such as the C of E opposed on the basis of it be contrary to their religious doctrine and would have preferred it if social policy aligned with their religious doctrine - which didn't happen in the end.

Ok but there isn't an objective right or wrong when it comes to moral values e.g. same-sex marriage. 

Different people predict different consequences of adopting a particular moral value and have different opinions on how much they prioritise the desirability or importance of the predicted consequence e.g. the slippery slope argument in relation to morals - not just about same sex marriage, but also about assisted dying and other moral issues.

For example, loosening restrictions in society leads to people wanting to push boundaries further. So when Stonewall wasn't expending most of its energy fighting for same sex marriage anymore, it suddenly had more time on its hands to fight for trans women to be included in single sex female spaces.

It's possible that some people who don't fight to liberalise a particular rule may just prefer the status quo because they want to keep the line in the sand where it is now, rather than having to fight the next push for liberalisation that they know will inevitably come, once the current restriction has been lifted.

I imagine that many people don't decide what is the right or wrong decision based on just the limited circumstances they are currently confronted with - I think many people look ahead and anticipate possible permutations and combinations and future decisions they may need to make as a result of the choice they make today about the circumstances and issues they face today.

So I do think that personal religious faith, and conclusions based on that, might not always have value for all.

I don't' think many moral values, and conclusions based on them, have value for all does it? Moral values presumably depend on context and time and place?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes - unlikely to get some baby in Sparta or Lord of the Flies type scenario past the ethics committee.

But doesn't that same problem of identifying what is innate in a new-born apply to theism or any abstract value? How will we know what the default setting is, given we can't throw children into a societally-devoid setting for several years of their upbringing.

If you are brought up in a society that favours religion or brought up in a society that discounts religion, how will we know what your default setting is?

Religion presumably meets some kind of human need - if you substitute something else to meet that need rather than religion, it doesn't mean you don't have an innate need that is being met, it just means the same need is being met by something other than religion.

True - and this is the point that Maeght and I have been making. It is gonners and sriram who are claiming (without evidence) that belief in god and religion are somehow innate attributes.

And I agree that there are certain human needs that are fundamental - most notably complex societal structures that support the protection and learning of young humans (on the basis that young humans are hugely vulnerable and our evolutionary advantage is based on learning - effectively being able to survive by being smarter rather than faster, or stronger etc etc).

Does religion fit that need - sure it does. Can only religion meet that need - hmmm, I don't think so. I think there are plenty of ways in which societies can be structured to support those basic humans needs without them being religious. And in human evolution I think there is little evidence that religion existed for much of the early part of human existence, although undoubtedly those early humans would have complex social structures (as other primates also do).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Does religion fit that need - sure it does. Can only religion meet that need - hmmm, I don't think so. I think there are plenty of ways in which societies can be structured to support those basic humans needs without them being religious. And in human evolution I think there is little evidence that religion existed for much of the early part of human existence, although undoubtedly those early humans would have complex social structures (as other primates also do).

Which relates to my point to Gordon. People who argue for religion to continue to play a role in society because of their experience of religion working to meet structure and support goals in society, presumably do not see a need to substitute something else for religion to meet that innate need humans have for structure and support. Presumably they view any substitute as having unwanted consequences.

People who never used religion to meet that innate need may see no use for acquiring religion to meet a need if they have already found an alternative way to meet it using some other system or process.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which relates to my point to Gordon. People who argue for religion to continue to play a role in society because of their experience of religion working to meet structure and support goals in society, presumably do not see a need to substitute something else for religion to meet that innate need humans have for structure and support. Presumably they view any substitute as having unwanted consequences.

People who never used religion to meet that innate need may see no use for acquiring religion to meet a need if they have already found an alternative way to meet it using some other system or process.

To a point, but I don't think it is religion or an alternative. Rather religion is a sub-set of complex societal structures that fit the needs for human societies. And actually the notion of 'religion' is rather arbitrary - what is it about religion that sets it apart from other societal structure. Presumably some reference to god (although some religions can be non-theist), some acceptance of supernatural elements?

So way back on the thread there was some discussion of much earlier civilisations - e.g. ancient Greek and Roman. And in this context belief in god (i.e. the religious element) seems to be much more of an optional 'add-on' to the fundamentals of the society. And so an extent this is apparent now in our increasingly secular world - religion is a take it or leave it element but not a fundamental element to societal function. So perhaps we are a little too focussed on the monotheistic religions which were more demanding that people believe and that religion is all important.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting article here which focusses not just on quantitive research - whether or not religion and non-religion are transmitted generation to generation, but also looks at the mechanisms and, in particular, the way in which children brought up in non-religious households come to recognise this and also why they are almost certain to retain this non-religiousness into adulthood.

Hopefully you can read the full article:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0038038519855307

But just a snippet to emphasise my earlier point about non-religiousness being more 'sticky' than religion (e.g. christianity):

" Woodhead (2017) notes, drawing on data from the British Social Attitudes Survey, that there is a 45 per cent chance that those raised as Christian will end up identifying as non-religious, but for those raised as non-religious, the chance that they will remain non-religious is 95 per cent. Thus, she argues,

‘no religion’ is currently ‘sticky’ in a way Christianity is not … [N]ot only are ‘no religion’ parents more likely to produce ‘no religion’ children, those children will do the same – so the pool of the non-religious goes on growing. (Woodhead, 2017: 252–253)"

As far as I can see, Woodhead has counselled against a focus in sociology on the decline of religions.
Crudely put, that is an attack on the heart of your narrative.
Religions in your scheme tend to have a single mode "Decline".

Am I right in saying that your view of non religion is the result of deleting something rather than the substitution of replacement beliefs in place of religious ones?

John Grey's works are a counter to this.

[Sriram]

True - and this is the point that Maeght and I have been making. It is gonners and sriram who are claiming (without evidence) that belief in god and religion are somehow innate attributes.

And I agree that there are certain human needs that are fundamental - most notably complex societal structures that support the protection and learning of young humans (on the basis that young humans are hugely vulnerable and our evolutionary advantage is based on learning - effectively being able to survive by being smarter rather than faster, or stronger etc etc).

Does religion fit that need - sure it does. Can only religion meet that need - hmmm, I don't think so. I think there are plenty of ways in which societies can be structured to support those basic humans needs without them being religious. And in human evolution I think there is little evidence that religion existed for much of the early part of human existence, although undoubtedly those early humans would have complex social structures (as other primates also do).

I never claimed that belief in God and religion are innate attributes.

What I have said is that we have an innate ability for implicit pattern recognition. Different children are born with different degrees of this ability. This ability for pattern recognition induces children to believe in a superior power that causes these patterns. This belief continues into adult hood regardless of whether the child's upbringing is religious or not. Similarly, those children who do not have this ability or have it to a lesser degree, tend to not believe in a superior power well into adulthood, regardless of their upbringing. Please see my links in earlier posts.

[Gonnagle]

I never claimed that belief in God and religion are innate attributes.

What I have said is that we have an innate ability for implicit pattern recognition. Different children are born with different degrees of this ability. This ability for pattern recognition induces children to believe in a superior power that causes these patterns. This belief continues into adult hood regardless of whether the child's upbringing is religious or not. Similarly, those children who do not have this ability or have it to a lesser degree, tend to not believe in a superior power well into adulthood, regardless of their upbringing. Please see my links in earlier posts.

Dear Sriram,

Correct.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

I never claimed that belief in God and religion are innate attributes.

Good.

What I have said is that we have an innate ability for implicit pattern recognition. Different children are born with different degrees of this ability. This ability for pattern recognition induces children to believe in a superior power that causes these patterns. This belief continues into adult hood regardless of whether the child's upbringing is religious or not. Similarly, those children who do not have this ability or have it to a lesser degree, tend to not believe in a superior power well into adulthood, regardless of their upbringing. Please see my links in earlier posts.

But I don't really know how you could determine this.

To have an innate (rather than learned) ability you could only determine this by showing its presence in a new born prior to any external learning influence - and even if a newborn can detect patterns I don't see how you could verify this.

Alternatively you'd need to do the experiment that VG and I agreed would be deeply unethical - specifically to withhold any interactions that could generate learning from a newborn and see whether pattern recognition developed.

Other than these I cannot see how you can uncouple innate ability from learned ability as by the time you can assess pattern recognition the child will have had all sorts of learning interactions.

So I'm not convinced that we can say that humans have an innate ability for pattern recognition (as we don't have the evidence), but we can say that humans have an innate ability to learn pattern recognition. The point being that the innate thing is the ability to learn.