Born Christian?

[Orbit]

Something interesting happened in Intro Sociology today. I was talking about the difference between ascribed status (you're born with it; think male or female; it's biological) and achieved status (you acquire it later, think of being a college graduate. Achieved statuses can be changed). I asked the class which kind of status religious affiliation was. They said ascribed. I found this really interesting. Discuss?

[Bayard]

I'll copy+paste what I posted on your status earlier, until I think of something more to contribute.

 

 

I suppose they're mostly Christian students? On the other hand, considering that while it is possible to change the religion you were "born" into by virtue of parental affiliation or geographical location, it certainly isn't likely to happen statistically speaking.

 

You could argue that we are born with a genetic predisposition towards religious belief. But in that case it would be more accurate to say we are born religious, not born Christian.

[Deidre]

There may be a desire to 'wonder' as to what lies beyond earth...and the universe. But, faith and religion is learned behavior.

[Bayard]

I think it's more than that, D. The practical advantages of religion seem clear in the evolutionary narrative of our species. A few benefits among many- its promotion of social cohesion. Its facilitation of social hierarchies. Its positive effect on morale and quite possibly, mental health (our ancestors lived in a darker, scarier, and more uncertain world than we do). If true this is all evidence that religiosity has a very strong genetic prerogative, and that religion is unlikely to disappear even if childhood indoctrination stops.

[Deidre]

I think it's more than that, D. The practical advantages of religion seem clear in the evolutionary narrative of our species. A few benefits among many- its promotion of social cohesion. Its facilitation of social hierarchies. Its positive effect on morale and quite possibly, mental health (our ancestors lived in a darker, scarier, and more uncertain world than we do). This is all evidence that religiosity has a very strong genetic prerogative, and that religion is unlikely to disappear even if childhood indoctrination stops.

All those 'advantages,' can be achieved without religion, though.

[Deva]

A religion is learned behavior.  It is not innate (biological) no matter how early you were taught it.

[Deidre]

And likely, cultural. (part of it being learned)

Which is why sometimes we see adult atheists convert to religious life, who were never indoctrinated as kids.

[TrueFreedom]

A religion is learned behavior.  It is not innate (biological) no matter how early you were taught it.

Agreed.  Nobody is born believing in Jesus or YHWH.  It might be in our nature to attribute shapes and symbols to common ideas, but we're certainly not born believing myths and creeds.

[mymistake]

Something about how our brain works drives us to be religious.  The theology we wind up with is completely random from a biological perspective.  That is determined by the evolution of theology and how one religion becomes popular in a given region.

[Bayard]

 

I think it's more than that, D. The practical advantages of religion seem clear in the evolutionary narrative of our species. A few benefits among many- its promotion of social cohesion. Its facilitation of social hierarchies. Its positive effect on morale and quite possibly, mental health (our ancestors lived in a darker, scarier, and more uncertain world than we do). This is all evidence that religiosity has a very strong genetic prerogative, and that religion is unlikely to disappear even if childhood indoctrination stops.

All those 'advantages,' can be achieved without religion, though.

Right- the situation is far from hopeless because if history has given us any reason to be optimistic, it's that humans can figure out how to control their environment and how to control themselves. For example, people might have an innate tendency towards brutality in some situations, but we've learned to regulate that with laws and advancements in ethics. Slavery was a common phenomenon before being outlawed in the modern period. Many types of what our ancestors might have called "discipline" we now rightly classify as abuse. Etc. Just because we've inherited certain tendencies or characteristics doesn't mean we have to give them influence over our lives- and even if we do, it doesn't mean we can't develop new outlets for exercising them (for example, using secular meditation or yoga instead of prayer to help keep mentally balanced).

 

Something about how our brain works drives us to be religious. The theology we wind up with is completely random from a biological perspective. That is determined by the evolution of theology and how one religion becomes popular in a given region.

Exactly!

[Orbit]

It disturbs me that people think religious affiliation is inborn and natural. Babies are not born Presbyterian, for example. They have to be taught a religion, which is a 100% social (not biological) process. It was disturbing that my students' first thought was that religion was inborn. You can argue that there is a bio-psychological reason for supernatural belief, but not for religion. We know this because several non-Western peoples have supernatural beliefs but don't have religion in any way we understand it in the West. 

 

The extent to which they were assuming religion was biological kind of blew my mind. 

[Bayard]

It disturbs me that people think religious affiliation is inborn and natural. Babies are not born Presbyterian, for example. They have to be taught a religion, which is a 100% social (not biological) process. It was disturbing that my students' first thought was that religion was inborn. You can argue that there is a bio-psychological reason for supernatural belief, but not for religion. We know this because several non-Western peoples have supernatural beliefs but don't have religion in any way we understand it in the West. 

 

The extent to which they were assuming religion was biological kind of blew my mind.

 

Perhaps there was some semantic misunderstanding over the usage of "religion."

[Orbit]

 

It disturbs me that people think religious affiliation is inborn and natural. Babies are not born Presbyterian, for example. They have to be taught a religion, which is a 100% social (not biological) process. It was disturbing that my students' first thought was that religion was inborn. You can argue that there is a bio-psychological reason for supernatural belief, but not for religion. We know this because several non-Western peoples have supernatural beliefs but don't have religion in any way we understand it in the West. 

 

The extent to which they were assuming religion was biological kind of blew my mind.

Perhaps there was some semantic misunderstanding over the usage of "religion."

 

No it was clearly stated as religious affiliation. We had a good discussion about it, 10 minutes or so. Other students took the opposing view. It was good, it was just surprising.

[Bayard]

I see. Infant baptism? Predestination? I'm trying to guess at where they'd be coming from with that sort of argument.

[Orbit]

They were just making a very simplistic connection that if you were born to an "X" family, you were also born as an "x".

[Bayard]

They were just making a very simplistic connection that if you were born to an "X" family, you were also born as an "x".

Well that's disappointing. lol

[Deidre]

Having a curiosity as to 'what else' might lurk beyond 'this' life...that's not a genetic disposition. That's just mankind's curious nature.

[Bayard]

Having a curiosity as to 'what else' might lurk beyond 'this' life...that's not a genetic disposition. That's just mankind's curious nature.

In this case I was equating genetic disposition with mankind's nature. The terminology can get a little convoluted but the field of evolutionary psychology sets out to explain why mankind's nature is the way it is. In the way I described it earlier, and through the lens of evolutionary psychology, religiosity or the religious impulse could be called an adaptive trait with a genetic component. There is still a lot of debate surrounding this subject, though, and evolutionary psychology is a field which has yet to be thoroughly explored. Hopefully it will eventually lead to a more comprehensive explanation of the whole religion phenomenon.

[Vigile]

I don't know if it's technically ascribed, but it's not an easy thing for most people to shed considering they were wired with it at an age when we are most susceptible.  And when culture reinforces it, it becomes one's identity no different than race and gender.  I think the few of us who deconverted understand just how big of a sea change is involved in losing that identity. 

[midniterider]

Born as a Christian? (or any other religious affiliation) No.

Born with some predisposition to eventually have the thought, "Is there some kind of God or supernatural intelligence?" Sure.

 

All ideas had to have some origin. A lot of ideas are passed down through the ages but they still had to have an origin. Where did the God thought come from? Was it an original work? Or was it an offshoot from some other idea?

[Thrive]

It's good to hear that they were able to have a good discussion about it.  Hopefully a few of them saw the differnce by the end of class.  The only way I could twist that in my head to make religion ascribed status would be by viewing the individual as part of the whole of their family.  A child born to a middle class family is automatically middle class without having to earn that status.  Yet it is still a status that is given to you by society so even that way of thinking is flawed.

[ShackledNoMore]

It can almost seem ascribed because it is indoctrinated from birth.  It's like circumcision as an infant: yes, it's achieved, but it's practically from birth, and you have no control over it.  Or a better example is your status as a non-nudist (sorry, I can't think of a word for "non-nudist").  Societally enforced from birth, it is achieved, but has similar elements to something that is ascribed. 

[Storm]

"People use their best problem solving strategies to get their needs met, even if these strategies are dysfunctional"-  Ellen Glasgow

 

I quote this because I think this fits in the discussion. I agree that religion is achieved, not ascribed, but the path to get to religion is ascribed. People try to figure things out that they don't understand, and when they can't come up with a logical solution or a good enough rational explanation that they can be satisfied with, they "default" to the thought that some outside "supernatural force" is the cause. No specific religion is necessary. The culture you live in dictates the specificity of the religion you believe, but the way that it all begins is a natural process. We try to make sense of our world based on the things that make the most logical sense for us. Even if this way is dysfunctional, or isn't true.

[Orbit]

"People use their best problem solving strategies to get their needs met, even if these strategies are dysfunctional"-  Ellen Glasgow

 

I quote this because I think this fits in the discussion. I agree that religion is achieved, not ascribed, but the path to get to religion is ascribed. People try to figure things out that they don't understand, and when they can't come up with a logical solution or a good enough rational explanation that they can be satisfied with, they "default" to the thought that some outside "supernatural force" is the cause. No specific religion is necessary. The culture you live in dictates the specificity of the religion you believe, but the way that it all begins is a natural process. We try to make sense of our world based on the things that make the most logical sense for us. Even if this way is dysfunctional, or isn't

 

 

The interesting part was at first some students were unable to "see" the difference between the cultural aspect and the biological idea of "ascribed". It was like it was deep in their thought process that a cultural thing (religion) was somehow biological. The path to get to religion isn't ascribed, though--to be ascribed it has to be inborn, like your race or gender. Your family is a social unit that socializes you into the religion. The fact that birth is a biological event doesn't mean that what happens after birth isn't social.

 

It was good though, because I want them to think precisely, and by the end of the discussion they were thinking more precisely about definitions: biological, social, ascribed, achieved. Students have a hard time thinking precisely and critically about religion, it does come up at different points during the course, but always ends well. I agree Storm, that they are using the first explanation that just "feels right" to them.

[florduh]

A religion is learned behavior.  It is not innate (biological) no matter how early you were taught it.

Clearly this.