Born Christian?

[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

 

 

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.

 

I see that I used ascribed in the wrong context. The process we use to get to religion is biological in that its how humans think naturally. It is not ascribed. I agree.

[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."

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.

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

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

And that is the case, if you are talking in terms of culture. A person can indeed be born into a cultural affiliation. Everyone is born as culturally something, by affiliation. However, if you are talking in terms of psychological affiliation, then I agree that no one is born already religious or affiliated with a religion or any ideology.However, there is the growing field of epigenetics that does examine biological predispositions. And the brain is part of the biology of being human. Therefore, it may indeed be possible that humans are born with an epigenetic predisposition to a particular religion, especially if that religious system is quite complex and very influential upon the biological parents such that it has ingrained itself into their psyches prior to conception of the child.Scientists who study the neurology of religious experience have found common effects upon the brain. They have not found significant differences correlating to different religions. It seems that humans may have a predisposition to religion, but those areas of the brain need to be activated or stimulated within a context that connects the experience with a religious meaning. So I don't believe it's really a religious part of the brain. I believe it's more a case that religion is prevalent in culture, so it's more likely that those areas of the brain get stimulated within a religious context. And for that reason, people imagine that religious predisposition is part of the brain and inherent in the psyche. I believe it is not an inherent part of the brain prior to birth. It is an acquired condition due to association with cultural meaning. I also believe that humans can and should evolve beyond religion.

Spot on, Human. Was hoping you would comment because I know this is kind of your area of expertise.