On a long drive the other day, I entertained myself by listening to episode 39 of Mormon Expression, titled "Atheism and the Church". I was struck by a comment made by one of the interviewees to the effect that "all children are born atheists, and do not believe in God until they are taught to do so."
While this is probably true, I couldn't help but wonder as to its relevance. As an argument for atheism, it strikes me as ill-considered. Children have to be taught a lot of things, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would be better without those things. In cases where children grow up with little or no "input" from other humans, they end up basically living like animals, in some cases developing mental and emotional deficiencies. A certain amount of instruction and learning is required for any person to function effectively and to develop a sense of intrinsic human self-worth. So the fact that religious knowledge is acquired rather than inherent does not make it any less valid than, say, scientific knowledge, which is also acquired.
If we really want to appeal to the "state of nature" as having some kind of normativity, perhaps we should look to the state of nature of societies rather than of individuals. Unlike individuals, primitive societies seem to default to a sort of magical, shamanic worldview. This is true even for societies separated by vast oceans, with very different languages and ways of life. Are atheists prepared to endorse and embrace such worldviews?
The truth is that it is inherently problematic to appeal to an ideal "state of nature" to support any idea or belief system. The "state of nature" has been used throughout human history to justify racism, patriarchy, homophobia, and-- yes-- religion. In almost every case, those things we thought were "natural" turned out to be neither universal nor eternal-- all of them had a beginning, and all of them have exceptions. And why should "nature" have any normativity for us, anyway? Humans have invented all kinds of "unnatural" things that turned out to be good, true, and useful, whereas many "natural" things (like spiders, disease, and natural disasters) are not very nice at all.
Ironically, this atheist appeal to nature is actually based on a very religious kind of logic, in which we try to get back to a kind of primitive golden age that is assumed to be somehow better than the present. These primitivist mythologies can sometimes serve useful purposes, but they can also be very misleading. As an argument for atheism, I don't think they do us much good.
15 comments:
I have often disliked this kind of comment for a few reasons.
1) In some cases, it is simply wrong. I don't remember when, but there was a research paper that said children are more likely to believe in some higher power. Anthropomorphic attribution to natural events makes most sense to them, which specifically makes creationism more sensible to children and evolution less. (I think the paper I was reading also pointed out this isn't universal...some children are likely to do this...others aren't)
2) Seems like an ignoble argument. I dislike how some people qualify the definition for atheist as being people who have "thought about the issue"...BUT I will say that there should be an at least silently understood distinction between those who don't believe something because they've never heard of it and those who don't believe after being familiarized with the concept.
I find the implied reasoning process flawed. Things believed (or not believed) first or earliest aren't necessarily reasonable or correct, as you noted. It also leads to some absurdities. Think of the things children believe at first. After all, they don't have a lot of experience with the world...
I hoped this would draw a comment from you, Andrew. :-)
I agree with you on all those points. Your first point is especially intriguing, and had not occurred to me.
I suspect that if children really did begin life believing in God, the atheists would just make the opposite argument, and characterize this as a naive and "childish" belief that people are supposed to grow out of. (Actually, they already do make something like that argument, on occasion!)
Hook, line, and sinker, then!
Of course, you can see arguments both ways, because both sides will use whichever research to support the, "kids are born like this" angle.
I think that even when atheists use this argument, at the most, they are using it in a *specific* sense.
After all, even if a kid wants to make everything in nature the act of some actor...this does NOT mean he believes that some guy named Jesus died for his sins. So, in a way, childhood belief doesn't really go too far.
Yeah, the point that children are born atheists may seem deep at first blush, but is actually an oversimplification of the real situation.
Let's compare to language. No child is born speaking a language, and, indeed, a child needs exposure to human culture and human society to learn language. But that doesn't make language something alien and forced w.r.t. the child's experience. Human children are strongly predisposed to learn human language. The same is true of other components of human culture (including, probably, religion).
Another point where I've seen people make exactly the same argument is racism. People like to point out that no child is born racist. While that's technically true, it oversimplifies the situation. It is my impression that (in reality) the fact that people are fundamentally the same (that "those people" are, in fact, as diverse and human as "our people") is the concept that takes real effort to learn -- whereas constructing a mental "us" and "them" is the pattern that's more "natural". And by "natural" here, I don't mean good or right...
The above oversimplifications may make nice platitudes, but they don't really contribute to our understanding of humanity.
Great points, chanson!!
You guys seem to be totally missing the point.
The whole point of the saying (which comes from Dawkins' book, The God Delusion) is merely to show that we are all products of our environment. There is no such thing as a "Catholic child" or "Mormon child" - children are too young to make up their own minds. How often do you ever hear of a Baptist or Mormon parent raising their child Muslim? Children are raised into the same faith as their parents. They grow into that faith because that's what they learn from the two people they most look up to. It is more correct to refer to children as "children of Mormon parents" rather than "Mormon children" because until they are at least in their teens, they are too young to even consider other alternatives.
Children are just as likely to believe in Santa Claus as Jesus. Does that prove anything? No. Well, only that we are products of our environment.
I have never seen that saying as some kind of argument that atheism is correct and religion is not. Dawkins did not use it that way, nor was that his intent.
I think you're making something out of nothing here.
I happened across your blog through MormonExpression.com and I think it might have been a mistake. Some of you show good sense and intelligence in your posts, but the whole discussion here seems to be a straw-man attempt, making arguments against atheism using false claims to support your own beliefs.
Maybe I'm too old at 39 to appreciate the wisdom?
Richard of Norway, I don't think I buy that line of reasoning.
First of all, I'm not quite sure that children are voiceless puppets in the matter. While it is true that their parents are going to often keep a close tab on what they publicly do or go to, children can still agree or disagree. (This is a mental attitude. The parents can't control the mental, at the end.) They can still believe or not believe. (Again, that is a mental state or attitude.) It's not like they accept everything their parents say as true (although parents, as a trusted authority figure, do often get a higher "value" in the early decisionmaking.)
So, children might believe in Santa. Or God. Or a number of things. Or they might not. We shouldn't discount that they *do* have beliefs in some things and not others...and that they *do* use a process to come about those just because we believe the process by which they came to believe/disbelieve was biased or immature/undeveloped.
The second point I'd make is this: even if it were true that someone was unable to consider alternatives, it would not follow then that we should not call them what they are. So, "Mormon child" and "Catholic child" work -- so far as that is their socialized identity. BECAUSE we are products of our environment -- not in spite of -- this is why terms like "Mormon child" are apt. My environment was Mormonism growing up. So, I am undeniably Mormon. I was undeniably a Mormon child. This didn't change even though I doubted all throughout the way. This doesn't change even though it didn't make sense, or though I disaffiliated with the church, etc.,
But, I still think the better point is the first. We shouldn't discount the beliefs of children because we feel the process by which they came through them was immature/unfairly constrained. So, then, we get back to the question we were asking -- are children predisposed to believe in a higher power or not? And, the better question: does this predisposition mean something relevant? (From the other things children are predisposed to believe...I don't think so.)
What line of reasoning are you referring to? I was only explaining what was meant by the quote!
First off, let me say I really like your comments, Andrew. You are obviously highly intelligent. So kudos. Now, let me explain why you're stupid. (Just kidding!)
I have no idea where the distinction from child to youth to adult (or what ever other terms there are) is drawn in your mind, but Dawkins was referring to CHILDREN - presumably ages 3-10.
I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think children really have a *choice* to choose their own religion before they're 12? Do you really think they are mentally capable of doubting everything their parents teach them about religion before they enter their teens? Exactly how are they not "voiceless puppets in the matter"?
The point Dawkins was making (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm merely trying to clarify here) was that assigning such an identity on children is to undermine their own capability to choose their destiny. In his example, he referred to an Irish newspaper who referenced a photo of three young girls (ages 7 or 8?), two of them as "Protestant" and one "Catholic" - in a place where Catholics and Protestants HATE each other - enough to blow each other up for simply their religious label.
I don't see how calling a child a "Mormon child" would be any better for the kid than to say a child raised in a Mormon home, or a child raised by Mormon parents, or any other such non-label.
I don't know why I even waste my time...
But I agree with your last statement (or at least your conclusion):
"So, then, we get back to the question we were asking -- are children predisposed to believe in a higher power or not? And, the better question: does this predisposition mean something relevant? (From the other things children are predisposed to believe...I don't think so.)"
I don't see how it's relevant whether children are predisposed to believe in a higher power. For children, almost everything around them represents a higher power. Everything is magical to somebody who doesn't understand how it works. Why should that prove the magic is real? The magic is often easily explained once one knows how it works. (Apply that to cell-phones, televisions, airplanes, cars, computers, the internet - or even something as natural as a butterfly or giving birth.)
Richard,
I actually agree with the argument that if we're going to be judged for our beliefs, then it's not fair for some children to be born into religious/Christian families and others not to be. If that's what Dawkins said, then he's right.
Of course, I was responding to a comment made in a podcast, rather than to anything Dawkins wrote. And in the podcast, it was not at all clear that the above is what was meant.
Also, the above is not an argument against theism. It is an argument against particular kinds of theism that include the idea of judgment for one's beliefs. Since my kind of theism does not include judgment, I hope you can understand why from my perspective the argument still falls flat as an argument for atheism.
I'm sorry you think coming to my blog was a mistake. I hope you'll look around at some of my other posts before you judge me for my beliefs.
Peace,
-Chris
Richard,
Don't worry; I'm just arguing against Dawkins with you as proxy. :)
Children 3 - 10 still can have identities, so I don't still don't buy Dawkins's point there.
You ask again, "Do you really think children have a choice in choosing their own religion before they are 12?" Yes, in the same way children have a choice in choosing whether they like brussel sprouts or not. It's not a matter of choice, first of all. It's a matter of inclinations, preferences, intuitions, mental states. But, more importantly, absolutely, they have these inclinations, preferences, intuitions, mental states. A religion can "not make sense" to them as it may or may not to any other person. On the other hand, a religion might "make sense" to them as it may or may not to any other person as well. So, they *can* assent or dissent from religious claims.
When you ask the next question, "Can they doubt everything their parents teach them?" you ask with an implication about their belief formation process. If someone says, "no," then you probably will want to say, "Then they aren't/shouldn't be called xxx."
My point is that is untrue. EVEN IF THEY COULDN'T doubt what their parents taught them, this would give important details about their religion and beliefs. Namely, if they believe in Jesus or Allah or the Buddha or whatever else -- even if it's because they trust their parents on the matter -- then they *believe in Jesus or Allah or the Buddha or whatever else*...full stop.
However, I'd argue that yes, they can doubt. They certainly doubt sillier things things (e.g., the healthiness of brussel sprouts).
I still challenge the idea that they are voiceless puppets. Children quite obviously have a voice, even if that voice is less mature or well manipulated by authority figures.
The point Dawkins was making (and I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm merely trying to clarify here) was that assigning such an identity on children is to undermine their own capability to choose their destiny.
Only in the same way that making a kid eat brussel sprouts also undermines their own capability to choose their destiny. Parents have every prerogative to undermine their children's "capability to choose their destiny" when they believe the children would choose "incorrectly." Children have every prerogative, of course, to choose their destiny despite (or because of) such pressure.
I don't see how calling a child a "Mormon child" would be any better for the kid than to say a child raised in a Mormon home, or a child raised by Mormon parents, or any other such non-label.
Plenty of people also don't see how calling them "marriages" would be any better for gay couples than to say "civil union." The thing is...you RECOGNIZE the inequality. You say, "One is a label; one is a non-label." The problem is...we *use* labels. That's how we communicate information about ourselves and others.
I will keep this short, because this is really getting tedious.
Andrew, I think you only want to debate for debate's sake. Because you love it. You like to argue. That's fine. I can understand the fun in it. You'd probably be great on a debate team. I'm sure you could take either side of this particular argument and argue the cause just as well. So I don't think anything I write will change your mind or help you to see how wrong you are. But I'll write a final attempt simply for the sake of anybody who happens across this blog, like I did.
The one point where we disagree, and I think the evidence and common sense is on my side, is the idea that children can choose their own religion.
You try to pretend it's just as easy as choosing which vegetables they like or dislike. For most people, choosing a religion is more than simply a "state of mind". There are rituals to be performed (baptism for Christians), churches to attend, etc.
Could a 9 year-old child approach their staunch Baptist mother and convince her to let them be baptized into the Mormon church? Or to join some faction of Islam? No. Children don't get that choice. Could that same child convince the same mother to allow them to eat some other vegetable than brussel sprouts? Probably.
Would a 5 year-old really ever doubt that their loving parents were wrong about Jesus and all the Bible stories? If you think so, I'm afraid you simply don't know much about children. There's nothing to argue here. It's simply how a child's mind works. That kind of doubt doesn't happen until the mind is much more mature - at the earliest around 8 or 9 and usually not until 10 or 12.
Comparing religion to brussel sprouts is cute, but not a fair comparison.
I think we pretty much agree on the basic point Dawkins was making: Generally American children grow up Christian, Indian children grow up Hindu, Chinese grow up Buddhist, Middle-Eastern kids are raised Muslim. Most people's religious identities are because of where they were born, in what time, and by whom they are raised. We are very much (but not entirely) products of our environment.
That's really all there is to it. Argue semantics if you wish, I'm not interested.
Chris, I agree that the statement "falls flat as an argument for atheism" however I disagree that it ever was intended as such an argument. If it came off that way in Bob McCue's podcast I didn't catch it. Dawkins, however, never meant for it to be used as an argument for anything. It was more of a musing statement in his book, a plea for people to look past such stigmatic identities. You can watch him discuss it (and then you'll see the context) in this Q&A session (6 minutes).
Cheers! :)
Maybe the problem is you're listening to the wrong episode. ;)
By the way, when I said above,
"I'm sorry you think coming to my blog was a mistake. I hope you'll look around at some of my other posts before you judge me for my beliefs."
it was meant in jest. I just re-read it and realized that most readers probably won't realize I was grinning when I wrote it. :)
Richard,
I think the reason you're trying (and failing) at psychoanalyzing my motives in commenting is because you don't really want to back up your points or truly think about the points you're making other than to say the commonplace and popular, "Children are helpless" refrain. That is why you continually attack and write in a snide way. "I can't show how you're obviously wrong."
First, I'd say we disagree in a slightly different way. After all, your language of "choice" utterly doesn't appeal to me. I don't believe we "choose" what vegetables we like or dislike...we just DO like some vegetables and DON'T like others. Similarly, I don't think we CHOOSE our beliefs. And yet, some things make sense; other things don't. We like/agree some ideas; we don't like others. What I argue is that this applies to children as well as anyone else.
You will notice that I have said NOTHING about whether children can so freely choose their actions. In fact, I note that children probably will -- from an action perspective -- do what their parents tell them, whether they like it or not, because the alternative is to be rebellious and be punished.
But this is the SAME kind of thing as a parent making their child eat brussel sprouts. THOUGH THEY EAT THE BRUSSEL SPROUT, this is different than saying they *like* brussel sprouts. But note the people who came to enjoy brussel sprouts after years of eating them...
Could a 9 year-old child approach their staunch Baptist mother and convince her to let them be baptized into the Mormon church? Or to join some faction of Islam? No. Children don't get that choice. Could that same child convince the same mother to allow them to eat some other vegetable than brussel sprouts? Probably.
Well, firstly, the problem is that your scenarios fly against reality. Could a nine-year-old convince the staunch Baptist mother and convince her to let them be baptized in the Mormon church? This already happens!. But you doubt other possibilities. Could a nine-year-old be baptized in the Mormon church DESPITE her mother, by going with a friend? ALREADY HAS HAPPENED. Could a nine-year-old consistently go against her mother's wishes and keep going with that Mormon friend (whom the mother probably feels is a bad influence)? Certainly.
Here's the deal. 1) Defying your mother in action -- especially at 9 -- brings with it grave consequences. Would the child want to live with those consequences? Doubt it. 2) The actions are just outward manifestations of what is inward. So, even if the child did not get baptized, his or her obvious appreciation of the Mormon church (or dissatisfaction with the Baptist church) is most telling -- that is what I mean by the child has his/her own beliefs. Because we can tell that he like x and dislikes y.
You don't like the comparison of religion to brussel sprouts because you KNOW that it is a very REAL case where young children can and do disagree with their parents on issues of great importance to their parents. It is a sticking point in your "common sense" argument that suggests that children are simply incapable of disagreeing with parents...because not only is that untrue, but the brussel sprouts point is a common sense case that children frequently DO disagree with their parents. So much for the voiceless child.
I agree with the product of environment argumentation. But that doesn't change that we *are* products. In other words, our environments don't fail to leave a mark. Our environments DO inculcate certain things (or attempt to) within us. So, regardless of the fact that so many people are Christian because they live in X part of the world and so many are Muslim because they live in Y part, the fact is *so many people are Christian* and *so many people are Muslim*. We don't ignore this demographic FACT because we dislike how the demographics got to be that way.
Two recently released books by prominent academic experimental psychologists argue that religiosity is a by-product of innate evolved cognitive mechanisms.
Justin Barrett: Born Believers, The Science of Children's Religious Belief
Robert McCauley: Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not
Both have written summary articles in the most recent New Scientist magazine ("special edition: The God Issue") March 17-23, 2012
Thanks for the info, JTurn!
Post a Comment