is how the same scientific idea or principle has been "discovered" in different locations, different cultures, at different times, with no communication between the individuals involved.

This has never happened with any religion.

worship a god or gods. That's why Dawkins mentions Zeus, Apollo, Thor, and I could add Buddha, Muhammad, Ra, Gaia, and countless others. The phenomena is not limited to any one culture, location, or time period.

If you study it even a little it seems that there must be more to the phenomena than meets the eye. Myself I doubt there is a supreme being. I think, to put it very simply, it is more a need for a parental figure. The fact that some use this need for there own personal monetary gain, power, and yes politics too help keep it going.

I find religion and deities interesting, but don't believe in a supreme being or any religion myself.

are considered gods. Still, I agree with your point.

Religion is what happens when beings of limited perception try to explain their universe. It's why "God" is often referred to as "god of the gaps" by atheists, it's because the deity only lives where science doesn't.

Imagine back to the Paleolithic. Our stone-age ancestors were certainly no less bright than the rest of us, but they lacked the tools and learning we have (obviously.) So when it rains, they're smart enough to look to the sky and ask, "why?" Of course they couldn't know anything about the water cycle, air currents, pressure fronts, or anything else like that. So there must be a reason it's raining - they assign agency to the weather. Suddenly we have a rain-being who can be benevolent or malicious according to a whim. It must live in the clouds, becuase sometimes hte clouds look like faces (pareidolia.) Eventually someone will come up with hte notion of speaking to or bargaining with this rain-being for favorable weather... and by the odds of random luck, someone who does this will succeed. And with the "better safe than sorry" way our brains work, the tribe will continue the practice of cajoling the rain-being, even if it doesn't work, more often than not. And if there's a rain-being, surely there must be something that controls wind, and animals, and the growth of plants... And soon we have a whole pantheon going.

And just like that we have a tribe that prays and sacrifices to a rain-spirit for good fishing or whatever. And since almost every other paleolithic group in the world has both rain and curiosity, they too will develop beliefs in a rain-being.

I think you proved my point with your very first sentence. God or gods? That's a pretty big difference! The commonality of supernatural belief, I don't dispute. But the specifics of a given religion, unlike particular scientific theories or phenomena, are never independently "discovered" like they are in science.

Because some say two gods produce thunder and lightning and some say it takes just one to do it you thing that is a pretty big difference. The fact that they think supreme beings, whether one or two or even more, are doing it doesn't seem similar to you?

It's not that "a supernatural explanation" was postulated, it's the specifics of the religious belief. The number of gods involved is pretty crucial first point. What that god (or gods) expects from humans is another. And so on. Religious beliefs simply are not independently discovered as scientific principles are.

To prove me wrong, identify one person who, while never having been exposed to the story of Christianity, came up with the same religion on their own.

people think it took two gods to produce thunder and lightning or just one? You really want to nitpick the difference between one fictional being or two fictional beings? You really don't see the common thread?

You have it backwards, it isn't what gods expected from people, its what people expected from gods. Do you think religious beliefs were imported to South America from Europe? Did it start in Africa and spread? It is very well known that religions started independently almost everywhere. The only ingredient needed were unexplainable (at the time) events. Why does it rain, where did it come from, what is wind, why does my chest go up and down, etc. And probably the occasional why did a streak of light come out of the sky and kill my friend or why did a rock fall off the cliff if nobody touched it? The easiest and common solution is an unseen being, after all everything else got done by a person or animal, people move rocks, etc. How else to explain the unknown?

Gods didn't expect anything from humans until "holy" or "political" people got involved.

As for your last sentence, we can either have a serious discussion or you can ask questions that you know are impossible to answer.

I don't dispute that supernatural beliefs in general have arisen separately from each other. So while you've put up a valiant fight against your straw man, you haven't done a thing to dispute my point.

I'm glad you admit my challenge is an impossible one, because never in the history of humankind has a person independently
"discovered" a religion without interacting with (and learning from) its adherents. Again, if you find an example to prove me wrong, please present it. Otherwise it appears we're done here.

There is no dispute among knowledgeable people that "god(s)" have been discovered independently of each other. What such a god is called is irrelevant. Would an atom still be an atom if it was called an apple?

As for your religion discovery, many Protestant religions were "discovered" about the same time although I would use the term "formed" if I was referring to a religion. The problem with your "straw man" is a religion doesn't need a god, nor do gods need a religion.

And the Protestant religions all grew/developed from an existing form of Christianity. This is patently obvious.

You don't seem to be supporting your points or disproving mine, in fact, you appear to be doing the opposite.

when they question (are offended by) my atheism. And they never - ever- make the connection. Even when they may have switched religions as adults for whatever reasons, they don't ever think to consider the fact that they never considered the idea of no religion. They were raised on their parent's religion, their parent's beliefs, so the core (existence of a god) 'must' be correct; they're just switching for (usually) less restrictions (dogma), a better congregation, for marriage, ethical reasons and even for political reasons, etc.. But what they're not doing is considering why they even believe, why they even accept, or how the teachings in their childhood (from their parents/guardians/caregivers) played the defining role. The core of that early indoctrination remains - must have a religion/there is a god - and they just switch without giving thought to the "Why" of it all. The beginnings of it all for them. How time and place would change what/who/how they worship.

Chance.

Edit: Like a damn computer virus.

we are born atheists, we have to be taught to believe.

From being atheist.

They have rejected all beliefs but their own.
Rejected all gods but one.
Dispel that myth...

He said "almost." Anyway, the larger point Dawkins is making is the power of enculturation and socialization at an early age to block the ability of people to rationally consider their beliefs.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=272042

Hello.

There are some excellent statistics on this subject in the study,
"Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep: Trends in Religious Preference Since
World War II"
By Tom W. Smith, Univerity of Chicago, hosted by umich.edu:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/GSS/rnd1998/reports/s-reports/soc26.htm

Survey respondents were specifically asked if they were raised in
particular religion and whether they had ever switched to another
denomination or preferred no religion at all. Overall, 35.7% of those
who were raised with a particular religion had at some point switched
to another religion or no religion. Stated another way, about 2/3rds
stay with the religion in which they were raised.

Table 29 of the study presents the percent of people raised in a
particular religion who reported currently being members of that same
faith:

Table 29

A. Major Religions

Protestant 90.4%
Catholic 82.3
Jewish 86.6
Other 70.5
None 45.4


B. Major Protestant Denominations

Southern Baptist 71.8
United Methodist 63.0
Lutheran 80.0
Presbyterian 56.7
Episcopalian 71.6
Interdenominational 47.1
Disciples of Christ 63.9
Mormon 90.8
Fundamentalist 73.7
Moderate 57.0
Liberal 46.4


C. Fundamentalism/Liberalism

Fundamentalist 80.3
Moderate 81.9
Liberal 71.6

source:
"Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep:"
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/GSS/rnd1998/reports/s-reports/soc26.htm


--------

Another study indicates that divorce (either of the person's parents
and of the person himself/herselfr) is a major factor in whether a
person continues the religion of his or her parents.

"Among Americans raised as conservative Protestants, experiencing
parental divorce as a child increases the likelihood of switching to a
moderate Protestant denomination by almost one-half (Odds Ratio of
1.478) and of repudiating religion altogether by over two-and-a-half
times (Odds Ratio of 2.629). In the especially high likelihood that
parental divorce in childhood will cause a conservative Protestant to
apostatize from religion entirely, the authors of the new study
discern "a rejection of both family and religious community."
Indeed, the researchers see "strong and consistent effects of
having experienced parental divorce in childhood on the likelihood of
religious disaffiliation (apostasy) for all groups." And although
their primary focus is parental divorce, the researchers also
determine that adult children's own divorces affect religious identity
in a curious way, making these adults "less likely to switch"
religious denominations, but more likely to repudiate religion
altogether, so "leading to an increased likelihood of switching from
Catholic to None, moderate Protestant to None, and conservative
Protestant to None."...
(Source: Leora E. Lawton and Regina Bures, "Parental Divorce and the
'Switching' of Religious Identity," Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion 40.1 (2001): 99-111, emphasis added.)"
source: worldcongress.org
http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/Archive03/wcf_update_334.htm

----------

I also used the new "search inside" feature at Amazon.com to find some
books with additional statistics that you might find interesting:

"Naturally, our explorations have taken us away from where we started,
and up to 20 percent of Americans say they no longer practice the
religion of their parents."

source: page 92
"Sixty Trends in Sixty Minutes," hosted by Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471225800/


"Of the generation born after World War II, 95 percent received a
religious upbringing, yet some two thirds of the seventy-five million
American baby boomers left the religion of their parents by their
early adult years, according to Dr Wade Clark Roof, author of
Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American
Religion. While many returned to the fold later, millions of baby
boomers and younger adults are experimenting with Eastern religions
and independent spiritual practices."

source: Page 90
"What Kids Really Want that Money Can't Buy," hosted by Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446529648/


"A 1993 survey I conducted with one hundred middle-class Caucasian
grandmothers found that...
16 percent said that their children had chosen a different religion
but allowed the grandparents to teach their own religion to the
grandchildren. Only 4 percent said their children are of different
faiths and do not want them to talk about religion with the
grandchildren."

source: Page 47
"The Grandparent Guide : The Definitive Guide to Coping with the
Challenges of Modern Grandparenting," hosted by Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0071383115/


"Survey studies show that the great majority of Americans raised in
particular denomination remain members after they become adults. But
of persons who report that the religious affiliation of their parents
was "none," less than 40 percent remained without a religious
affiliation when they grew up. Thus, the majority of offspring of
"nones" convert to some religion (Kluegel, 1980)."

source: page 47-48
"The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation,"
hosted by Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520057317/


"Keep in mind also that about 30 percent of Americans switch religions
at some point in their adult lives and a third of those switch more
than once (Roof, 1989)."
source: page 69
"Sociology of Families," hosted by Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761987495/

OMG

you're getting close to violating the safe-haven nature of this group.

I was raised Catholic just like my father's side of the family (Mom was Lutheran but converted for the marriage.) I completely turned my back on the religion by the age of twelve. While I was married myself in the Lutheran church, it was for the benefit of my in-laws' sensibilities. I don't believe personally in organized religions (which are all about the prejudices of man and very little to do with God except to use his/her/it's name to legitimize those prejudices.)

It might seem counter-intuitive, but I sent both of my children to Sunday school at the local Methodist church for a couple of years, which was close and moderate. A little knowledge and a little prophylaxis... I used to wake up Sundays and turn on the tele-evangelists and turn down the sound on the TV and up on the music under the concept of "Know Thy Enemy."

Political affiliation.

I think that is probably true, but to a lesser degree. A lot of people vacillate in their political beliefs once they leave the house. Perhaps the difference is that politics is transmitted to the child as important but not all-encompassing, with eternal penalties attached for choosing wrongly.

In my anecdotal experience, children are often the opposite party, for at least their early political lives.

Cause I no longer belong to my parents religion and reject conservatism

Hell I even turned my mom into a liberal!

There have been times past when I'm sure this is true. But I just did a quick review of just the people around me, and not one of them is practicing the same religion as their parents. I surrounded by everything from agnostics to athiests, not to mention no small number of evangelicals that are of either agnostic, or old european traditions. I'm about the only one, and I'm not even "practicing". When I expand to my social situation, it becomes worse where I struggle to think of a single one that is involved in their parents religion.

And it could be said that in times past, one would not have followed their parents, but their feudal lord or head of state. There were huge "conversions" based upon a King or some similar conversion. Much of the middle ages was about "forced" conversions in once sense or another that were predominately political in nature. And such a claim also flies in the face of the deep and extensive history of missionaries "converting" various populations around the world. Again, there was no small portion of politics here, and coerced conversions. Heck, in my own past were family members that converted for reasons of marriage.

I guess I'm saying I'd need to know how and why he makes this assertion prior to accepting it as anything more than a slice of some particular piece of history.

that damned few people are a totally different religion from their parents. I bet that most of them are still practicing a Christian religion with the god being the God of Abraham. How many converted from Christianity to a religion like Shinto or Hindu, totally rejecting their parents' god?

I have just the opposite experience. Most of the people I know have stayed close to the religion of their parents. (You must not know many Catholics, who seem to cling to that religion stronger than most.)

The Holy See probably doesn't think so. But is was the way I was raised. But practically the whole family (5 out of 7) basically left the church. I am also occasionally surprised by the number of parents I know that are dragging their kids to a Catholic Church (and school which I suspect is the real incentive) and yet will voice the opinion rejecting the "Jesus is the son of God" concept.

The reality is that there are an awful lot of people who are involved in some way in a church, but don't really accept the theology. A huge number that I know are involved predominately to educate their kids in some generalized kind of morality code, but don't accept the whole "Jesus as miracle worker" concept. Very large numbers don't accept the very concept of an after life and basically work from the "dead is dead" point of view.

I'm not sure how divergent ones views change from their parents before you consider them a "different" religion. There are very serious differences between various of categories of christian churches, not to mention various sects of jews. But apparently you'd group everything from Coptic Christians to messianic jews plus Catholics and orthodox jews as "one" religion because of their connection to the Abrahamic diety.

and there are different opinions from people around us. The Catholics in my little corner of the world stick to that religion if they were raised in it---unless they become non-believers. They do not become Baptists.

There are many shades of Christian worship, and they do see some things differently, but for the most part, they are still Christians. Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian---they are interchangeable in that if someone moved between them, they do not have to forsake all the training that they have had or the god that they worship. I do group the Christians all together, although any Jewish religion is different---you have to accept or reject Jesus, and that is a stretch either way.

Catholics tend to go either agnostic, or some sort of fundamental. Although lately you'll have some folks going Episcopalian. The protestants tend to wander either to more liberal, or more conservative. And huge numbers are going agnostic or otherwise unattached. There was some survey/census/study recently that put the US at something like 40% being basically uncommitted to any particular theology.

Just sayin'

and a rather effective commentator on social/religious policy as well.

so he can clarify what seems like sweeping generalizations to exactly what he means.

Not that hypocrisy is human nature either...

to grow up and choose their own belief system?

I'm not sure that is the same thing as childhood indoctrination, somehow.

It's all indoctrination. Another word for it is parenting. We teach our kids our values and beliefs. They take it into adulthood and make it their own.

Last edited Mon Jul 8, 2013, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)

For the record, both of my parents went to church as kids and drifted away from going after they left home as adults. As I said, they decided to let me and my brother decide for ourselves--if we had ever expressed any interest in going to church they would've taken us, but neither of us were ever curious enough about it to want to go. They weren't about to make us go just so we'd be exposed to something we didn't care about in the first place. What they did was the exact opposite of indoctrination.

Edited for clarity.

That's what I believe in. Everyone has the right to believe how they wish.

But religious communities go beyond that freedom. They proselytize. They try to force their religion down others throats. They believe that they have a right to force everyone to believe as they do. That's where religion went wrong. Through the course of my life, I have landed mostly on the atheist side. I have nothing against others believing as they wish, AS LONG AS they do not pressure me or others to believe as they do. And I expect them to treat me the same way. But again, they miss the boat there too.

I don't go around picking fights with religious folks, cramming my unreligion down their throats. It's rude and just too damn personal. Church needs to go back to church. Get out of government. Get out of our schools.

but I also want to go beyond "freedom of religion" to "freedom from religion". I don't want to have to say it is ok to choose between Christianity and Buddhism....I want to be able to choose "no religion" as well. And I don't know that "of religion" protects me.

But you're right. Why can't "/from" be stuck in there? As in "Freedom of/from Religion."

The problem is that many others (read: religious people) do not see it that way....apparently it needs to be more specific for them to understand.

It's right up there with why god tolerates/encourages evil and so on.

Ought to make it into the table of contents in the atheist's handbook.

My parents came from different religious backgrounds but each had experiences as young adults that caused them to question their own indoctrination.

One of my mom's favorite sayings was "It takes a lot of different kinds of people to make up the world". When discussing religion she would always start with "some people believe..." and usually included "while others believe..." and it was made very clear that it was up to each individual to decide what set of beliefs suited them best.

I didn't even know until I was an adult why my parents left their respective religions because they didn't want to poison me toward religion with their own bad experiences.

My sisters chose to attend church for a short time when they were teenagers but I think that was mainly for social reasons. None of us currently subscribes to any religion.