Religion: Innate Or Learned?

Sunstone · Jun 27, 2006

It seems obvious to me that religions have their origins both in genetic based human nature (innate origins) and in culturally transmitted myths, notions, customs, and rituals (learned origins).

For instance: Humans seem to instinctively ascribe personalities to objects, whether those objects are other people, animals, plants, rocks, or the universe itself. It is not much of a leap from this instinct to perceive personalities in things to the notion that things have spirits or souls. And from there, it is but a small step to the notion that some spirits or souls are deities. The trait of ascribing personalities to things would thus seem to be one innate leg on which religions stand.

But it is equally obvious that how humans view particular personalities is largely learned. That is, people in many cultures might all think of the universe as having a personality to it, but in one culture they see that personality as being a sentinent god, while in another culture they describe that personality as being a non sentinent way of things.

So, while it can be argued on many grounds that religion has it's origin in innate human traits, it can also be argued on many grounds that religion originates in learned behavior. Obviously, there is a mix of the two. The question is: Which of the two, if either, is predominant?

Is religion more learned than innate or more innnate than learned? Or is it equally innate and learned?

Comments?

Brothergood · Jun 27, 2006

Sunstone said:
It seems obvious to me that religions have their origins both in genetic based human nature (innate origins) and in culturally transmitted myths, notions, customs, and rituals (learned origins).

For instance: Humans seem to instinctively ascribe personalities to objects, whether those objects are other people, animals, plants, rocks, or the universe itself. It is not much of a leap from this instinct to perceive personalities in things to the notion that things have spirits or souls. And from there, it is but a small step to the notion that some spirits or souls are deities. The trait of ascribing personalities to things would thus seem to be one innate leg on which religions stand.

But it is equally obvious that how humans view particular personalities is largely learned. That is, people in many cultures might all think of the universe as having a personality to it, but in one culture they see that personality as being a sentinent god, while in another culture they describe that personality as being a non sentinent way of things.

So, while it can be argued on many grounds that religion has it's origin in innate human traits, it can also be argued on many grounds that religion originates in learned behavior. Obviously, there is a mix of the two. The question is: Which of the two, if either, is predominant?

Is religion more learned than innate or more innnate than learned? Or is it equally innate and learned?

Comments?

I believe that knowledge of and in religion is entirely a learning process. I can't agree that there are any "innate" religious abilities in human beings.

"For instance: Humans seem to instinctively ascribe personalities to objects, whether those objects are other people, animals, plants, rocks, or the universe itself."

This example can more rationally be perceived as a learning process, ie...one person may have had a positive experience in the presence of one of those objects and mistakenly concluded the object was the REASON for the positive experience.

"It is not much of a leap from this instinct to perceive personalities in things to the notion that things have spirits or souls. And from there, it is but a small step to the notion that some spirits or souls are deities."

On the contrary, this is a huge leap!

Let's pretend for a moment that your theory is correct and a human somehow instinctively ascribed a personality to an object. Let's even go so far as to say that he or she then got the notion it had a spirit or soul, and furthermore that this particular one was indeed a deity. At this point your assumption is correct. However; if this man or woman doesn't share the knowledge he/she has now exclusively gained, then it is lost. Nobody in successive generations will know what he or she has discovered. For all practical purposes, it didn't happen.

"The trait of ascribing personalities to things would thus seem to be one innate leg on which religions stand."

As I've hopefully made somewhat clear, religion does not stand on this "innate" leg at all.
Religions are learned through word of mouth, written records, songs, poetry, and art. It must be constantly taught, and constantly learned.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Colossians 3:16

Thank you so much for the provocative post Sunstone. I hadn't actually thought about this perspective for some time.

BucephalusBB · Jun 27, 2006

You ask for religion. Shouldn't that be "faith"?
Because words like christ and bible need to be thought. Stories like some dude making a boat and take 2 of all living creatures with him, that needs to be read..

Sunstone · Jun 27, 2006

Bouncing Ball said:
You ask for religion. Shouldn't that be "faith"?
Because words like christ and bible need to be thought. Stories like some dude making a boat and take 2 of all living creatures with him, that needs to be read..

Certainly stories like that need to be taught, bouncing ball, but they are more or less superficial aspects of religion in many ways. A deeper, more universal aspect of religion would be the innate human impulse to look for meaning and cohensive thought.

Pah · Jun 27, 2006

Whatever is considered "innate", is a culturaly imposed adaptive evoluntionary trait. Particulars of a faith are learned much as a language and morality is learned.

Sunstone · Jun 27, 2006

Brothergood said:
I believe that knowledge of and in religion is entirely a learning process. I can't agree that there are any "innate" religious abilities in human beings.

Yes, but on what basis do you dispute that such things as a tendency to percieve personalities in things, a tendency to seek meaning, a tendency to prefer cohesive thought, a tendency to see purpose in things, etc etc etc --- on what basis do you dispute these are innate traits?

This example can more rationally be perceived as a learning process, ie...one person may have had a positive experience in the presence of one of those objects and mistakenly concluded the object was the REASON for the positive experience.

I'm not sure we're on the same page here, Brothergood. Could you elaborate on your theme here so I can grasp what, if anything, it has to do with my example? Your point is currently coming across to me as a non sequiter.

On the contrary, this is a huge leap!

Let's pretend for a moment that your theory is correct and a human somehow instinctively ascribed a personality to an object. Let's even go so far as to say that he or she then got the notion it had a spirit or soul, and furthermore that this particular one was indeed a deity. At this point your assumption is correct. However; if this man or woman doesn't share the knowledge he/she has now exclusively gained, then it is lost. Nobody in successive generations will know what he or she has discovered. For all practical purposes, it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Yes, but we could just as easily assume it did happen to be passed on, especially since we seem to have evidence that it did happen to be passed on: i.e. the existence of religions asserting deity.

As I've hopefully made somewhat clear, religion does not stand on this "innate" leg at all.

Click to expand...

Religions are learned through word of mouth, written records, songs, poetry, and art. It must be constantly taught, and constantly learned

How does that preclude religions from also being innate?

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Colossians 3:16

Interesting, but not science.

Thank you so much for the provocative post Sunstone. I hadn't actually thought about this perspective for some time.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Bothergood! Welcome to the Forum!

Sunstone · Jun 27, 2006

Pah said:
Whatever is considered "innate", is a culturaly imposed adaptive evoluntionary trait. Particulars of a faith are learned much as a language and morality is learned.

How can it be said that ascribing motives to things, such as the weather, other people or deity, is merely learned? Ascribing motives to things is a basic presupposition of many deistic religions, from Pagan Greece to Muslim Mecca. Moreover, ascribing motives to things is a universal human trait independent of any culture or society. It is obviously not entirely learned behavior.

cardero · Jun 27, 2006

Sunstone said:
But it is equally obvious that how humans view particular personalities is largely learned. That is, people in many cultures might all think of the universe as having a personality to it, but in one culture they see that personality as being a sentinent god, while in another culture they describe that personality as being a non sentinent way of things.

So, while it can be argued on many grounds that religion has it's origin in innate human traits, it can also be argued on many grounds that religion originates in learned behavior. Obviously, there is a mix of the two. The question is: Which of the two, if either, is predominant?

Comments?

It could also be argued that, if perceived well, no two personalities are alike.

Jayhawker Soule · Jun 27, 2006

Much depends on the definition of 'religion': I believe it to flow from (or reside at) the intersect of our affect capacity and pattern-matching compulsion.

PureX · Jun 27, 2006

Pah said:
Whatever is considered "innate", is a culturally imposed adaptive evolutionary trait. Particulars of a faith are learned much as a language and morality is learned.

Yes, it's like asking which of these is "predominant": the desire to communicate, or spoken language? Language is the expression of our innate desire to communicate. Religions are the expression of our innate desire to anthropomorphize the world around us.

Pah · Jun 27, 2006

Sunstone said:
How can it be said that ascribing motives to things, such as the weather, other people or deity, is merely learned? Ascribing motives to things is a basic presupposition of many deistic religions, from Pagan Greece to Muslim Mecca. Moreover, ascribing motives to things is a universal human trait independent of any culture or society. It is obviously not entirely learned behavior.

People have a tendency to remeber "success". When the weather holds favorable to crops and after a ceremony of sorts to the "weather god", That is remembered the next time. "Non-success" is sluffed off as a poor ceremony - an unappeased god.

That sets the general stage for "learned religion". Particulars, i.e. the Trinity or a divine son, are taught as the "lesson" advances with socio-evolution.

PureX said:
Yes, it's like asking which of these is "predominant": the desire to communicate, or spoken language? Language is the expression of our innate desire to communicate. Religions are the expression of our innate desire to anthropomorphize the world around us.

I fail to see where innate belongs in language or religion. Innateness of these would indicate a univeraliality that just does no exist in the end product.

Today's human newborn arrives with a "blank slate" and learns both language and religion from the care-giver. Socio-evolution is remberence of "success".

James the Persian · Jun 27, 2006

Pah said:
Today's human newborn arrives with a "blank slate" and learns both language and religion from the care-giver. Socio-evolution is remberence of "success".

I take it that you're not a fan of UG (Universal Grammar) proponents such as Pinker and Chomsky then. They certainly don't see infants as being born tabula rasa when it comes to language. I have to agree with you on this, mind. I find UG to be little more than pseudo-science. It's just unfortunate that Pinker is one of the few psycholinguists who writes popular science books.

As for religion, I think that there is a certain innate need for spirituality in (many/most) humans. For them to go from that to full blown religion, however, inevitably requires learning. I have my own theological reasons to explain this, but then they were certainly learnt, weren't they?

James

Sunstone · Jun 27, 2006

I'm forced to disagree that humans are born blank slates.

An analogy that might be useful here is that of a flower vase. The flower vase is empty when born, but it is still fundamentally a vase. It is not, for instance, a car piston. While it is society that decides it will hold daffodils or tiger lilies or some other flower, it is the nature of the vase that it can hold flowers at all.

Furthermore, the notion that there is not a universality of human religious traits actually seems to be false. There is, for instance, a universal human trait, independent of any culture or society, to perceive personality and motive in things. This trait is like the flower vase in the analogy. It does not determine what personality or motive a social group will teach it's children that things have, but it does set up the necessary neurological "vase" or structure for the children to see the societies taught "flowers" or personalities and motives in things. Does that make any sense or should I have more coffee?

bigvindaloo · Jun 27, 2006

Sunstone said:
It seems obvious to me that religions have their origins both in genetic based human nature (innate origins) and in culturally transmitted myths, notions, customs, and rituals (learned origins).

For instance: Humans seem to instinctively ascribe personalities to objects, whether those objects are other people, animals, plants, rocks, or the universe itself. It is not much of a leap from this instinct to perceive personalities in things to the notion that things have spirits or souls. And from there, it is but a small step to the notion that some spirits or souls are deities. The trait of ascribing personalities to things would thus seem to be one innate leg on which religions stand.

But it is equally obvious that how humans view particular personalities is largely learned. That is, people in many cultures might all think of the universe as having a personality to it, but in one culture they see that personality as being a sentinent god, while in another culture they describe that personality as being a non sentinent way of things.

So, while it can be argued on many grounds that religion has it's origin in innate human traits, it can also be argued on many grounds that religion originates in learned behavior. Obviously, there is a mix of the two. The question is: Which of the two, if either, is predominant?

Is religion more learned than innate or more innnate than learned? Or is it equally innate and learned?

Comments?

Babies do not respond to objects (ascribe human personalities) to objects like a ball like they do to this:

. This is a face and babies respond to this. If there is some kind of innate recognition to personality or persons it is distinctly modular in operation. Facial recognition deficits are called prosopagnosia.

The precursors to religious "instinct" arrive later at a point when young children make a distinction between inanimate and animate objects, and further on when they make distinctions between permanence and non permanence.

All of this occurs before self-concept evolves and a child has the cognitive capacity to question the permanence or not of it. This I would think is the origin of religious "instinct".

Differences in definition of God then reside uniquely in cultural interpretations of it. The aforementioned developmental sequence is cross-cultural and human:yes:

ÃsahÃ¦ttr · Jun 27, 2006

Although I don't have any actual firm evidence to back this up, it would seem at first glance that religion appears to be much more learned than genetic.

As examples of reasons why I think this, consider that religious beliefs are far more prevelant in older adults than young adults/teenagers. There's no genetic difference between those groups, but there is a cultural one.

If religion was largely genetically caused, then you'd expect a correlation between parents beliefs and their childrens, which there is, but I think you'd also expect much less children to have views that are very different to their parents than we see. I admit that this is based on my personal experiences, but it seems to me that there is quite a strong relation between the degree to which someone shares their parents' religious beliefs and the degree to which they respect their parents.

Lastly, look at history. If religion was largely genetic, then there wouldn't be huge changes in patterns of belief. In Europe, religious beliefs were probably most prevelant in the Middle Ages, in a culture that was highly geared towards supporting religion. There's no genetic difference between the people of the Middle Ages and the people of today, but there's less belief in Europe today. Also, extreme reactionary religious beliefs iwithin Islam and Christianity both appear to have followed in the wake of very fast changes, as people react against modernisation at too fast a pace.

Brothergood · Jun 27, 2006

Sunstone said:
Yes, but on what basis do you dispute that such things as a tendency to percieve personalities in things, a tendency to seek meaning, a tendency to prefer cohesive thought, a tendency to see purpose in things, etc etc etc --- on what basis do you dispute these are innate traits?

You are comparing Apples to Oranges my friend. A tendency to do these things is entirely different from an innate ability to do them. I have a tendency to read the bible, but it's an aquired trait. I wasn't born with the desire to do so.

Sunstone said:
I'm not sure we're on the same page here, Brothergood. Could you elaborate on your theme here so I can grasp what, if anything, it has to do with my example? Your point is currently coming across to me as a non sequiter.

My point was that in order for Humans to "seem to instinctively ascribe personalities to objects", they would have had to interact with that object first of all in a learning situation. ie...they wouldn't have ascribed anything to an object without a reason to do so. Humans are not born with the innate ability to ascribe personalities in the abscence of experience.

Sunstone said:
Yes, but we could just as easily assume it did happen to be passed on, especially since we seem to have evidence that it did happen to be passed on: i.e. the existence of religions asserting deity.

Exactly, and in order for it to be passed on, it would have had to have been taught to successive generations, who learned the specifics of that particular deity. Not by instinct, but by education.

Sunstone, you are a blessing to me. Thanks very much for the welcome.

"And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing." Genesis 27:35

uumckk16 · Jun 27, 2006

Æsahættr said:
If religion was largely genetically caused, then you'd expect a correlation between parents beliefs and their childrens, which there is, but I think you'd also expect much less children to have views that are very different to their parents than we see. I admit that this is based on my personal experiences, but it seems to me that there is quite a strong relation between the degree to which someone shares their parents' religious beliefs and the degree to which they respect their parents.

I think you kind of supported the opposite point here. The question wasn't if it was genetic, in which case yes, the parents and children should have the same beliefs. The question was whether it was innate, human instinct. If children don't share their parents' beliefs, wouldn't that imply that it wasn't learned (at least not from their parents), and that there was something more innate to it?

ÃsahÃ¦ttr · Jun 27, 2006

uumckk16 said:
I think you kind of supported the opposite point here. The question wasn't if it was genetic, in which case yes, the parents and children should have the same beliefs. The question was whether it was innate, human instinct. If children don't share their parents' beliefs, wouldn't that imply that it wasn't learned (at least not from their parents), and that there was something more innate to it?

I don't know exactly what the statistics are, but it seems to me that children tend to either take on all or most of their parents religious beliefs, or to reject all of them. That suggests to me that it is learned, with a factor of reaction against parents in some cases.
If something isn't learned, then it's genetic. If someone was put into some some sort of coma at birth, then woken up at the age of 30, having had no experiences or chances to learn anything, and then went on to demonstrate an instinct of some sort, then that instinct is genetic.

Khalid Muhammad · Jun 27, 2006

I voted 'Innate' as I thought that you were probably asking about my own faith. We believe that everything is in submission to Allah, the sun, moon, and stars, the sea, every particle that moves. Man in his natural state is in submission. In regard to other ways of life I would concur with the poll which seems to be leaning toward religion as learnt.

Quiddity · Jun 27, 2006

Jayhawker Soule said:
Much depends on the definition of 'religion': I believe it to flow from (or reside at) the intersect of our affect capacity and pattern-matching compulsion.

What do you mean by affect capacity?

Religion: Innate Or Learned?

Is religion more innate or more learned?

Religion is more innate

Religion is more learned

Religion is equally innate and learned

Religion? Isn't that a rock group?

None of the above

De Diablo Del Fora

Member

ABACABB

De Diablo Del Fora

Uber all member

De Diablo Del Fora

De Diablo Del Fora

Citizen Mod

-- untitled --

Veteran Member

Uber all member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

De Diablo Del Fora

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants