Are atheists born that way?

[MonDie]

I just wanted to post this quickly. I'll see the replies in a few days.

 

“… And thank you to god for making me an atheist.” —Ricky Gervais

There was a recent discussion about whether people raised in other cultures would be damned under Christianity. It's an easily grasped dilemma—why should the fate of a soul depend on the time and place of birth? Twin studies add two new variables: the family you're born to, and your genetics. Identical twins share both of these.

 

Familial Resemblance in Religiousness in a Secular Society: A Twin Study

Dorte Hvidtjørn, Inge Petersen, Jacob Hjelmborg, Axel Skytthe, Kaare Christensen, and Niels C. Hvidt

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8871485&fileId=S1832427413000030

 

In Table 2, we see that for identical (monozygotic) twins (MZ), belief in God, belief in an afterlife, and prayer to God had concordance rates of 0.79, 0.79, and 0.76, respectively, and even church attendance and the importance of religion ranged from 0.50 to 0.65 (although church attendance had a much higher tetrachoric correlation).

 

Furthermore, in their review of the research, half of the religiosity-measures used were 40% influenced by genetics. Here's a quick numerical summary, excluding the sample of children.

additive genetics: 00, 10, 20, 40, 40, 40

common environment: 10, 10, 20, 50, 50, 60

unique environment: 30, 40, 40, 40, 50, 50

 

In more detail (in case anyone wants to check my numbers):

A C E, details

10 50 30, religiosity in children; 40 20 40, religiosity in adults (Koenig et al., 2005);

0 60 40, church attendance after age fifty; 40 10 50, self-transcendance after age fifty (Kirk et al., 1999);

10 50 40, institutional conservatism in women (Kendler et al., 1997);

40 10 50, spiritual well-being in veterans; 20 50 30, spiritual involvement in veterans (Tsuang et al., 2002);

 

 

Thoughts?

Edited September 9, 2014 by MonDie

[Fuzzwood]

It's not some gene that makes you religious or not, it's the indoctrination of your direct environment that makes you believe something floats between sky and space.

[Phi for All]

It's not some gene that makes you religious or not, it's the indoctrination of your direct environment that makes you believe something floats between sky and space.

 

I think this is true. There are many contradictions in religious teachings that can blur the lines of reality for many children. Do you turn the other cheek or is it an eye for an eye? Teaching that what the book says is true while there are some very plain inconsistencies sets up a situation we rarely see elsewhere in life. I don't think we're born with a predilection for belief systems, but I do think it takes more indoctrination to suspend disbelief when faced with the more obvious contradictions.

[Skeptic134]

I think it is a combination of environment and genetic predisposition. Indoctrination at a young age is very strong but I think that some people’s personality makes it a little easier to fight off the indoctrination whereas others never can.

 

It’s anecdotal but I was raised very religious but eventually was able to start thinking on my own and determine for myself what made sense; my two siblings remain religious as does my entire family.

[Delta1212]

I think it is a combination of environment and genetic predisposition. Indoctrination at a young age is very strong but I think that some peoples personality makes it a little easier to fight off the indoctrination whereas others never can.

 

Its anecdotal but I was raised very religious but eventually was able to start thinking on my own and determine for myself what made sense; my two siblings remain religious as does my entire family.

Although that would seem to argue against genetics being the likely root of your different experience unless you're adopted.

[Skeptic134]

Although that would seem to argue against genetics being the likely root of your different experience unless you're adopted.

 

I would say the opposite. My siblings and I shared the same indoctrination (environment) but while we had the same parents our genetics are not of course completely the same as we have many differences in our personalities.

[Ophiolite]

 

I would say the opposite. My siblings and I shared the same indoctrination (environment) but while we had the same parents our genetics are not of course completely the same as we have many differences in our personalities.

You didn't have the same environment, since some siblings were older and some were younger. That has a powerful influence on personality development.

[Skeptic134]

You didn't have the same environment, since some siblings were older and some were younger. That has a powerful influence on personality development.

So which is the largest difference? The environmental differences or the genetic differences?

 

I believe the genetic differences are greater, from the basics of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion to variations in height, athleticism and strengths in different academic fields and interests. Also, the varied predisposition for certain health issues in childhood between siblings indicates clear differences in genetics.

 

These are mostly genetic differences that present themselves physically, clearly they aren't the only ones, what about the biochemical differences that effect our brains and thus emotions etc.

 

 

It isn't to say environment doesn't play a huge role in outcomes but genetics clearly do as well and in the case of siblings raised in the same household and only 1-2 years apart in age.

 

Hence why I believe it is a combination of environment and genetic predisposition that leads to religious belief.

[s1eep]

"Are Atheists born that way?"

 

No, Atheism is a product of God-belief. If there was no God-belief, there would be no Atheism.

 

This doesn't mean people were born Theists either...

[hypervalent_iodine]

"Are Atheists born that way?"

 

No, Atheism is a product of God-belief. If there was no God-belief, there would be no Atheism.

 

This doesn't mean people were born Theists either...

This is nonsensical. The lack of a belief in a God or Gods is not contingent on the existence of people who do.

[s1eep]

This is nonsensical. The lack of a belief in a God or Gods is not contingent on the existence of people who do.

So you are saying that if there was a world that was free from God belief, there would still be Atheists?

[hypervalent_iodine]

So you are saying that if there was a world that was free from God belief, there would still be Atheists?

Yes, by the very definition of the term atheist.

[s1eep]

Yes, by the very definition of the term atheist.

I must disagree; if God was never created by man, then there would be no need to define ourselves as having lack of belief in, keyword, God.

 

1. Man creates God

2. Atheism is then created for people who, recognize God in society and lack belief in God.

 

If Man doesn't create God, the topic never comes up throughout civilization, and then, there is no real 'lack of belief in God'. If Atheists did exist whilst Theists did not, they would be covertly advertising God.

 

You will disagree.

[Delta1212]

If everyone in the world had brown hair, no one would describe themselves as a brunette. In fact, the whole concept of 'brunette' would probably not exist for these people.

 

That doesn't change the fact that, by the definition of the word brunette that we currently use, all of these people would be brunettes.

[MonDie]

It's not some gene that makes you religious or not, it's the indoctrination of your direct environment that makes you believe something floats between sky and space.

 

If you don't understand a twin study, the "Statistical Analyses" section gives a good quicky. Read it up to where it mentions ACE versus ADE models.

 

Terms like "gay-gene" are terrible mischaracterizations. Firstly, not everything reduces to a single gene or control sequence. Secondly, genetic variables have degrees of influence, not either/or. This is what Skeptic means by "predisposed". If you don't think A is actually genetic influences, then tell me what else is shared by identical twins, is not shared by dizygotic twins, and could influence religiousness.

 

---

 

I messed up the OP. I was only reading the concordance rates for female MZ twins. All response variables were less concordant for the male twin pairs (MZ or DZ) with the exception of "importance of God" for MZ twin pairs. This means that, on average, men were less influenced by common environment for all six measures of religiousness, and more influenced by unique environment for 5 out of the 6 measures. Hmmm.

 

If belief in supernatural beings is cso superficial, why has it persisted throughout human history? There's evidence for a neural basis, which would place religiousness closer to our DNA.

A recent study showed that autistic brains undergo less pruning during adolescence*. High-functioning autistics are better represented among atheists and agnostic (and especially among those who construct their own religion)**. This could be cultural, but the autism-atheism relationship was largely mediated by mentalizing (mind-reading) skills even after controlling for church attendance,*** and brain scans show that mentalizing occurs during prayer****.

This could mean that some autistics are born atheists, or that some neurotypicals are born believers. Autism is four times as prevalent among males, and males tend to score higher on autism scales, but alas, Table 2 is of no help because the data from the male pairs have very, very wide confidence intervals.

 

* Children with Autism Have Extra Synapses in Brain, CUMC

** Religious Belief Systems of Persons with High Functioning Autism, Cladwell-Harris Murhpy & Velazquez

*** Mentalizing Deficits Constrain Belief in a Personal God, Norenzayan Gervais & Trzesniewski, 2012

**** Highly religious participants recruit areas of social cognition in personal prayer, Schjoedt et al, 2014 (I haven't read this one yet)

 

I think I just weakened my opening argument a great deal. Take that, MonDie, you atheist scum!

Edited September 12, 2014 by MonDie

[s1eep]

I think that I am correct in saying that if the world was wordless (free of words) there would be no religion in God.

 

What exactly would you believe in if you had to describe it wordlessly?

 

Nature, end of story.

Edited September 13, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

I think that I am correct in saying that if the world was wordless (free of words) there would be no religion in God.

 

What exactly would you believe in if you had to describe it wordlessly?

 

Nature, end of story.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

Please stick to the discussion of the OP rather than drag this off topic.

 

Do not respond to this modnote.

 

[Ten oz]

@ the OP, religion itself is purely environmental. The overwhelming majority of children born in a Muslim country to practicing Muslim parents will grow up Muslim. Just as the overwhelming majority of children born in Christian countries to practicing Christians will go up Christian.

 

How religion is practiced and what is believed vary greatly. Polling twins about their religious beliefs without quantifying or defining a religious belief structure doesn't seem useful. A 5 foot 7 inch with shorter siblings might consider themselves tall while a 6 foot 2 inch person with taller sibling might consider themselves short. The study failed to quantify religion. What it means to "find comfort in god" or "finding strength" is very subjective. A person can think god is important without holding any traditional view of god.

 

More direct questions would provide better insight. Questions like: do you believe you have a soul and that it will continue to live after you die or do you believe in god and that he/she/it is singularly responsible for all livings things and matter in the universe.

[MonDie]

Environment is necessary, but not sufficient. You're nothing without your DNA.

 

Only "How important is God in your life?" was evaluated on a Likert-type scale. Frequency of church attendance is objective. The rest were qualitative variables, and I don't see the problem with that. Frequency of praying to God was dichotomized between seldom and never to distinguish prayers from non-prayers. Belief in God or afterlife and finding comfort/strength had the options Yes, No, I Don't Know, but they don't tell us exactly how they phrased it.

[Ten oz]

"Frequency of praying to God was dichotomized between seldom and never to distinguish prayers from non-prayers."

 

Many Muslim pray multiple times a day. By that standard someone who prays 2-3 times a week "seldom" prays while someone who prays only during holidays may as well answer never. On my opinion the questioned asked provide no insight into what is actually believed. What is religion but a belief system?

[MonDie]

"Frequency of praying to God was dichotomized between seldom and never to distinguish prayers from non-prayers."

Many Muslim pray multiple times a day. By that standard someone who prays 2-3 times a week "seldom" prays while someone who prays only during holidays may as well answer never. On my opinion the questioned asked provide no insight into what is actually believed. What is religion but a belief system?

 

A twin study quantifies the relative influences of A, C, and E factors on the response variable. Regarding culture/ecosystem, the sample shared the same culture, so its relative importance is unknown. Furthermore, IMO the A, C, and E factors could operate differently in another sample, such as a muslim sample, and IMO they might have different quantities.

 

In the opening post, I was thinking of those who believe in free will, which would be an unique environment factor. Even if we have some free will, the overview of twin studies shows that free will is less than half—probably much, much less than half—of the story.

 

 

I would however like to know how counting "I don't know" as missing would have affected the analyses.

 

---

 

I'll be back October 3rd.

Edited September 14, 2014 by MonDie

[tar]

MonDie, or in his absence anybody else interested.

 

I have called myself an atheist, and others have claimed I am not an atheist.

 

I have gone to church, prayed to god, changed my definition of God and religion and have my own understanding of what common sources we have and what ideas about these sources are not common, or species wide.

 

The genes we all share, as humans are similar in nature, and everybody without defect has brain and senses, muscle and memory, sex organs, endorphines, hormones, feelings and ideas and a whole host of other common attributes.

 

Although there may be various human attributes that correlate to atheists, or to religious folk, to be born an atheist, would require a combinational set of characteristics or attributes, that always, or nearly always, forced or caused or led to being an atheist as opposed to being a theist. No such characteristics have been identified or even speculated upon, as far as I am aware.

 

Intelligence, or hieght, or sex, or the distance between your eyes, does not seem to be indicative of atheism. So to be born an atheist, one would have to identify the combinatoral characteristics that are usually present in an atheist, that are genetically noticable and then one could do a gene study on a fetus and predict whether or not the individual was likely to become a theist or an atheist.

 

More likely, the answer to whether one is born an atheist, is no.

 

Even if there is prediliction to becoming an atheist, based on height and intelligence, and cognitive or social abilities or lack thereof that are present at birth, the environment seems to have a much stronger influence on what a person believes, than ones physical characteristics.

 

The only argument that would allow one to consider a person is born an atheist, is to argue that everybody is born not believing in a particular god, or any god, and is therefore an atheist...until they learn what everybody else believes in and makes their choice of beliefs based on that. Which is pretty much 100% environmental, based on either observation or communication of/with the environment.

 

Which means that the answer to whether or not you are born an atheist is yes.

 

So the question is more which is a more natural position for a human to take, that of a theist, or that of an atheist?

 

To this, I would have to point to the large amount of theists and the smaller amount of atheists, and say there is a large amount of societal influence on one's beliefs in both cases. The theist is taken by the arguments of the church, and the atheist is taken by the arguments of the university's science and philosophy department...so to speak.

 

So, is and atheist born that way?

 

Yes, and then he/she is taught differently, and then figures out the truth, one way or the other, on his or her own, later on, when they are adults and think for themselves, and determine what it is that is the most important considerations revolving around what it is that everybody else believes.

 

Regards, TAR