The New York Times is running a piece today by Charles Blow in which he asks why so many of the children of the “religiously unaffiliated” turn to religion. It’s a mildly interesting question, but the answer is straightforward: the religious impulse is innate. It’s the way our species has evolved. Blow gets this, I think, but I was interested to read that his “non-religious friends” apparently still believe that most people are only religious because of the way they were raised. Oh dear. If that’s indeed what they think, that says something about the left-liberal pieties of the circles in which Mr. Blow moves (I’m guessing about this, but he is a writer for the Times) and their continuing faith in the perfectibility of man, but not much else.
Belief in a deity (or deities), and the desire to worship it or them, is an almost universal aspect of human nature. This not something that can be wished or indoctrinated away, and it’s pointless and maybe even destructive to try. It’s far better, surely, to channel that impulse by giving children some sort of gentle religious grounding, preferably in a well-established, undemanding, culturally useful (understanding all that art and so on) and mildly (small c) conservative denomination that doesn’t dwell too much on the supernatural and keeps both ritual and philosophical speculation in their proper place. Better the vicar than Wicca, say I.
Mr. Blow goes on to write
While science, logic and reason are on the side of the nonreligious, the cold, hard facts are just so cold and hard. Yes, the evidence for evolution is irrefutable. Yes, there is a plethora of Biblical contradictions. Yes, there is mounting evidence from neuroscientists that suggests that God may be a product of the mind. Yes, yes, yes. But when is the choir going to sing? And when is the picnic? And is my child going to get a part in the holiday play?
Fair enough, but then we get this:
“As the nonreligious movement picks up steam, it needs do a better job of appealing to the ethereal part of our human exceptionalism.”
Oh please. Spare us that. That way lies madness, boredom, ritualistic replacements for ritual, cults of Reason, readings from Dawkins and endless, achingly tedious hours of discussion about the meaning of life, the evils of religion and all the rest of it. And while you’re at it, spare us a ‘movement’ based on disproving this, refuting that, and getting all bent out of shape by trivia such as the reference to God on the currency.
Mr. Blow claims:
We are more than cells, synapses and sex drives. We are amazing, mysterious creatures forever in search of something greater than ourselves.
Speak for yourself, Mr. Blow. I’m just looking for a nice life.
>>While science, logic and reason are on the side of the nonreligious<<
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, Kant, Leibniz, Locke, Kierkegaard and Husserl call your office! Charles Blow has spoken! Good grief.
What about Zuckerman’s Denmark? On his account, there does exist a society tilted pretty heavily in the direction of disbelief (and a very nice society, too, despite settling for small things of merely human size).
What is wrong with Blow’s editorial? I’m an atheist and I totally agree with what he says.
The religious impulse is clearly innate for most people. This should be obvious as religion, in one form or another, has been around since humans first acquired language 50,000 years ago. Nicolas Wade talks about the evolution of religion in his book, “Before the Dawn”.
If you filter out the ethereal psychobabble, all Blow is saying is that people who seek out and join religions are really looking for group identity. It should be obvious that religion is really a form of group identity and that people who seek it out are looking to be part of a group. This is all Blow is saying, when you filter out his “ethereal” psychobabble. The desire for group identity (again Nicolas Wade talks about this as well in “Before the Dawn”) is a key concept in socio-biology.
There is nothing in Blow’s piece that cannot be explained by socio-biology.
Andrew, thanks for putting the “conservative” back in secular. The whole point of being a secular conservative is to avoid all that ritual and the endless argumentation that Dawkins and Hitchens are so fond of. If religion is innate, as it seems to be, then why try to argue people out of it, if they are so inclined. Much better, as you say, to nudge them towards the tried and true “undemanding, culturally useful” established religions.
I say, leave it to the Left to make a religion out of secular humanism (just like they did out of communism and the environmental movement). The latest fad is to call themselves “Brights” and pat themselves on the back for being so clever. Give me a break.
To be fair, 46% of those raised unaffiliated are still unaffiliated, as opposed to 13-14% of people raised unaffiliated becoming unaffiliated later, so clearly how you are raised has a significant, although not deterministic influence (see page 17 of http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/flux/fullreport.pdf ).
Moreover, only half of people who become unaffiliated do so primarily for theological reasons (see page 14), the other half for other reasons, like marrying someone of another faith, or just not liking the social aspects of their church. Many have religious feelings, just not an association with any particular religious organization. The implicit assumption in Blow’s article that the unaffiliated are essentially all atheists or agnostics is not even close to true. For that matter, the religiously affiliated often do not believe in god. Clearly, religious participation is much more complicated than the Blows or Dawkins of the world would have us believe.
The notion that there is an innate religious impulse is a hypothesis that is a long way from being scientifically established (as indeed is the entire discipline of evolutionary psychology). But this is in any case not immediately relevant here.
The Pew data is not replicated in other more secular societies, whether in Europe or Australia. This would certainly indicate that the American trend is more closely related to the suffocating religiousity that pervades the US than any genetic predisposition.
The secularisation occuring in most developed countries is actually fuelled by a widespread indifference to, or mild disdain for, religion, though this mindset seems quite difficult for most Americans to comprehend at the moment, hence Blow’s silly but by no means unusual suggestion.
i gather the elements of religion are innate — we might have some sort of module that helps us detect agency, which religions exploit. but as JohnC said, there’s no evidence that the drive to join a church is completely innate. in fact, there’s some evidence that it’s not. at least, if we’re dealing with east asians.
from the world values survey:
Japanese: 76% irreligious/atheist
South Koreans: 70% irreligious/atheist
China: 78% irreligious/atheist
maybe there’s some ‘human biodiversity’ (as the euphemism is) reasons for this, and us round eyes are going to be stuck with a religious population for sometime to come. so we might as well take up andrew’s suggestion and coach the dullards in anglicanism or a similarly blameless religion to prevent them from veering off into magick or whatever. but to me it seems like it’s probably too early to tell.
The secularisation occuring in most developed countries…
True. However, I understand that Christianity is growing in China. One of our hosts here wrote a piece some time ago where he believed that the growth of Christianity in China will be limited to about 10-15% of the population. He based this on the fact that 10-15% of Chinese in Hong Kong and Singapore are Christian and that that percentage remains constant.
Kurt9: That may be because freedom of religion is greatly restricted in China. The Communist party views unregulated religious activity as a threat to its power. The role of the Catholicism in the dissolution of Communism in Poland was particularly ominous to Beijing.
I wouldn’t worry too much about China. On the most recent demographic trends, sub-Saharan Africa will by 2050 have a population of 1.7 billion and have the largest numbers of both Muslims and Christians of any continent, which will stand in stark contrast to the irreligious disposition of both “the West” and East Asia. Even the US should by then be some way further down the track in the secularisation process.
What about wanting to be part of a cultural tradition? I grew up with atheist parents, but in some deep way I absorbed much of the Protestant denomination of my ancestors and community. Even though I don’t believe in the supernatural, let’s say, it is part of my identity. I do not experience a conflict between not being a believer and being a Protestant. Living in a Mediterranean Catholic country has given me an unexpected “cultural allergic reaction” at some moments which reveals how much my aesthetics and identity are linked to a certain tradition.
The political philosopher Seyla Benhabib says that “narrativity” or a “narrative construction of identity” is fundamental to the human condition. “We are storytelling animals” she says. I think what she means here is that the choices we make and the ways we interpret the world around us are anchored in traditions that we re-interpret or re-iterate in the new context, or else our identity is no longer alive. Christianity is an essential part of the Western “story” and the Protestant narrative in America have been a foundation for much of our principles and identity. So I am interested in the data on atheists who “turn to religion”. Are they turning towards supernatural transcendence or do they wish to be part of a community, part of a tradition?
I am both fascinated and troubled by this subject: I was religious most of my life until my early forties when, almost literally over night, I became wholly irreligious. So I understand the comfort, the sense of guidance and community that religion, especially a highly organized one, can offer. And I understand the pain of the transition when my world view got flopped around.
So now I really wonder where someone like me, or the lifelong irreligious, fit in with this innate religiosity. I’m not convinced it’s genetic. (But I suppose it could be partly heritable.) I can easily see the evolutionary advantages of a cohesive community, though. Right now we’re seeing nature select for religiosity as much of the west is in demographic collapse and Muslim reproduction is more than filling in the gaps. “Multiply and replenish the earth” is evolution talking in boldface.
I guess part of my cogitation is about just how innate religiosity is in me, the individual, if I can have such a life-changing moment.
@Craig
First, your perceptions of demography are, though commonly shared, somewhat out of date. See:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=519403
Second, I share your scepticism about using the term “innate” in regard to religiousity. The science on this issue is long way from even making provisional conclusions, and any real findings are unlikely to use such a crude categorisation.
>>>Blow gets this, I think, but I was interested to read that his “non-religious friends” apparently still believe that most people are only religious because of the way they were raised.
Andrew, you are likely right that the religious impulse is innate. But ‘how they were raised’ cannot be dismissed. Else why would the overwhelming majority believe, with grave, grim, and eternal consequences for the wrong choice, what religion their parents believe in? Faced with such an important question, and if as you imply parents influence is negligible, wouldn’t we see so many more worshiping differently than their parents?
Secular humanism to communism and environmentalism? Nice non-sequitur, True North. Just like how atheism leads to hedonism and nihilism, too, right?
@JohnC
Thank you for that link. I’m not entirely convinced by it, but nor am I really qualified to evaluate it. I’ll just say I hope it’s true. And thank you for sharing my skepticism. It’s all still equally vexing and fascinating to me.
@JohnC
They say the secret of great comedy is timing. Within minutes of sending that link in an email to Mark Steyn he had this response up on The Corner. (I take no credit. I’m sure it was coincidence.) He addresses what I sensed were the weak points in the article.
And I hope I didn’t write anything as obtuse as “but nor” in this comment. Once it’s submitted there’s no correcting it.
@Craig I would like to fisk the entire Steyn “reply”, but I’ll start with just three points which suggest he has his head so far up the rear end of his “hobby
horse” that anything he says should be viewed with deep skepticism. This is of necessity a longish comment, but bear with me 🙂
1.The reason for the recent blog activity is of course the Walker article, in which the real news was not the latest UN data (which simply show a
strengthening of known trends), but the mini baby boom among non-Muslims in Western Europe (and Australia, I should add) since 2005, driven mainly by an
increase in births among women over 30. This is independently attested to by the relevant statistical authorities in those countries, and quite frankly has
surprised everyone. Steyn fails to deal with this except by some arithmetical hocus pocus based on nonsensical figures not reflective of anything in the real
world.
2. Steyn dramatically announces that Muslims numbers in the UK increased “ten times faster than the general population”, linking to a London Times article(!)
that I can only say is a deliberate and sensationalist misrepresentation of some very interesting data. This largish survey actually broke the population
down by religious affiliation and the Times chose to concentrate on Christian vs Muslim (ignoring the second-largest grouping), and did so in a very odd way.
So what’s actually going on? I went to the original dataset and did a comparison for 2008 of two cohorts (ages 0-4 and 30-34, ie children and parents) for
the three main groups as a percentage of the total population in each cohort. The numbers (for Muslim, Christian, “no religion at all”, in that order) are:
0-4 years 8.41% 57.79% 30.22%
30-34 years 6.40% 60.70% 26.96%
So across a generation Muslim numbers are up 2%, Christians down by the same, and if you add Christians and “no religion” you get a stable 88%. This may be
mildly distressing to committed Christians, but is hardly a cause for concern to the rest of us.
3. Steyn says: “Walker’s own figures suggest, on the Continent immigrants from the Mahgreb have more babies than they would back in Tunisia and other North
African countries.” Tunisia? Walker provides no data about Tunisia, rather he cites TFRs (total fertility rates) from the Netherlands about Moroccans; namely
a fall in Holland from 1990 to 2005 from 4.9 to 2.9, and a current TFR in Morocca of 2.4 (the missing number is 3.7 for Morocco in 1990). So yes, there is a
slightly higher TFR in Holland, but both trends are downward (steeper in Holland) and the difference is so small it proves precisely nothing.
The two Muslim immigrant groups of any size are Turks (2.2%) and Moroccans (1.9%), which have falling TFRs of 1.9 and 2.9, while the overall Dutch TFR is
1.66 (rather different to the sort of funny numbers Mr Steyn deploys). Meanwhile the biggest change in immigration patterns in past decade has been persons
from former communist countries, while the total number of Muslim adherents is 6%. None of this suggests a demographic cataclysm to me, despite a number of
high-profile and ugly incidents that have justifiably led to public hand-wringing and a tightening of immigration laws.
And Tunisia, where did that come from? Well it is a small country (pop ~ 10m) that just happens to have the lowest TFR in the Mahgreb (1.86), and either
Steyn was honestly confused or he deliberately inserted this red herring to bolster his precarious position. Others can decide.
Sorry about the line breaks 🙁
Believing in a deity is a ‘universal’ aspect of human nature in the same way that having an antipathy to those not in your group and killing them taking their land and other possessions is — something that is on one level true, but it is an impulse that can be overcome with the proper social and cultural framework. If it can’t be overcome, then in a world with nuclear weapons the whole debate of the ‘innateness’ of religion becomes kind of moot.
If it is innate then why am I not religious? Why do I think religion is a scam? Am I missing some gene?
Speaking as someone who has no religion, and thinks the concept of “God” is a dangerous myth; and speaking as someone raised in a family that never went to church, or adopted any religious philosophy; and speaking as someone who is raising his own kids in the same way; and seeing that my kids are honor students, and that they are also kind, loving and healthy, I have to say this editorial and the NY Times piece are full of it.
There is no “natural desire” for the God-myth. There is a need to be social and connect to our communities, but that’s a vastly different thing. There is also vast social pressure to be religious; while conversely being an atheist can ostracize and even demonize a human being. That’s not “instinct”, that’s human bullying to comply and conform.
You can’t even get elected in a country that boasts the most amount of freedom, unless you are religious. Then we wonder why religion is so popular under such conditions?
The real question is not: why do some atheist parents breed religious children; the real question is how does atheism survive at all in a world that equates myth with purpose; and the hidden desires and fears of the subconcious mind as “spiritualism”.
Atheism survives, despite tremendous social pressure to eradicate it; it amazes me that children (like me once, and my children now) withstand all of it with our philosophy intact, and it is ridiculous to assume that our point of view is some how “unnatural” or “inhuman” which is essentially what the original article tries to claim.
I am not “unnatural”, I am second generation atheist who is the primary care giver of a third generation. I am no less human than anyone else, and my philosophies survive despite tremendous prejudice and antipathy towards them. Even the NY Times, boldly calls me “unnatural” and predicts my children will conform to majority rule because it is a more “human” philosophy. That is both ridiculous and insulting.
>>
We are more than cells, synapses and sex drives. We are amazing, mysterious creatures forever in search of something greater than ourselves.
Speak for yourself, Mr. Blow. I’m just looking for a nice life.
>>
This may be the dopiest thing I ever read.
@kurt9
If the desire for religious affiliation as a quest for group identidy, would you rather your teenager affiliated with a gang? My greatest regret is that I was brought up in a secular family, and brought my children up in a secular family.
> The Communist party views unregulated religious activity as a threat to its power.
Which is correct — organized religion with central hierarchies started out as a power grab.
@Xofis
But the proponents of ideas like the one you responded to always frame it as religion being somehow feared because of it’s mysterious and powerful truths, instead of that the Communist Chinese simply don’t want to compete with anyone at all for power in their country. The Chinese would consider fascists a threat to their power too, but it doesn’t make fascism a good idea. Responding to the above poster who asked whether we would rather have our children join gangs; is that the only option?
Religion will always have an appeal because of man’s continuing fear of his own demise. Religions answer that unanswerable question of what happens when you die. I think it depends far less on your parents or even if it is done in a group, but whether you can handle the idea of death. Religion is one of the few things that sell you a bill of goods – but without you ever seeing if what it is selling is really true. Instead, it is all done on the fear of you being wrong when death comes calling.
I, too, was indoctornated into this stuff when I was younger, but eventually realized in my 20s that not a single religious ideal can hold up to much scrunity of common sense. (Two white people named Adam and Eve created our entire diverse population? Uhh, no.) I really don’t care if other people find some comfort in whatever name brand they might practice – after all, we all seek some type of comfort through various means. I just ask you don’t become sactimonious and judegmental over thinking you are right and everyone else must be wrong (or a sinner, a heathen, an infidel, etc.) for not accepting your dogma.
so he’s saying that Wicca isn’t a religion?! So speaks someone to whom the word ‘god’ is reserved for the god of Abraham. Personally, if my kid started searching for spirituality, I’d much, MUCH rather have them turn to a belief like Wicca, which is open to a diversity of thought, than for him to go looking for a judgementalist, my-god’s-better-than-your-false-god, flock-herding Vicar.
Pingback: Better Vicar than Wicca?
Pingback: The Mysterious “Unaffiliated” « St. Bede’s Church
Pingback: Paging Michael Stipe « Around The Sphere
Pingback: A “God-Shaped-Hole” Shaped Hole
Pingback: Go Go Rocket Party » Weird Science
@Barbara
What makes you think that religion and gang membership are the only two possibilities in the life of a teenager? I had nothing to do with either of these when I was a teenager.
Mara,
I’d say that’s a fairly unique sentiment. Do you actually have any children? I’d submit that our Bradlaugh here (as would most fathers, religious or otherwise) would vastly prefer his daughter, once she starts to date, to be dating a God fearing, concerned-about-mortal-sin Christian fellow than a freewheeling neopagan chap with “The Goddess is alive and Magick is afoot” bumper stickers on his car.
A better name for this blog would be Not-really-secular Right. Why would a nonreligious person attempt to fill his child’s head with beliefs he does not share and which have consequences and conclusions he does not always support? That would be lying to a child on the grandest of scales.
Oh, and could we please drop this false dichotomy where children are either devout Christians or freewheeling pagan hippies?
“judgementalist, my-god’s-better-than-your-false-god, flock-herding Vicar.”
Where do you find such a creature in the Anglican Communion?
Oh, I suppose there are probably some in Africa, and an occasional holdout in some remote corner of the North, but as Steve Sailer noted, until “V for Vendetta”, the phrase “militant Anglican Bishop” appeared nowhere on the internet.
judgmental: nonbelievers will go to hell
my-god’s-better-than-your-false-god: no idols, and God is jealous.
Um, I don’t know what Anglican Communion refers to, but doesn’t Western religion in general espouse the two above points?
Pingback: On The God Delusion « But I Could Be Wrong
Pingback: Secular Right » Putting the Natural in Supernatural