With Due Respect: Are children born atheist?

 

Children attending a Japanese church, 2023

In the 2006 book God Delusion, famous atheist biologist Richard Dawkins asserted that "There is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents".

He also tweeted that "Babies have no religion".

In such statements, Dawkins assumes that infants are born with no inclination to religion, and religious ideas are taught to them, rather than learnt naturally. However, he fails to account for a few things.

Babies are naturally religious
In most studies, infants are seem to accept teleological answers over purposeless ones. For instance, children are more likely accept that "Rivers exist so that we can go fishing on them, and birds are here to look pretty". They see the natural world as purposeful and designed by a higher being. 

Even if their parents are atheists, they tend to understand that their parents (and therefore humans) are imperfect and therefore prescribe supernatural abilities to a creator of the natural world. 

Based on such research, British philosopher Charles Foster (in his 2010 book Wired for God) concluded that atheism was not a default or natural belief for humans, but it was something that had to be taught.

Singaporean children, or children with Singaporean parents? 

Genetic fallacy
Another classic fallacy that Dawkins is committing is the genetic fallacy. He attempts to disapprove the validity of a belief by stating where it came from (i.e. the parents). This line of argument is false as the origin of the argument has little to do whether a claim is true.

Just because the abusive Imperial Japanese used aircraft carriers to sink allied ships does not mean that this strategy is bad or false.

Conclusion
Whether a baby's default state is religious or irreligious does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Truth is beyond genetics and culture.

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Theology 1.0: What is religious capital?

 

St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna, Austria, 2010

One trend that continues to interest sociologists is the persistence of religion, even in heavily secularised communities. One popular way to explain such a trend is the idea of "religious capital".

Religious capital is investment of time, effort and resources one puts in a faith. Popularised by sociologist Rodney Stark (in his 2007 book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success), this idea is used to explain that people tend to behave in a way to reduce losses in religious capital.

For instance if a classical Protestant stops believing in his current system, he would tend to move towards Roman Catholicism, rather than atheism, Buddhism or Islam. This is because there are more shared practices and beliefs between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Origin
In the early 1960s, there was a persistent idea that as societies become more modern and educated, the number of religious people would drop. The reasons were manifold - many states became secular or explicitly atheistic (like communist regimes), rise of multicultural societies (leading to less unity of values) or that education who rid of old ideas of religion. In his 1999 book, Choice and Religion: A Critique of Rational Choice, Steve Bruce actually predicted that religion would disappear based on his observations in Western Europe.

However, there were many countries in that bucked the trend. South Korea went from 20.7% Christians in 1985 to 27.6% in 2015. The proportion of non-believers remained roughly steady from 57.3% to 56.9% during that same period. In the Eastern European country of Latvia, the percentage of non-religious people stayed relatively steady from 28% in 2000 to 29% in 2018. The number of Christians decreased slightly from 69% to 64% during the same time period.

Christian display at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 2017

Thus the idea of "religious capital" was proposed to explain why religious people do not simply give up their belief and practices to embrace atheism or irreligiosity, but would rather embrace another religion.

What is usually suggested is that the actual decline is in the nominally religious (such as the "cultural Christian"), i.e. people who profess a faith superficially. In other words, people who put in little religious capital either become even more religious or less religious as society progresses.

In this aspect, religious capital makes sense. Looking at the United States from 1990 to 2008, Christian denominations which focused more on articles of faith (such as profession of belief etc, and thus more investment in religious capital) experience increases or little change in numbers, (Catholics +24.3%, Presbyterians -5.3% and Evangelical +294.5%). On the flip side, Christian denominations which require less investments in religious capital experience more drops (eg: Methodism -19.8%, Episcopal -21.0%).

With Due Respect: Aren't all religions inherently peaceful?

Introduction
In a secular Singapore (where I come from) inter-religious harmony is greatly promoted. While Singapore is the only non-communist secular state in Southeast Asia, Singapore is not immune to religious or racial tension. Hence there is an idea that all religions promote peace.

In this post, I want to challenge this "peaceful idea".

Some religions are inherently violent
The Aztecs believed that sacrificing human beings (especially their prisoners-of-war) is needed to sustain the universe. The Spanish explorers including Hernan Cortes and Juan Diaz recorded their disgust as Aztecs priests rip the hearts out of their victims and offer it to the sun.

Furthermore, the Aztecs were not a primitive tribe but the most advanced civilisation in the American continent at that time.

Some religions differ on their ideas of peace
Before and during the Second World War, the Japanese government incorporated Shinto Buddhism (which promoted loyalty to the Japanese Emperor) to garner support of the Japanese war effort. Unlike the idea of universal peace that the United Nations promotes, the idea of peace in State Shinto was Japanese nationalism (that the interests of the Japanese state was more important overrides all other interests).

Again, the Japanese were not some primitive people, but one of the major powers of the global war.

Conclusion
It has never been my intention to create inter-religious hatred or misunderstandings. However, peace cannot come at the expense of truth. And the truth is this-- not all our beliefs are the same. We should be encouraged to explore our beliefs and the beliefs of others in more detail.