Religious Belief as a Function of Geography

Zillah

Just a thought I had.

What religion a person follows is a function of where they were born rather than how likely to be correct that particular religion is. While religious believers will generally assert that their religion is the correct one, surely the reason for why that particular religion was chosen should cast doubts on it.

Has anyone used this argument with believers? I haven't had the chance.

Dave!

The poster InFront (a muslim) responded to a few posts on this topic, in AH.....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52607919&postcount=211

InFront wrote:

I take a lot of exception to the suggestion that I only believe in Islam because it is what my parents and religious leaders say. And I would be very disappointed in their intelligence if my own parents and friends in turn only believed without question, like dogs, what they were told. In fact, I happen to know this is not the case.
In Ireland, there are a great many Irish people who come and join the Muslim community. They are not doing this because o what their parents say, and certainly it is not what their priests advise them to do. How do you explain their beliefs, you say it has to be based on their parents and religious leaders? So why are there ex-Catholics amongst our community? Because you are wrong.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52608401&postcount=216

InFront wrote:

Of course not, there are political reasons why Christianity passed into the Roman Empire and onto Britain and its colonies in America and Australia. Reasons also why deserted tribes in South America had the perpetuation of their religion "stranded", and political, historical and social reasons as to why Islam remained considerably in parts of South Asia and the Middle East and Africa (though this is now changing, and Islam is the fastest growing religion worldwide).
The fact that people in America were slow to change to Islam, or people in Ireland unwilling to change religion, does not make any religion any more or less valid. If anything it just proves that people are traditionally creatures of habit.
I hope I didn't give the impression that if I was born in a remote village somewhere in Ireland to Irish parents that I would mysteriously be born a Muslim, or if a 1985 Catholic was born in the hospital where I was born instead of Holles Street he would grow up as a Catholic. He would not, he would probably be Muslim, and I would be a Catholic. But would I really be a Catholic? No I think that I, if I were the same person, would feel very uncomfortable with Catholicism, or perhaps I would confuse that confusion with atheism. Hopefully I would discover Islam eventually.
I believe Allah exists. I hope that someday there will be Muslisms everywhere, I hope there is eventually a Muslim president of the USA. If I didn't what kind of hypocrite would I be?
The reason not everybody is Muslim is because they have not engaged with Islam, or because they have engaged with it but do not wish to join. We are still seeing the repercussions from religious seperations of hundreds of years ago. That is why you still have the old geographically predictable world religions.

He seems to believe that were he born into a Catholic family that he would be uncomfortable with that and would probably reject the religion. For some reason I don't believe that.

Perhaps it's the case that if you're susceptible to one religion (the religion you were brought up in) then given different circumstances (born into a different religion) that you'd be just as likely to retain the religion you were born into. ie. It's a psychological matter; if you're susceptible to one religion, you're susceptible to another.
(No I don't have research to back that up that's why I'm merely hypothesising)

Scofflaw

The basic statistic that would go a long way to answering the question is what percentage of each faith's adherents were born into the faith - or, rather, born into a household professing that faith.

The only one I have seen a figure for is Universal Unitarianism, which is 10% - but this is regarded as notable, and even weird. Atheists might be about the same - maybe lower?

The impression I get is of 80-90%+ born into households that practice the faith the person will eventually follow. That's a level that strongly suggests faith is correlated with upbringing.

As a control statistic, I would suggest the percentage of people who, in their daily lives, use a language other than the language of the household they grew up in.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Zillah wrote:

Just a thought I had.

What religion a person follows is a function of where they were born rather than how likely to be correct that particular religion is.

Amazing Zillah, we agree on something:D I think you have a good point here. Though I tend to feel that the combination is one's Parents faith + geography i.e. upbringing and education system. Point in case, I grew up in Ireland (a Catholic Country) went to the Christian Brothers (there's a misnomer) and never questioned christianity till I moved to Japan, and eventually became a Buddhist. I had never thought of Buddhism when I lived in Ireland as the only group making any impact at that time were the Hari Krishna who I just could not comprehend and I had no intention of becoming a Vega. Most of the people I know who would call themselves religiouse or spiritual all chose their path later in life, and all deviated from the original faith of their parents. If I remember correctly, Robindch posted a very thought provoking thread on this subject. I will see if I can find it.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

Amazing Zillah, we agree on something:D I think you have a good point here. Point in case, I grew up in Ireland (a Catholic Country) and never questioned christianity till I moved to Japan, and thus became a Buddhist. I had never thought of Buddhism when I lived in Ireland as the only group making any impact at that time were the Hari Krishna who I just could not comprehend and I had no intention of becoming a Vega. Most of the peole I know who would call themselves religiouse or spiritual all chose their path later in life, and all deviated from the original faith of their parents. If I remember correctly, Robindch posted a very thought provoking thread on this subject. I will see if I can find it.

Just to go with my thought above - do you also speak a language other than your birth language in daily life?

NB - I can see that your use of English has not diminished!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Just to go with my thought above - do you also speak a language other than your birth language in daily life?

NB - I can see that your use of English has not diminished!

cordially,
Scofflaw

English, Japanese, a little Italian a little Latin. English is very important to me over here as Japanese is a language that never talks to the subject, rather talks around it. I am surprised that 120 million people can actually manage to communicate effectivley. This is probably the reason why Japan is such a safe place. Its very hard to be confrontational using Japanese.

coffee_cake

Well buddhism is something I found entirely on my own... I suppose a lot of it is geography in general though

Crucifix

From my experience with the laissez faire catholics I know, they think it's all the same God anyway, and are happy to just throw their oar in with catholism since it's there.

Sangre

I think it might have been myself that used the arugement against InFront. It would probably be an arguement I'd go to first as its something no one can dispute.
Also use it for over the top patriotism and zionism.

Dades

This has always been a strong argument.

I liken it to supporting a football team. If you're born in Liverpool you'll likely as not support Liverpool or Everton. Which one will probably depend on your family's allegiance. Occasionally a child will start supporting another team, sometimes out of rebellion, sometimes because of relocation, sometimes after being blinded by good brand marketing.

But of course people will always react and say they aren't just following their social norms.

joe_chicken

Belief is a function of who you are,

The argument "If I was born in xxx, I'd do yyy" is pointless.

You make it sound like the geography of your birth is inconsequential to who you are, and therefore what you believe. This is not right.

Sangre

Of course its consequential to who you are. It dictates your peers, your culture, your religious upbringing and your economic wellbeing. It dictates nearly all of your surroundings.

The point of belief is supposed to be based on the belief that your faith is right, to the EXCLUSION of all others. Basing this belief on the mere fact your upbringing was dictated by where you were born is silly. Considering all the religions that have every been. You'd have to be pretty lucky to have been born into the right one, in a place and time it was practiced. We're all pretty screwed if the Norse Vikings had it right!

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

Belief is a function of who you are

If belief was just a function of who we are, then we would not have countries or societies of predominately one religion - which we obviously do.

Why are countries/societies like this, if religion is not for the most part a social function carried down through generations?

stevejazzx

joe_chicken wrote:

Belief is a function of who you are,

The argument "If I was born in xxx, I'd do yyy" is pointless.

You make it sound like the geography of your birth is inconsequential to who you are, and therefore what you believe. This is not right.

It's very easy, I can't see how you could be missing the point here, Born in the Repbulic of Ireland you'll most likely be a catholic. Born in Israel you'll most likley be Jewish etc etc. Geography dictates the percentage of people affiliated to a certain religon, cased closed.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

If belief was just a function of who we are, then we would not have countries or societies of predominately one religion - which we obviously do.

Why are countries/societies like this, if religion is not for the most part a social function carried down through generations?

Thesis: that religious beliefs as an adult correlate with the religion of the household you grew up in
Test: correlation between birth religion and adult religion.
Result: very good correlation - 70%+

Counter-thesis: that religious beliefs as an adult correlate with the truth of the religious belief
Test: correlation between world population and adult religion - everyone should be drawn to the 'true religion'
Result: poor


Hmm.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sounds like one for JC:)

Zillah

joe_chicken wrote:

Belief is a function of who you are,

Define "who you are" without resorting to logical fallacies or magic please.

The argument "If I was born in xxx, I'd do yyy" is pointless.

Thats not an argument, its a statement, and its a true statement.

You make it sound like the geography of your birth is inconsequential to who you are, and therefore what you believe. This is not right.

The preceding sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm saying there is no meaning to that sentence with which one could disagree.

joe_chicken

Zillah wrote:

Define "who you are" without resorting to logical fallacies or magic please.

I can't define it, I never said I could. Just that geography is a contributing factor.

Zillah wrote:

The preceding sentence doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm saying there is no meaning to that sentence with which one could disagree.

That's too bad.

Scofflaw wrote:

Thesis: that religious beliefs as an adult correlate with the religion of the household you grew up in

I wouldn't argue with that, the argument I'm making is why does this lessen the validity of your belief?

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

I wouldn't argue with that, the argument I'm making is why does this lessen the validity of your belief?

That's a good question, not easy answered.

Perhaps it is circumstantial evidence that religion is simply about believing in something; being part of a social group. It suggests that religion is a human construct, rather than a gift from God. Or not -I don't know.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

I wouldn't argue with that, the argument I'm making is why does this lessen the validity of your belief?

Depends on what you mean by "validity" ... to an atheists looking in it makes sense that you will follow the religion that your parents and culture follow, in the same way that one might think their country is the most beautiful, or that their system government is the best.

The issue is that this is a subjective assessment. Likewise with religion. I've often had a debate on the Christian forum where I use an example of say Scientology and the Christians reply with something like "yes but they are nuts. Our religion isn't like that at all" If I put the same observation to the Muslims on the Islamic forum they might say the same about the Christians. And so on and so on.

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

I wouldn't argue with that, the argument I'm making is why does this lessen the validity of your belief?

Fundamentally, the claim of every religion is that they possess the sole truth. Indeed, religions, or their proponents, regularly go beyond this, and claim that not only is their religion the truth, but that the truth of it (and the error of other religions) is so objectively clear, or so compelling, as to require no demonstration.

That there is a such a strong correlation between birth religion and adult religion, even in countries where information on almost every religion is freely available, contradicts the second claim. No religion, evidently, is objectively demonstrable as the truth, nor does any religion so strongly draw people that a majority are drawn to it despite their upbringing*.

That suggests that either there is no true religion, or that humans are not particularly drawn to the true religion. In turn, that means that whether you are in the 'one true religion' or not is a birth lottery. First, that means punishment of unbelievers is thereby reduced to a rather random act of malice. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it means that God's 'truth' has no compelling power.

*the exception here, of course, is unbelief, which is the fastest growing religious 'stance' - and grows the fastest where the most information is available.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

That suggests that either there is no true religion, or that humans are not particularly drawn to the true religion.

I've no problem with the broad thrust of this argument, and clearly accident of birth is the primary reason people profess a certain faith.

But I do think systematic studies of converts from one faith to another would be interesting. All I've come across in this area is some part of a book on psychology of religion that I read recently. For example, it noted a study where a strong factor in the decision of many women converts to Islam from Christianity had to do with attraction to a philosophy that valued the homemaking role.

Its hard to intuitively account for how someone can discard what they originally thought was the one true faith, and adopt the same mindset in relation to essentially the same kind of thing i.e., say a Muslim deciding the idea of God sending an angel to read a book into Mohammed's ear is incredible, but the idea that he sent his son down on much the same job is right. There's some phenomenon at work here, and might fruitfully occupy a psychologist with an eye to sales figures for 'The God Delusion'.

Zillah

joe_chicken wrote:

I can't define it, I never said I could. Just that geography is a contributing factor.

But, if you can't define what it means, then you may as well say "Blugersnak" instead. You're not conveying any meaning here. You may aswell hum for a few minutes or post randomly copied pieces of the internet.


Its about now that most of my friends would be saying "See, I told you, these kind of discussions are a waste of time."

joe_chicken

Alternate universe Scofflaw wrote:

That means that you are in the 'one true religion' and You are Chosen By God as one of his chosen People. First, that means punishment of unbelievers is thereby elevated to a Divine act of God's Justice. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it means that God's 'truth' Moves in Mysterious Ways

I just changed a few (ok, maybe a lot) of the words to show the theist side to that argument

Zillah:
You have a very condescending tone, let me match that, hopefully you'll understand me better.
(I don't mind explaining myself, but I don't like being talked down to)

I'll explain things a little clearer for you:
1) The argument that your making to theists basically boils down to:
"Your religion is meaningless as if you were born in a different country, you'd be a different religion."
Do you disagree with this?

2) I make the point that this is not valid as
a) Religion is not solely a function of geography, it's a pretty big one, but not maybe the biggest (as most people have pointed out, you can be born and live in Ireland and be an atheist, Muslim, Buddhist...)
b) If you were born in a different country, it would completely change the "you" in the argument, and therefore render it useless:

I'll make it nice and simple with an example:

i.e. "John's religion is meaningless as if Peter were born in a different country, Peter would be a different religion"

coffee_cake

It doesn't mean your religion is meaningless it just means it's unlikely you'd be that religion. If you insist on the "different person" argument try this - say you were born as you are but your parents had moved abroad when you were an infant and you were brought up knowing the local religion. You'd probably be that religion unless your parents had really insisted on enforcing their own.

joe_chicken

bluewolf wrote:

It doesn't mean your religion is meaningless it just means it's unlikely you'd be that religion.

Yes, but the argument implies that this kind of "lottery of birth" takes away any perceived truth in the religion. Meaningless was a harsh word, but it's a harsh argument.

If you insist on the "different person" argument try this - say you were born as you are but your parents had moved abroad when you were an infant and you were brought up knowing the local religion. You'd probably be that religion unless your parents had really insisted on enforcing their own.

I don't agree.
I think your parents religion is a far bigger influence on your own than where you born.
Not sure of the stats on that one, I could be wrong.

coffee_cake

joe_chicken wrote:

Yes, but the argument implies that this kind of "lottery of birth" takes away any perceived truth in the religion. Meaningless was a harsh word, but it's a harsh argument.

Well it does seem to suggest that spiritual truth is entirely subjective and cultural...

I don't agree.
I think your parents religion is a far bigger influence on your own than where you born.
Not sure of the stats on that one, I could be wrong.

Yeah but at the same time if you grow up somewhere where everyone else is catholic are you as likely to go along with being catholic as if you grew up somewhere where everyone was muslim?
I'm not saying parents' doesnt count, just trying to find an alternative way of looking at this

Zillah

joe_chicken wrote:

I'll explain things a little clearer for you:
1) The argument that your making to theists basically boils down to:
"Your religion is meaningless as if you were born in a different country, you'd be a different religion."
Do you disagree with this?

The argument I'm making is that

1 - Your choice of which religion you are a member of is primarily influence by where you were born, rather than how likely that particular religion is to be true.
2 - Therefore, its is irrational to insist that your religion is the correct religion because your reasons for choosing that religion are based on geography rather than evidence.
3 - Hence your beliefs are probably not true.

2) I make the point that this is not valid as
a) Religion is not solely a function of geography, it's a pretty big one, but not maybe the biggest (as most people have pointed out, you can be born and live in Ireland and be an atheist, Muslim, Buddhist...)

I never said it was the sole function, but the biggest, as you conceded.

b) If you were born in a different country, it would completely change the "you" in the argument, and therefore render it useless:

Again, this sentence makes no sense.

i.e. "John's religion is meaningless as if Peter were born in a different country, Peter would be a different religion"

Better would be, "Religious believer A believes in his religion because he was born in a country where that religion is very popular, hence he has no logical reason to claim his religious beliefs are true."

joe_chicken

Alternate universe Zillah wrote:

Better would be, "Religious believer A believes in his religion because he was born in a country where that religion is very popular, hence He lives in the promised land and he is one of the chosen people and will one day lead his people in a holy jihad/crusade/war on terror to crush every other religion in the world, all hail "Believer A"

Some more little adjustments.

(p.s. Don't mean to cause offense by quoting, just showing the other side of the argument)

Zillah

How is that the other side...?
This is ridiculous.

*Presses the eject button*

joe_chicken

Zillah wrote:

How is that the other side...?
This is ridiculous.

*Presses the eject button*

Ok, maybe "attempting to show the other side" would have been better.
I don't know how those crazy theists work.

It is ridiculous, but then so is belief. It needs a lot bigger leaps of faith than the one this thread is about.