If you were born into a different religion...

Ben D Bus

A question to those who consider themselves devout in their current religion.

If you were born into another religion, do you believe you would have "found" and converted to your current religion, or would you be devout in the religion of your birth?

It's a question that has always intrigued me.

Fanny Cradock

It depends, doesn't it? If I was born into Richard Dawkins' family then possibly not. If I was born into a family in Saudi Arabia then possibly not. There is absolutely no way to know.

"If a tree falls in a forest" and all that.

Festus

I don't know that I would consider myself "devout" but I do believe myself totally commited to my Faith on the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ.

If I had been born into any other religion my constant questioning of "is this right" would ultimately have led me to converting to Catholicism.

In probabilistic terms the next most likely religion to have been born into would be Islam and while its Abrahamaic and believes in God ultimately it is not a religion of peace and that is a problem for humankind. If it presents a problem then it cannot be right and true.

If I had been born into Judaism my questioning nature would have led me to the study of Jesus Christ and any study of Jesus leads ultimately to joining His Church.

With Buddhism I imagine I would have had problems with its attitude to marriage and with its lack of a God, who is more and more evident the deeper one delves into science.

I could go one but essentially any exploration of why the Church teaches what it does leads to one place and one place only.

The only question remaining is whether you accept it or reject it.

RichieC

Festus wrote: »

I don't know that I would consider myself "devout" but I do believe myself totally commited to my Faith on the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ.

If I had been born into any other religion my constant questioning of "is this right" would ultimately have led me to converting to Catholicism.

In probabilistic terms the next most likely religion to have been born into would be Islam and while its Abrahamaic and believes in God ultimately it is not a religion of peace and that is a problem for humankind. If it presents a problem then it cannot be right and true.

If I had been born into Judaism my questioning nature would have led me to the study of Jesus Christ and any study of Jesus leads ultimately to joining His Church.

With Buddhism I imagine I would have had problems with its attitude to marriage and with its lack of a God, who is more and more evident the deeper one delves into science.

I could go one but essentially any exploration of why the Church teaches what it does leads to one place and one place only.

The only question remaining is whether you accept it or reject it.

I know you probably think all this but chances are no, you wouldn't have converted to Catholicism. If you were born in Ireland chances are you were baptised. That is why Catholicism seems the one true way to you. not because it is the one true way.

I was Baptised and found the one true way. My own.

PDN

I wasn't baptised. I was raised as an atheist.

And, yes, I found the true way eventually.

Festus

RichieC wrote: »

I know you probably think all this but chances are no, you wouldn't have converted to Catholicism. If you were born in Ireland chances are you were baptised. That is why Catholicism seems the one true way to you. not because it is the one true way.

I was Baptised and found the one true way. My own.

Ah, you presume to tell me what I probably think? Some would take that to be arrogance.

No, you probably don't know I think all this because as I have laid out my thoughts you know that that is what I think. No probability about it.

So, despite what you think I know what I think and I stand by what I have said and disagree with you.

Catholicism does not seem to be true, it is true, because it comes directly from Christ.

RichieC

Festus wrote: »

Catholicism does not seem to be true, it is true, because it comes directly from Christ.

So sayeth the doctrine..

Festus

RichieC wrote: »

So sayeth the doctrine..

... and history

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-church-origin.html

HamletOrHecuba

Festus wrote: »

In probabilistic terms the next most likely religion to have been born into would be Islam and while its Abrahamaic and believes in God ultimately it is not a religion of peace and that is a problem for humankind. If it presents a problem then it cannot be right and true.

The problem here is that you could take the Crusades and the blessing of the Spanish and Portugese land grabs later on as proof that Catholicism is not a Religion of peace either. Islam also believes itself to be a Religion of peace and presents itself as such- would a cradle Muslim looking at the history of the supposedly Christian west really come to the conclusion that Catholicism was much more of a religion of peace? We both should know that the answer to that is no.

What would make a Muslim turn towards Christianity would surely be the lack of a proper understanding of original sin in Islam, coming to an intuitive grasping of the need for the Atonement of the Crosss and how law without Grace cannot bring us closer to God, surely?

Ben D Bus

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't baptised. I was raised as an atheist.

And, yes, I found the true way eventually.

Were you raised as an athiest in a Christian country? Might there have been a cultural influence to your decision?

My OP is driven by the fact that in most parts of the world there is a dominant religion. And it would appear that there are relatively very few conversions in any direction. And at least some of those conversions are for cultural or pragmatic reasons (e.g. marriage)

I don't know if cross posting is frowned upon in this part of boards but I'd like to ask the same question in the Islam board.

RichieC

Festus wrote: »

... and history

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-church-origin.html

History according to Catholics. If there was a Christ he would tear that Roman monstrosity to the ground. Golden walls and opulence weren't Christ's style.

Festus

RichieC wrote: »

History according to Catholics. If there was a Christ he would tear that Roman monstrosity to the ground. Golden walls and opulence weren't Christ's style.

Well... there is, and He hasn't

RichieC

Festus wrote: »

Well... there is, and He hasn't

He was never alive to see it.

Do you want to demonstrate how Christ's message jives with a massive Palace and billions in cash?

Manach

As I mentioned in another thread on the property tax, property is not wealth per se. Also, running a fairly balanced budget means that social utilities which are run by the Church have some mode of continuous operation in comparision to Ireland's own which are subject to the Trokia's mercy.

Festus

RichieC wrote: »

He was never alive to see it.

He is

RichieC wrote: »

Do you want to demonstrate how Christ's message jives with a massive Palace and billions in cash?

That's your fantasy so I think it would be impossible. Do feel free to have a go yourself.

tommy2bad

Manach wrote: »

As I mentioned in another thread on the property tax, property is not wealth per se. Also, running a fairly balanced budget means that social utilities which are run by the Church have some mode of continuous operation in comparision to Ireland's own which are subject to the Trokia's mercy.

I think your confusing heritage with property but thats a tangent so.....

I think I might be whatever I was born into, and be as bad a Muslim or Jew or Buddhist as I am a Christian. It would be something monotheist or atheist to fit me anyway.

philologos

This is the genetic fallacy. It presumes that people are Christians because their parents are Christians. However, there are millions of people who have become Christians without Christian parents in the world. Therefore the logic is flawed.

I think availability is key. However, in the 21st century, Christianity is available pretty much everywhere, even in persecuted countries. I'd have to concede that there would be lessened availability, but nonetheless there would still be a probability of this being the case.

Simply put, I don't believe in Christianity because of my parents, I believe because I'm convinced of the Gospel and what Jesus did.

a "do you believe" question is hardly a fallacy

in any case, i was baptised in one religion and am now another
wouldn't really say i'm "devout", though...

muppeteer

I wouldn't call it a fallacy to say that the majority of people are a particular religion because they were raised in that religion. Saying this does not preclude people from converting from one religion to another, so there is no logical flaw.

Here's some info on the levels of conversion to and from various groupings.
Being brought up in a particular religion seems to make you much more likely to stay within that religion or to only convert into one of its branches or offshoots. For the UK data it seems converting to a non Christian religion is much rarer. The same rarity is true for conversions to Christianity, despite no shortage of access.

philologos

The question is based on it.

HamletOrHecuba

Faith in Christ is a Gift that no sinful human deserves.

Benny_Cake

No real way of knowing,but I suspect I would have remained in whichever religion I was born into. Although plenty of people change to a different religion, the majority do stay in the one which their family or surrounding culture holds. That said, while I don't reject anything that is good in any faith, I'm quite glad that I had the chance to learn about the Christian faith and Christ, it is an extraordinarily rich tradition and I've been lucky also to come into contact with people who live their faith in a very authentic way. That is not to say that non-Christians don't have much to offer spiritually, Judaism, the Sufi tradition of Islam and some of the Buddhist traditions seem to have a lot to offer...but that Jesus guy, he's someone I've never quite been able to get away from.

philologos

muppeteer: That depends on region. In the US for example about 50% change in their lifetime between differing denominations and no religion.

The article puts it as follows:

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

Irrespective of the source where people began to consider their faith, ultimately people are Christians because they find that it is convincing to them. People naturally as they grow up decide what makes reasonable sense to them and what doesn't, if any belief in general not just in respect to Christianity doesn't make good sense, it will be naturally discarded. In my case it was varied sources from my teenage position of agnosticism.

It's especially nonsense to say that Christianity is determined by parents, because whole swathes of people have become Christians in the world who weren't from Christian backgrounds.

RichieC

Festus wrote: »

He is



That's your fantasy so I think it would be impossible. Do feel free to have a go yourself.

No hope you could make sense when you answer me by any chance?


There is no way the Christ of the bible would agree with Vast palaces with opulent interiors and billions in assets and bank accounts while children sit in a desert dying by the thousands. Now, if you can counter that with perhaps something he said concerning said palaces I will concede the point.

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

muppeteer: That depends on region. In the US for example about 50% change in their lifetime between differing denominations and no religion.

The article puts it as follows:


Irrespective of the source where people began to consider their faith, ultimately people are Christians because they find that it is convincing to them. People naturally as they grow up decide what makes reasonable sense to them and what doesn't, if any belief in general not just in respect to Christianity doesn't make good sense, it will be naturally discarded. In my case it was varied sources from my teenage position of agnosticism.

It's especially nonsense to say that Christianity is determined by parents, because whole swathes of people have become Christians in the world who weren't from Christian backgrounds.

America is different. They have basically commercialised religion in the states, every church in your area will be a different denomination and they all go out of their ways to attract customers. Be it with big fancy churches, or OTT preachers/entertainers or big Choirs.

It's a different world.

Cossax

philologos wrote: »

muppeteer: That depends on region. In the US for example about 50% change in their lifetime between differing denominations and no religion.

Got a source for that? Seems high but I suppose if they're moving between Christian churches it could be true.

philologos wrote: »

The article puts it as follows:


Irrespective of the source where people began to consider their faith, ultimately people are Christians because they find that it is convincing to them. People naturally as they grow up decide what makes reasonable sense to them and what doesn't, if any belief in general not just in respect to Christianity doesn't make good sense, it will be naturally discarded. In my case it was varied sources from my teenage position of agnosticism.

It's especially nonsense to say that Christianity is determined by parents, because whole swathes of people have become Christians in the world who weren't from Christian backgrounds.

Surely it's only a fallacy is you're evaluating the truth of their beliefs based on whether they got their religion from their parents?

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. who have ever lived were born into their religion rather than converting to it from another religion.

philologos

Pew Forum 2009 - http://www.pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx

Americans change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives. Most people who change their religion leave their childhood faith before age 24, and many of those who change religion do so more than once.

Most Christians that I have met, have had a stage in their lives when they have started to make sense of their own beliefs for themselves, irrespective of what mum and dad might think. For me, I wasn't too sure of it all. I decided to read the Bible cover to cover as a teenager and I started to see that it was true concerning the human condition and our relationship with God. It opened my eyes in fact, as there was whole swathes of content in there that I had never heard before in my life. It made me rethink what perception I had of what this life thing was about.

The idea of children having brains that superglue ideas about God to their brains is simply demonstrably false. Even the UK chart shows that. Ultimately, people must realise what makes sense for themselves whether they like it or not, or whether their parents like it or not. That's simply life.

Again, there are millions of people becoming Christians in the world who aren't from a Christian background. Indeed, most growth is happening in areas of the world where Christianity hasn't been heard of. Christianity in the 21st century is fundamentally different to any other century in so far as nobody can no longer say that it is mostly confined to traditionally Christian countries. There are more Christians outside of the Western world than are inside it.

Ben D Bus

philologos wrote: »

Simply put, I don't believe in Christianity because of my parents, I believe because I'm convinced of the Gospel and what Jesus did.

Would you accept that most devout Muslims, born into Islam, would say the same about the Koran and Allah and Mohammed?

And to restate my original question, do you believe that if you were born a Muslim, in a part of the world where all major religions were there to be investigated, that you would have chosen Christianity?

philologos

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Would you accept that most devout Muslims, born into Islam, would say the same about the Koran and Allah and Mohammed?

I don't agree with the term "born into". I don't believe that children are born into religions. I believe that people come to make sense of the world around them largely as they grow up.

I would agree that people would say that about other faiths. But ultimately, it doesn't particularly matter very much as to whether or not that is the case. What does matter is what is evident in the world around us, outside of thought processes. Ultimately truth reigns external to the mind.

Sometimes atheists claim that this is a great argument for their position, but ultimately their own position falls into this predicament as well.

I'm convinced by the evidence there is for Jesus being who He said He was. I'm quite happy to wait and see the results.

Festus

RichieC wrote: »

No hope you could make sense when you answer me by any chance?


There is no way the Christ of the bible would agree with Vast palaces with opulent interiors and billions in assets and bank accounts while children sit in a desert dying by the thousands. Now, if you can counter that with perhaps something he said concerning said palaces I will concede the point.

How much of the Churches income goes to charity every year?

Festus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The problem here is that you could take the Crusades and the blessing of the Spanish and Portugese land grabs later on as proof that Catholicism is not a Religion of peace either. Islam also believes itself to be a Religion of peace and presents itself as such- would a cradle Muslim looking at the history of the supposedly Christian west really come to the conclusion that Catholicism was much more of a religion of peace? We both should know that the answer to that is no.

What would make a Muslim turn towards Christianity would surely be the lack of a proper understanding of original sin in Islam, coming to an intuitive grasping of the need for the Atonement of the Crosss and how law without Grace cannot bring us closer to God, surely?

You should try reading a real history book from time to time instead of getting your "history" from anti-Christian websites.

The Crusades were a defence against Muslim agression and if they hadn't happened you would probably be a Muslim now. I say probably because if you wanted to be a Christian or an atheist they would kill you for apostasy.

HamletOrHecuba

Festus wrote: »

You should try reading a real history book from time to time instead of getting your "history" from anti-Christian websites.

The Crusades were a defence against Muslim agression and if they hadn't happened you would probably be a Muslim now. I say probably because if you wanted to be a Christian or an atheist they would kill you for apostasy.

Sorry my understanding of the crusades hasnt come from websites. The violence against Eastern Christians were part of the Crusades and what had they got to do Muslim aggression even if your reading of thing is correct.

Your understanding of Islam though seems to have come from websites.

Do you support the right of the state of Israel to exist?

Fanny Cradock

muppeteer wrote: »

I wouldn't call it a fallacy to say that the majority of people are a particular religion because they were raised in that religion.

Not at all. But it becomes a genetic fallacy if you want to say more than this. For example, "If you were born into a Muslim family in Indonesia you would be Muslim. Therefore Christianity is untrue". Whether this is being implied here is questionable but it certainly occurred to me when I read this thread.

Festus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Sorry my understanding of the crusades hasnt come from websites. The violence against Eastern Christians were part of the Crusades and what had they got to do Muslim aggression even if your reading of thing is correct.

Humans are prone to sin and bad things happen and I won't deny it any more than you can deny that the Allies committed war crimes during world war ii, or the Irish Army committed attrocites during the Civil Way.
The point is the purpose of the Crusades was defensive.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Your understanding of Islam though seems to have come from websites.

I'll take it that is your opinion.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Do you support the right of the state of Israel to exist?

In what form?

I have nothing against Judaism however I am not a Zionist or a dispensationalist.

HamletOrHecuba

Festus wrote: »

Humans are prone to sin and bad things happen and I won't deny it any more than you can deny that the Allies committed war crimes during world war ii, or the Irish Army committed attrocites during the Civil Way.
The point is the purpose of the Crusades was defensive.

I have nothing against Judaism however I am not a Zionist or a dispensationalist.

Okay I will re-phrase it, do you support the state of Israel to exist outside of its 1948 borders? Do you know any Muslims, have you had serious conversations with any?

Peter The Hermit was preaching defensiveness? Are you sure about that?

Festus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Okay I will re-phrase it, do you support the state of Israel to exist outside of its 1948 borders? Do you know any Muslims, have you had serious conversations with any?

Regarding Israel I have said what I have said. Regarding Islam I think the evidence from the Islamic states is clear.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Peter The Hermit was preaching defensiveness? Are you sure about that?

Lets stick with Pope Urban II

HamletOrHecuba

Festus wrote: »

Regarding Israel I have said what I have said. Regarding Islam I think the evidence from the Islamic states is clear.

Lets stick with Pope Urban II

Really? Islamic states do and have varied wildly. Ive been to Saudi Arabia and to Iran and the differences between them are wider than the differences between the USA and Russia.

Did Peter the Hermit not play a huge role in the First Crusade? Was the conquest of Jersusalem and the Holy Land in general not a goal of the Crusaders? Did the Crusades not lead to making firm the division between Eastern and Western Christendom?

Festus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Did Peter the Hermit not play a huge role in the First Crusade? Was the conquest of Jersusalem and the Holy Land in general not a goal of the Crusaders? Did the Crusades not lead to making firm the division between Eastern and Western Christendom?

He was not the Pope.

Farcheal

How do you explain the crusades against Byzantium? and the establishment of the latin empire? I suppose the reconquest of iberia was defensive. This tripe is ridiculous.

Also, a person growing up in a religion is conditioned to accept it above othets, as a cultural thing among other reasons. And the current religioms are nothing like "Jesus" or Yeshua's original intended personal God and no real huge overbody

Manach

My understanding from the Crusades is academic, and those were in the most part in defence from outside aggression - although no side was blameless in that era.

Festus

Farcheal wrote: »

How do you explain the crusades against Byzantium?

The Byzantine Emperor asked the Pope for help with some bothersome neighbours.

Farcheal wrote: »

Also, a person growing up in a religion is conditioned to accept it above othets, as a cultural thing among other reasons. And the current religioms are nothing like "Jesus" or Yeshua's original intended personal God and no real huge overbody

We are humans not animals and we are educated not conditioned.

and tripe is pretty good with onions but you do have to cook it slowly for a long time.

tommy2bad

We are humans not animals and we are educated not conditioned.

Didnt go to the Christian Brothers then?

Farcheal

Your seriously just trolling now. Mixing Catholic Pseudo history with your own opinions doesn't make it true. The Byzantines did not ask to be invaded. We are animals. Sentient animals who can apparently think for themselves.

HamletOrHecuba

Festus wrote: »

The Byzantine Emperor asked the Pope for help with some bothersome neighbours.
.

He did indeed, the only problem was that the help was much worse than what it was supposed to stop.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

Pew Forum 2009 - http://www.pewforum.org/Faith-in-Flux.aspx


Most Christians that I have met, have had a stage in their lives when they have started to make sense of their own beliefs for themselves, irrespective of what mum and dad might think. For me, I wasn't too sure of it all. I decided to read the Bible cover to cover as a teenager and I started to see that it was true concerning the human condition and our relationship with God. It opened my eyes in fact, as there was whole swathes of content in there that I had never heard before in my life. It made me rethink what perception I had of what this life thing was about.

The idea of children having brains that superglue ideas about God to their brains is simply demonstrably false. Even the UK chart shows that. Ultimately, people must realise what makes sense for themselves whether they like it or not, or whether their parents like it or not. That's simply life.

Again, there are millions of people becoming Christians in the world who aren't from a Christian background. Indeed, most growth is happening in areas of the world where Christianity hasn't been heard of. Christianity in the 21st century is fundamentally different to any other century in so far as nobody can no longer say that it is mostly confined to traditionally Christian countries. There are more Christians outside of the Western world than are inside it.

I would expect most Christian conversions today to be in non Christian countries due to simple saturation of the market in the west. The US and UK data shows this well as here people mostly change within Christianity and very little to Christianity.

People will of course make their own determination as to what religion they want to follow. I would think the options they consider seriously though are mainly driven by what they are exposed to. Access to information about other religions may be freely available but accessing praticing members is much less so, as such there is far less exposure to the very different/minority religions. Obiously people will be mostly exposed to the religion of their parents and their community. I would guess that raising a child to believe that the doctrines of a religion are true would more likely produce a child that would not want to go against those doctrines. If it didn't then the religious wouldn't even bother with children would they. It isn't super glue, but it does stick sometimes, and from the data is seems to stick more often than not(and when not it doesn't stray too far from the Christianity nest).

As to the OPs question I would doubt if a Christian in the UK was instead brought up a muslim they would still find the Christian message convincing and convert, simply from the rarity of this happening in real life. Maybe a Catholic converting to CofE or similar seems more cerdible.

RichieC

Festus wrote: »

How much of the Churches income goes to charity every year?

If it is truly the church Jesus Christ founded (It isn't) then all of it.

philologos

muppeteer: I guess I don't find your argument as convincing, because I know people who were raised Muslims who now are Christians here in the UK. I also know people who were brought up in secular homes who are now Christians. There's numerous examples of this happening. Especially outside of the West where Christianity is growing significantly, most of those people never would have been from a Christian background.

This weakens your argument somewhat.

Peregrinus

Religion is much more than a set of beliefs; it encompasses a whole set of practices and customs as well as a bunch of individual and communal relationships. Changing your religion is comparatively rare, because it involves much more than changing your mind. And radically or fundamentally changing your religion is rarer still. (A shift between two mainstream Christian denominations, for example, is much less disruptive and challenging than a shift from Judaism to Christianity.)

The fact is that most people remain in the religious tradition in which they were raised. And this remains true even if we expand the notion of “religious tradition” to include non-religious positions like rationalism and skepticism. They may - and typically do - shift positions somewhat within their tradition, but they tend not to make fundamental changes.

If you talk to people who have changed religion in a significant way - a change of denomination, say, rather than a change of position within a denomination - about their reasons for doing so - the proportion who make the change purely because they are attracted by their new faith (I read the bible one day and I was convinced!) is quite small. I’m not denying the authenticity of their experience, but they are not typical. As well as being drawn to their new religion, there are usually one or both of two other factors present:

First, they have become dissatisfied with the tradition they were raised in - they find it too restrictive, or too simplistic, or they cannot reconcile it with their experience. Thus they are already searching for, or at least already open to, a new religious position.

Secondly, they have developed connections to a new religion through a personal relationship - usually, but not always, a romantic relationship. (And their connections to that religion often survive the end of the relationship.)

I think the question posed in the OP is basically unanswerable. If you were raised in a different religion, you wouldn’t just have a different set of beliefs, but also a different set of attitudes and practices, and a different set of relationships. Whether you’d move on from that depends to some extent on how satisfactory you found it, and it’s pointless to evaluate that from the perspective of the religious position you now have, because of course in that situation you would be evaluating it from a completely different perspective.

For example Festus’s view that Islam “ultimately is not a relgion of peace” is not necessarily a view he would hold or form if he were a Muslim. Likewise his view that, if he were a Buddhist, he would be dissatisfied with Buddhism as a result of his exploration of science is questionable; if he were a Buddhist he would be exploring science with a completely different perspective; it might present him with a completely different set of challenges.

(Not to get at Festus in particular, I hasten to add; it’s just that he contributed fairly early on in the thread. But similar points could be made about many posts.)

Fundamentally, I think, the Christian position is that the fact that I am (or anyone else is) a Christian is the mysterious outworking of the grace of God. I may be thankful for it, but I can’t claim any credit for it. And the view that in a completely different and fundamentally unknowable set of circumstances, growing up with a different set of values, I would find my way to Christianity because of my own tastes and desires and understanding and insight looks a bit presumptuous to me. I hope in that circumstance that I would respond as honestly and authentically as I could to God’s call, as I perceived it. Where that would take me, God only knows - I certainly don’t.

gimmebroadband

From a book I once read:
Religion is a means of man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for Man!

Festus

RichieC wrote: »

If it is truly the church Jesus Christ founded (It isn't) then all of it.

Well , if it isn't which Church did He found?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

This is the genetic fallacy. It presumes that people are Christians because their parents are Christians. However, there are millions of people who have become Christians without Christian parents in the world. Therefore the logic is flawed.

I think availability is key. However, in the 21st century, Christianity is available pretty much everywhere, even in persecuted countries. I'd have to concede that there would be lessened availability, but nonetheless there would still be a probability of this being the case.

Simply put, I don't believe in Christianity because of my parents, I believe because I'm convinced of the Gospel and what Jesus did.

Specific religions are like specific languages.

All humans are born with a brain that is adapted to learn a language. There are a wide range of languages this could be and that will largely be determined by their cultural and geo-graphical location, though there are commonalities among all human languages.

So the vast vast majority of people will continue to use the language of their culture throughout their life and pass that language on to their children.

This of course is not a fixed thing. Some people when exposed to other languages may find that they are, for some reason, easier to work with, more beautiful, make more sense etc for that particular person.

So you might get an author who was raised with English moving to Paris and working exclusively in French because he finds that it is, to him, a far more beautiful language to express his work in.

The fact that people may find in later life a language that they prefer to the one they were raised in really doesn't speak at all to the under lying principle that humans have a pre-disposition to language, because the argument is not that we are all prone to learning English, it is that we are all prone to learning language, in a general sense.

The same is true with religion. We are all pre-disposed to accepting what is known as "natural" or "personal" religion. This, like the difference between language and English, is a general notion of shared religion concepts, such as supernatural agency, ritualistic behavior, systems of moral correctness etc.

Most people will with religion, like language, simply accept the first religion they are exposed to through their family and cultural experience. This is good enough, in the same way that knowing English is good enough if you are born in Dublin.

And like the author learning French and preferring it, some may gravitate to other specific religions when they have learnt about them because they some how fit better for that specific person.

This does not disprove the in built human pre-deposition to "natural religion", any more than someone deciding that they like French more than English demonstrates we do not have an inherent pre-deposition to language.