The God issue: We are all born believers

14 March 2012 by Justin L. Barrett
Magazine issue 2856. Subscribe and save

BY THE time he was 5 years old, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart could play the clavier and had begun to compose his own music. Mozart was a "born musician"; he had strong natural talents and required only minimal exposure to music to become fluent.

Few of us are quite so lucky. Music usually has to be drummed into us by teaching, repetition and practice. And yet in other domains, such as language or walking, virtually everyone is a natural; we are all "born speakers" and "born walkers".

So what about religion? Is it more like music or language?

Drawing upon research in developmental psychology, cognitive anthropology and particularly the cognitive science of religion, I argue that religion comes nearly as naturally to us as language. The vast majority of humans are "born believers", naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations attractive and easily acquired, and to attain fluency in using ...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... evers.html

May I strongly recommend this week's New Scientist?

BTW: Mozart was not a born musician, his father, Leopold, drummed music into the little lad and then pimped him around the great houses of Europe like a performing seal for cash.

No, we are all born suckers. But we learn.

THWOTH wrote:BTW: Mozart was not a born musician, his father, Leopold, drummed music into the little lad and then pimped him around the great houses of Europe like a performing seal for cash.

And on that note, we're not born "natural speakers" or "natural walkers" either. Ever seen a baby try to do either of them? They're shit at it. It takes them millions upon millions of trial and errors, over and over again, before reaching a level of semi-mastery.

Indeed.

If children were not around adults and older children who walked and talked they'd likely never learn to do these things. I find the words "nearly as" in the quote in the OP quite important too.

And even if there is an evolutionary trait that makes us religious, which I'm willing to admit is entirely possible, I don't exactly see it being a boon to Abrahamism. The whole "freewill" argument goes out the window if God made us biologically predisposed to believe in him. On top of this there is the utterly convincing argument that the so called "God Spot" would of played a very important part in forming bonds within the tribes of our ancestors.

MacIver wrote:And even if there is an evolutionary trait that makes us religious,

I think there is, namely our ability in pattern-recognition. It's the root of all superstitious behaviours. Birds have it too (and I'm fairly sure many other organisms do).

That's right. I remember reading about that (probably in new scientist actually). That mixed with endorphins released through communal worship and boom, you've got religion.

Has anyone actually read the offending articles?

I'm not a subscriber and when I looked at it last night it was £3.50 for only about ten pages, two of which were that shit from Alain de Bottom about why atheists need religion.

It looked more like the God Bother's issue than the god issue.

I agree with the quoted portion of the article, in the sense that it uses the word:-

Mozart was a born musician in that he was born with an inate capacity for music.
Most people are born believers in that they have an inate capacity for believing things.

But having conceded this, my reaction was: so fucking what?

I think I was as much a born doubter as I was a believer. As far as I can tell, as soon as I had the ability to believe I had the ability to realise not everything I was told was true, even by my parents. When my mom told me a dead bird's soul had gone to heaven I wanted to see it. I wanted the evidence. I was about 4.

Nobody comes out of the womb praying.

When we're tiny, people tell us Santaclaus is real. Later on those people confess that they lied and we stop believing. With God, they never admitted the lies.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

THWOTH wrote:BTW: Mozart was not a born musician, his father, Leopold, drummed music into the little lad and then pimped him around the great houses of Europe like a performing seal for cash.

And on that note, we're not born "natural speakers" or "natural walkers" either. Ever seen a baby try to do either of them? They're shit at it. It takes them millions upon millions of trial and errors, over and over again, before reaching a level of semi-mastery.

Cognitive scientist Daniel Levitin says that it takes about 10,000 hours to develop a complete mastery of complex physical skills. This was made in relation to the development of instrumental skills, as noted in his book of a few years ago, This Is Your Brain On Music.

Unfortunately, social, cognitive, language and linguist psychologist all say the same thing, all behaviours are learned.

The closest definition we have to "natural talent" is an example where a person is has a genetic makeup that mentally and physically makes them suitable for a task, but even at that it can be argued against, by examples of short persons who are great at basketball or persons with short fingers who are good at playing string instruments.

If all behaviours were not learned, this would be cause for serious worry because all neuroscience fields on based on this notion. We make conclusions from behavioural and molecular outcomes with the assumption that it was caused by the animal's response to a rule that it learned.

Concerning music specifically, Oliver Sacks also wrote a good about music and the brain. A bit long to get through though...

MonykaTyche wrote:Unfortunately, social, cognitive, language and linguist psychologist all say the same thing, all behaviours are learned.

No psychologist has ever suggested such a thing. What you're proposing is blank slatism, and no scientist has ever really promoted it (at the very least, no field of science has).

MonykaTyche wrote:The closest definition we have to "natural talent" is an example where a person is has a genetic makeup that mentally and physically makes them suitable for a task, but even at that it can be argued against, by examples of short persons who are great at basketball or persons with short fingers who are good at playing string instruments.

Even if we accepted that there are no complex behaviors like "natural talents" which are genetic, it doesn't change the fact that there are a wealth of innate behaviors which are not learnt (reflexes, fixed-action patterns, etc). Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty radical when it comes to nature-nurture debates and I tend to lean heavily on the "learning" side, but even I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that all behaviors were learnt.

MonykaTyche wrote:If all behaviours were not learned, this would be cause for serious worry because all neuroscience fields on based on this notion. We make conclusions from behavioural and molecular outcomes with the assumption that it was caused by the animal's response to a rule that it learned.

This is terribly incorrect. In another thread, you even mention the field of optogenetics. If all behavior was learnt, and neuroscience only studied learnt behaviors, then how can the field of optogenetics exist?

I've been thinking about it for a few minutes and I can't work out why anyone would say we're all born believers. I certainly wasn't. It may be quite natural to assume that there's a god and it may be common to become a believer early on in life but when we're born we don't have any ideas about anything, surely. Unless there's something I'm missing.

Time to post this again I think....


For those interested in the subject it's well worth an hour of your time if you have not seen it before..

From all the presentations I've attended in the fields I listed, the bottom line did seem to be that language was learned, that social interactions were learned, and that mental schemas are updated as learning takes place, just to name a few examples.
I realize that none of these examples actually point to the mechanisms at play nonetheless, no human is born is any significant ability. We can just use the few cases of the wolf children.


I am not sure why natural talents are being related to reflexes... We are debating the nature of complex actions (e.g., playing the violin) not the tendency to put your hands in front of your face when being on the receiving end of a thrown object. If an individual has the genetic makeup that provides them with the ideal physical makeup to be good at something (reflexes and all), does not imply they will demonstrate a natural talent for that something. The "natural talent" will only be obvious if this person learns the behaviour, regardless of how steep the learning curve is, the "natural talent" will only be cultivated if they practice this talent, which again implies some learning is taking place.


Optogenetics is simply a way to study neural correlates of a designated behaviour. If I have an addiction animal model (where the animal learned to self administer) and I want to isolate if it is D2 or D3 DA receptors that are interacting with whatever it is I have in mind, then instead of making interpolations from histological work, I will simply block whatever receptors and observe the outcomes. The neural outcome is still due to a learned behaviour...

There are basic neural activity (i.e., action potential), but the effect of the pattern of cell activations is a result of what the animal has learned in his life, which is limited in part by the cells' form.

Although, I must say, I have absolutely no argument for cellular activity at prenatal stages

MonykaTyche wrote:From all the presentations I've attended in the fields I listed, the bottom line did seem to be that language was learned, that social interactions were learned, and that mental schemas are updated as learning takes place, just to name a few examples.
I realize that none of these examples actually point to the mechanisms at play nonetheless, no human is born is any significant ability. We can just use the few cases of the wolf children.

Hmm.. I'd certainly be surprised if it were the case that most psychologists and neuroscientists you've heard or spoken to advocated a strong nurturist position, but I'd simply suggest that you're wrong if you think they advocated for blank slatism. It's possible that you're attending conferences that are well advanced in their fields and have demonstrated such a strong influence of the environment on such things, but most psychologists and neuroscientists I know certainly don't hold such positions. Linguists, in particular, argue strongly against the idea that language is learnt.

This isn't to say I disagree with the positions you stated, I think language, social interactions and mental schemas are largely a product of the environment and learning, I would just be surprised if that's the consensus given that it goes against all my experience. Most researchers in these areas hold a position that depends on both nature and nurture, where biological systems provide predispositions towards things, so rather than having a natural talent for playing the violin, a person will be born with (as a highly simplistic example), dexterous fingers, good eye sight, etc, and when given a violin they will pick it up quicker than other people. I think Federico is the only person in the world who seems to think that people can be genetically setup to play the violin.

MonykaTyche wrote:I am not sure why natural talents are being related to reflexes... We are debating the nature of complex actions (e.g., playing the violin) not the tendency to put your hands in front of your face when being on the receiving end of a thrown object. If an individual has the genetic makeup that provides them with the ideal physical makeup to be good at something (reflexes and all), does not imply they will demonstrate a natural talent for that something. The "natural talent" will only be obvious if this person learns the behaviour, regardless of how steep the learning curve is, the "natural talent" will only be cultivated if they practice this talent, which again implies some learning is taking place.

I brought up reflexes because you said "all behavior is learnt", which was too strong a statement - as demonstrated by the behaviors I mentioned that aren't learnt. If that was only meant to refer to more complex behaviors, then I agree that they are usually mostly learnt, with a biological basis. Yes, we can argue that the natural talent will only appear when they practice their talent and suggest that this means learning is a significant component, but conversely we can also argue that without any genetic or biological predisposition towards something, no matter how much you practice you'll never exceed a particular level.

MonykaTyche wrote:Optogenetics is simply a way to study neural correlates of a designated behaviour. If I have an addiction animal model (where the animal learned to self administer) and I want to isolate if it is D2 or D3 DA receptors that are interacting with whatever it is I have in mind, then instead of making interpolations from histological work, I will simply block whatever receptors and observe the outcomes. The neural outcome is still due to a learned behaviour...

There are basic neural activity (i.e., action potential), but the effect of the pattern of cell activations is a result of what the animal has learned in his life, which is limited in part by the cells' form.

I was more referring to cases in optogenetics where they create new fixed-action patterns, but that was based on my understanding that you were suggesting that neuroscience believes all behavior is learnt, rather than all "complex" behavior is learnt.

Thanks for the feedback! a sure outcome on participating on this forum will surely lead to an increase in my ability to express my thoughts in writing.

Reflexes and other basic overt actions were not of the type of beahviour I intended to referred to.

Mr.Samsa wrote:[ Yes, we can argue that the natural talent will only appear when they practice their talent and suggest that this means learning is a significant component, but conversely we can also argue that without any genetic or biological predisposition towards something, no matter how much you practice you'll never exceed a particular level.

this is why I hold the view that genetics will dictate (give/limit) your potential that is cultivated through learning. Once epigenetics advances the relation between nature and nurture should be more clear.

MonykaTyche wrote:Thanks for the feedback! a sure outcome on participating on this forum will surely lead to an increase in my ability to express my thoughts in writing.

Reflexes and other basic overt actions were not of the type of beahviour I intended to referred to.

I thought so, but I was confused by your initial statement because sometimes people try to make the stronger statement about behavior (including reflexes) not having any biological basis. Your clarified position is certainly more reasonable

MonykaTyche wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:[ Yes, we can argue that the natural talent will only appear when they practice their talent and suggest that this means learning is a significant component, but conversely we can also argue that without any genetic or biological predisposition towards something, no matter how much you practice you'll never exceed a particular level.

this is why I hold the view that genetics will dictate (give/limit) your potential that is cultivated through learning. Once epigenetics advances the relation between nature and nurture should be more clear.

No disagreements from me there.