STARTLING revelation of the week comes from Oxford academic Dr Justin Barrett who claims that kids are “wired” to believe in a deity, and if you dumped a bunch of them down on a desert island they would become believers.
Dr Justin Barrett
Those that don’t, we assume, would be beaten with sticks and set alight.
A senior researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, Barrett claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.
He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.
Is Barrett a Christian?
Oh yeah! – and then some! According to Wikipedia:
Barrett is described in the New York Times as a ‘prominent member of the by-product camp’ [‘by-product’ refers to the theory that religion is a by-product of natural selection] and ‘an observant Christian who believes in ‘an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God who brought the universe into being’, [and] ‘that the purpose for people is to love God and love each other’.
Also:
He considers that ‘Christian theology teaches that people were crafted by God to be in a loving relationship with him and other people. Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?’
Curiously, no mention is made of Barrett’s superstitious Christian beliefs in this Telegraph article.
At the beginning of the week, Barrett told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme:
The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.
If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.
In a lecture given at the University of Cambridge’s Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett cited psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.
Natural-born bigots? Pull the other!
In one study, six and seven-year-olds who were asked why the first bird existed replied “to make nice music” and “because it makes the world look nice”.
Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.
Barrett said there is evidence that even by the age of four, children understand that although some objects are made by humans, the natural world is different.
He added that this means children are more likely to believe in creationism rather than evolution, despite what they may be told by parents or teachers.
Barrett claimed anthropologists have found that, in some cultures, children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.
Children’s normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
November 27th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Don’t be too hasty to dismiss his thesis. He may be a Christian who thinks that a predisposition for god-belief is placed in the human mind by God, but that doesn’t invalidate the idea that the human mind may indeed have such a predisposition – it would explain a lot. But such a predisposition would have evolved naturally, with no intervention from a supreme being. Hard-wiring for religious belief probably arrived similarly to hard-wiring for language.
November 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
It may be that there is a predisposition to see causes in nature, and that when there is no obvious explanation humans often invent agents. This seems to me more likely to lead to a belief in gods and spirits than in “God”. So the poor children abandoned on Barrett’s island would most likely end up as animists.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Children don’t have the same kind of capacity to think or dismiss as adults (that’s not to say they’re stupid, just… well, children!) which is why advertisments for toys are so affective. If an advert, or an adult, is persuasive enough then the child is likely to believe them. If I told a child every day from the day they were born that the sky is green and clouds are made of marshmallows and no one tells them otherwise until they’re teenagers, of course they’ll believe it! Same with Christianity or any other religion.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
We also have a capacity to generalise, of course, which may serve a sound evolutionary purpose but does predispose some academics from making tits of themselves.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Werps, should have written ‘to making tits of themselves’ in my previous.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Knowing that Barrett’s first degree was from Calvin College in the USA, which is run by the United Reform Church, tells me all I need to know.
Frankly, he seems to be pretty ‘hardwired’ himself not to look beyond religion for answers.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
The kids would think barney the dinosaur was entertaining – until they knew better.
However – joking aside, its pretty despicable that this chap can be forwarding his theses in the media without some qualification or mention of his background – he needs a warning label if you like!
November 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
If you ask a child such a loaded question as “why was the first bird created?” of course they will give you such an answer. The decent ones will doubtless grow to realise that there wasn’t really such a thing as a “first bird” and that it wasn’t “created”
November 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
It shouldn’t need stating, but whether or not children are predisposed to belive in god(s) has no bearing on whether that belief is true.
Toby Barrett (no relation)
November 27th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I think we should promote this: “Religion is a childish explanation for the world – as discovered by christian Dr Justin Barrett” would make a great bus slogan!!
Rog
November 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
It seems to me to be a foolish argument. After all, if you ask children about things like quantum mechanics, they haven’t got a clue. Just because lots of children believe a thing doesn’t make it right…
November 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“Another experiment on 12-month-old babies suggested that they were surprised by a film in which a rolling ball apparently created a neat stack of blocks from a disordered heap.”
Why is it that Creationists can never discern the difference between evolution and abiogenesis? Then they think we’re supposed to take them seriously when they claim they *know* why evolution is false, yadda yadda yadda.
November 27th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Agree with points above – just because children don’t have an in-built ability to know scientific facts, it doesn’t mean that their “natural” fanciful explanations for things, based on their limited knowlege and experiences, are true. If you ask a kid “why do we have birds?” of course they will try to think of some explanation like “because they sing nicely and look pretty’ – it’s the best explanation they can come up with. It would be amazing if they said: “Because they evolved over tens of millions of years from reptillian ancestors due to natural selection”
November 28th, 2008 at 12:41 am
It’s imprtant to note that Christianity was not invented by children. It is testified strongly, not just by the words of adult witnesses, but by their very lives, as they were willing to abandon all things for it and even die horrible deaths being convinced of its truth. They were in a unique position to know for sure whether what they belived was true or a lie. If they were lying, they knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was not true. Yet they gave their lives testifying it was ablsolutely true. This was not just one witness that could have been lunatic. This is established by multiple witnesses and attestation which cannot be explained by the claim of insanity or collusion since you could not possibly have this many people willing to perpetrate a known lie at the cost of everything, including their very lives and the lives of their loved ones. Especially without any personal gain of any kind in this life, only loss.
This is in stark contrast with religions such as Islam which is established by the testimony of just one eye witness. All subsquent believers simply trusted that witness. They didn’t know for sure whether it was true or not. They chose to believe it was true on the testimony of that one witness.
It’s also worthy of mentioning that it is impossible to explain the existence of the first cell, it’s DNA, and the molecular machine interface needed to make use of the information recorded in the DNA (not to mention the extremely complex behavior of this interface), by pointing to “Evolution”. Even the leading “evolutionist” Richard Dawkins admitted that life must have been intelligently designed. He alludes to “extra-terestrials” refusing to believe in God. As Hank Hanagraff has aptly said, “this doesn’t answer the question of origins, it simply makes the effects more numerous.” And it is impossible to have an infinite regress of effects without a cause!
The fact is that it is impossible for life to come from non-life. It is impossible that life could create itself. Leading evolutionary scientist admit it. But The only alternative is to believe in a creator, and they simply can’t accept the existence of God. For this reason they must believe in “Evolution”.
November 28th, 2008 at 7:45 am
@ Joe Duran
Are you willing to admit that people of other faiths besides Christianity have been willing to be martyred for their religion? You convienently ignore the Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish martyrs, along with the martyrs of countless other faiths. Willingness to die for something in no way makes it true or any more valid.
“There is just not one witness that could have been a lunatic”.
Straw man argument. Of course they weren’t all lunatics, but many of them probably did possess a genuine belief. How many people believe something to be undeniably true only to see that it is false? People once that a geocentric solar system to be undeniably true. Were these people lunatics? No, they just didn’t know any better.
You can’t say that Islam only depends on one man, but that Christianity does not. Even most Christians would tell you that Christianity depends on the one man, and that is the man called Jesus of Nazareth. Of course there were others who followed in his footsteps, but the same is true for Joseph Smith and Guru Nanak and the Buddha and so many other religious leaders.
If you would quit quote-mining, and actually examine the evidence, you would see that there is a great deal of scientific evidence to confirm Evolution. I recommend that you visit talk.origins for some eye-opening presentations of evolution. There is so much more evidence for evolution than you realize. Please examine it.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
What this study says to me is that religious people think like children.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
There is no hardwiring necessary for the world’s many varieties of bullshit; it’s not in our genes. Hardwired (nativist) explanations of cultural institutions and the contents of culture are extremely unlikely to be true, and to my mind are nothing but puerile tosh. As Richard Dawkins points out, “The undoubtedly genetically based predisposition of small children to absorb and believe what their parents tell them creates a fertile breeding ground for mental ‘viruses’ such as religious dogma.” These are products of brainwashing, not biogenetic inheritance. We have this one recognised process, what possible explanatory need is there for the other? That some of us are more gullible than others may well be genetic, the stupidities that some of us share with our culture most definitely aren’t. I’m with Occam and Dawkins.
_____
November 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
@ Joe Duran
Actually, there are explanations for how the first cells likely developed. Just because you are not familiar with them, does not mean that no one has come up with a plausible explanation. Simply put: DNA and did not just appear in its current form, it slowly built up until it reached the complex state we find it in today. Much like, oh, everything else in the entire universe.
Secondly, I would LOVE to see a quote from Dawkins stating that he believes in intelligent design. Not one admitting that it’s a possibility, or something you took out of context, mind you. Because you stating that with no proof does not make it so.
You mention infinite regress like someone who is not entirely familiar with the concept: infinite regress means that there was NO initial cause, otherwise it would not be infinite, would it? Infinite regress is actually an argument against god being the origin of everything. If everything has a cause, and therefore the universe has a cause, and (you arbitrarily decide) that that cause was the Abrahamic god…what caused god? And what caused the thing that caused god? There’s your infinite regress.
You are mixing evolution with abiogensis, the origin of life is not something that “leading evolutionary scientists” specialize in. And again, I would challenge you to produce a quote (that’s not out of context) from even one true “leading evolutionary scientist” that supports intelligent design. And, for the record: anyone who graduated from a Christian university with a science degree is not a scientist, they’re a hypocrite.
Once again: just because you don’t understand how something could happen, doesn’t mean god did it. I don’t know the exact inner workings of a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean I assume that they work by magic, or that god makes them work.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Missing from the discussion is any consideration of whether religious beliefs are actually true. Does “human predisposition toward belief in god” make the truth value of the belief more likely to be true or false, or does it have any impact at all?
The last is clearly the case, though I have lots of sympathy toward the view that it makes a belief less likely to be factually true. We cling to the facts that tend to support a belief, and we ignore the facts that tend to refute it.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:16 am
As several other people have noted, even if the brains of children (or indeed, humans in general) are wired such that we’re “pre-disposed” to believe in a god, or gods, that has zero bearing on the actual existence of said gods.
Our brains are “wired” with any number of pre-dispositions that are false – this is why optical illusions work on us. Some humans are wired with an irrational fear of spiders, or enclosed places – that doesn’t mean spiders are evil, and so on.
Finally – to Joe Duran: Try not to demonstrate your complete ignorance of a topic on a forum in which most participants obviously know more than you do on the subject of your post. Also, stating things like, “The fact is that it is impossible for life to come from non-life” as fact, when it is NOT a fact, and making false attributions to Dr. Dawkins, or “leading evolutionary scientists”, and so on, only shreds any credible argument you might have made.
For Dr. Justin Barrett, I would ask, “If children on an island would develop a belief in a mono-theistic god on their own, why did it take humanity 50,000 years or so to come up with it?” Monotheism isn’t known to have existed before perhaps 5,000 BC; the Greeks, the Egypians, the Incas and older civilations all had polytheistic relgions. Predating them all were pagans and animists.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
A. C. Grayling deals with Justin Barrett’s thesis in the Guardian’s Comment is free here.
January 10th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
@ Teleprompter,
first let me say, thank you for your comments. I appreciate that you consider what I have said to be important enough to spend valuable time commenting on. I also consider what you have said to be pertinent, this is an important issue. Next I’ll say yes, I do recognize that there have been many martyrs of numerous religions, and you are correct that this fact alone doesn’t prove anything.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my first comment, I’ll try to clear up my points. If you’ll look again, I think you will see that I wasn’t looking to their willingness to be martyred alone as proof, I was looking at the fact that they were in a unique position to know for sure whether these things were so or not. These were eye witnesses, just like the eye witnesses of a modern day trial. If we scrutinize the witnesses one at a time we find at least most of them impeccable. They forsook everything that was gain to them and took on a life of persecution, the loss of friends and family, financial ruin, imprisonment, horrible deaths, even the horrible deaths of loved ones, all to proclaim that Jesus is the Lord of life and never to deny it.
You see, if they were lying, if it wasn’t true, they knew it! And they were willing to give up all hope of a good life in this world to announce the “good news” of his coming and work of salvation. All their hope was in that! And as you plainly admitted, they weren’t crazy. So I appreciate you making that point and I hope you now see that I wasn’t using a “straw man” argument. I was making the point that we can be confident that most of these men and women were of sound mind when they gave their lives and the lives of their loved ones for this cause, because instead of them knowing it wasn’t true, they knew that it was true! So thanks for helping me make that point.
Regarding people believing in a geocentric solar system, you’re right, they didn’t know better. In fact if you scrutinize their witness you can easily see that and furthermore they had no way of knowing. Not the case with the eye witnesses of Jesus life, miracles, death, burial and resurrection. Those things they definitely witnessed and knew to be true. I know many have sought diligently to explain away their witness, but to no avail. There explanations don’t hold up to scrutiny.
As for the martyrs of other religions I’ll simply reiterate one of the main differences. Those martyrs were not in that unique position to know for sure whether those things were in fact so or not. They trusted with all their hearts perhaps but didn’t know for sure.
Now I admit that the witnesses of Jesus weren’t able to know just by being witnesses of the things Jesus said and did that Jesus was who he said he was, they did also have faith. And that’s not all they said they witnessed. They also witnessed the work of the Holy Spirit in their own lives and bodies. This is a remarkable claim but it is absolutely clear that they knew for sure if it was true or not and that they knew it was indeed true. So the main difference here is that they knew Jesus didn’t lie about anything varifiable, including his promise of giving to them the Holy Spirit, prediction of his own death, burial and resurrection, ascention, etc. Therefore since he never lied or did any wrong thing to their knowlege and he performed many miracles, some never before seen (including raising people from the dead), and he was resurrected after his body was destroyed on the cross, according to his prediction, and ascended to heaven(again varifying his truthfulness), and gave them the Holy Spirit, their conclusion is very logical. Any other explaination would be in spite of the evidence not a result of the evidence. So there is faith involved, but it is well placed in one who did a remarkable job of demonstrating who he is and who is well worthy of that faith.
Furthermore, since the Holy Spirit of God also testified to Jesus being who he is there are two witnesses to this fact. This meets the Old Testament requirement of two or more witnesses to establish a testimony as having legal weight. This law was established by God to protect against false witnesses. So your claim that it hangs on the testimony of just one man isn’t quite right.
However, with Islam, Mohammed performed no miracles and admitted Jesus had the power over life and death. Also he initially thought he was plagued by demons rather than being visited by an angel. So if you believe him you must believe it was demonic and you must believe it is angelic because he gave two opposing witnesses, which is nonsense. So we can believe it was from demons or from angels, but not both. If you agree that he was mistaken you can believe he was mistaken on one or the other point or even both, but how do you determine which of these is the case? Not only that but since there is truely only one witness, it fails the Old Testament requirement of two or more witnesses, so it has no legal weight according to the Old Testament law. Since this law was intended to protect against false witnesses I’m glad it was in place because I see that it has been effective in light of these things.
As far as Mormonism, Joseph Smith affirmed the truthfulness of the Bible and denied the truthfullness of the Bible which is nonsense. Also many problems with the Book of Mormon have been discovered, not only with grammer, etc. but also in the claims of Hebrew ancestry for the Native Americans which both Anthropology and DNA evidence clearly proves incorrect. It’s not necessary to point out other serious problems with it.
Additionally, the Book of Abraham has been demonstrated conclusively to be a hoax. Not to mention that their belief in an infinite regress of Gods is illogical and contradictory to the Bible which clearly states that God is the only God, before him was no God formed nor will there be one after him (Isaiah 43:10,11)which is a perfectly logical statement.
As far as the infinite regress of causes being a viable concept, I can offer these thoughts. First, since each and every one of these hypothetical “infinite causes” are completely dependant and derived on that which came before, they are not properly causes at all but rather they are all merely effects! The infinite regress of causes is a misnomer, it is more correctly called an infinite regress of effects without a cause! All known scientific evidence and personal experience shows that every effect requires an adequate cause. The scientific method itself is only viable if there is a cause and effect relationship. Why then are people convinced that to multiply the effect by infinity suddenly removes the requirement for a cause?! The infinite regress explanation is simply an “optical illusion”, to use that figuratively, and you have just deceived yourselves.
Consider for a moment this mental exercise, pick a second in the past that occurred an infinity ago. Now, lay hold on the second immediately after that. When did that second happen? An infinity ago! Now grab the second a million seconds after that. When did that second happen? Still an infinity ago! There is no way you will ever get closer to the present second!
Now if that first second you grabbed turned out to be a finite time ago you could go to the second before it. How long ago did that second happen? I don’t know either but I can tell you for sure it happened a finite time ago. This is because a finite number added to a finite number is always a finite number. OK, go back a million seconds before that. How long ago did that second happen? Still a finite time ago! Do you see the problem? It is impossible to traverse the infinite! The material universe has not endured through an infinite past!
As far as God requiring a maker, I’ll say that God is the absolute First Cause. Clearly since it can be domonstrated that the material universe can’t have endured through an infinite past and must have a cause, the cause itself cannot be bound by these short comings and must transcend time itself somehow. Well, God is eternal in the sense that He has no beginning or end and that He transcends time, according to the scriptures. Amazing how the scriptures make such sense of these difficult issues isn’t it? HE is the author of time as the scriptures explain that He created the ages which concept includes time. He is spirit, non material and therefore is not bound by the material experience of time. He is omnipresent in space and time if you will. That’s just a way of explaining it because I don’t have perfect understanding of it. But the God of the Bible is clearly the only sensible explaination for the existence of reality as science, math and logic reveal it to be.
Hinduism claims that all things happen as a result of Karma, whether they be good or bad (there is no sensible mechanism of action given for this). They also affirm that there was an absolute beginning. These two things are ligically incompatible! How could the first good or bad thing happen if there was no preceding good or bad thing by which to be caused?! It is The First good or bad thing! There is no good or bad thing before it by which it can be caused.
Buddhism also affirms the erroneous concept of Karma and denies the existence of self which does not correspond to reality.
All the other religions likewise have fatal problems, including Atheism. Christianity is the only faith that holds up to scrutiny. It is the only faith that makes sense of existence and purpose. It is the only faith that gives us confidence in having everlasting relationship with a God who is perfectly Good, Holy and Righteous and who loves us. Which thing I desire greatly, though that was not always the case. I’m glad He is patient and merciful.
As for the evidence for “Evolution” I appreciate the web site you recommend. I will take a look at it. But let me point out some science for you. The Law of Biogenesis is a Law of science. It is a law because hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, experimentation and evidence has supported the statement made by this law, that all life comes from preceding life and that after its own kind. I’m somewhat suprized that you don’t immediately see the ramifications of this law. Perhaps they simply haven’t made you aware of it. You see, “Evolution” claims that life came from non-life and, at least some times, from some other kind of life. For there to be real evidence for “Evolution” there would have to be real evidence that one of these two things had happend. So if there was any solid evidence at all for “Evolution”, the Law of Biogenisis would not be a law because there would be evidence that contradicts its claim. But we now see that the Law of Biogenesis is a Law of Science and that “Evolution” is an hypothesis at best. I’m being generous.
As for Bryans comments, I also appreciate your interest in what I have said. First let me address your correction of my claim that it is impossible to explain the origin of the first cell. You are both correct and incorrect. While there are explanations for how Atheists think life may have started, they are not likely. In light of the fact that the author of the explanation of “chemical evolution” has since repudiated the idea noticing that you not only must have DNA in place you also need the “hardware” of the cell in place and the “molecular machine” “interface” to make use of the information stored by the DNA and to have a living cell, we are convinced that what ever explanation you allude to is not “likely”. Life couldn’t happen slowly, a little at a time. It had to happen very quickly, all at once. But then, that’s creationism. Which you discount off hand before examining the evidence not because of it.
Additionally, you must explain the appearance of information. Imagine if you will an author writing a fiction novel, and in that novel his characters were to design and build a machine far, far more sophisticated than anything man has ever done before. Imagine that it included new processes for engineering new materials never dreamed of before and new types of machinery to do new tasks never thought of before, etc., etc. Now imagine that after you read it you tried like a mad man to see if this made-up system could actually work. And after years of effort to develope the processes and material it actuall worked! The chemical processes actually corresponded with reality. It turned out that the made up materials were actually real materials! And the whole thing actually worked just as the author had penned it! Wow! Coincidence? I think not! Imagine if the author was a random number generator.
AS for Dawkins comment, see the film “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed”. Check out what he actually says and the context in which he says it and tell me it aint so. He admits intelligent design but denies it is God who done it. He alludes to extraterestrials. Which “doesn’t solve the problem of causes it only makes the effects more numerous” as Hank Hannagraff has correctly noted.
It’s also worth remembering that some of the most brilliant minds in science believed in God, because it makes sense to a brilliant mind who knows the evidence and is honest. Even hard core “Evolutionists” are persuaded to change their positions when forced repeatedly to face the facts. Anthony Flew is just one notable example. You can claim any reason you want for why he changed his mind but if you listen to his own testimony he says he just whent where the evidence led him.
Thank you for your time.