/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study



Uthman
05-14-2011, 04:04 PM
Humans are naturally predisposed to believe in gods and life after death, according to a major three-year international study.

Led by two academics at Oxford University, the £1.9 million study found that human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts.

But people living in cities in highly developed countries were less likely to hold religious beliefs than those living a more rural way of life, the researchers found.

The project involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world, and spanned disciplines including anthropology, psychology, and philosophy.

It set out to establish whether belief in divine beings and an afterlife were ideas simply learned from society or integral to human nature.

One of the studies, from Oxford, concluded that children below the age of five found it easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations.

Children were asked whether their mother would know the contents of a closed box. Three-year-olds believed that their mother and God would always know the contents, but by the age of four, children start to understand that their mothers were not omniscient.

Separate research from China suggested that people across different cultures instinctively believed that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lived on after death.

The co-director of the project, Professor Roger Trigg, from the University of Oxford, said the research showed that religion was “not just something for a peculiar few to do on Sundays instead of playing golf”.

“We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies,” he said.

“This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.”

Dr Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, who directed the project, said faith may persist in diverse cultures across the world because people who share the bonds of religion “might be more likely to cooperate as societies”.

“Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.”

Source
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
05-14-2011, 04:07 PM
very true...
not the first study of its kind but certainly quite interesting!
Reply

aadil77
05-14-2011, 04:16 PM
it don't take £2m to work that out, just a bit of common sense
Reply

Ramadhan
05-14-2011, 06:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
it don't take £2m to work that out, just a bit of common sense
Are you saying die hard atheists have no common sense? :D

This study only conform what Allah has told us through Rasulullah SAW that we were imprinted with the knowledge of God (swt) before we were born, and only our upbringing and environment that change it.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
-Elle-
05-14-2011, 11:02 PM
Jazak'Allah kher, does anyone have any more articles (maybe more detailed) about similar studies?
Reply

Zafran
05-14-2011, 11:09 PM
salaam

Fitrah (Inate goodness)

peace
Reply

جوري
05-14-2011, 11:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by houda~
Jazak'Allah kher, does anyone have any more articles (maybe more detailed) about similar studies?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ic-claims.html

not sure it is more detailed but it is a similar study involving children...
Reply

Perseveranze
05-14-2011, 11:46 PM
1.9m to confirm common sense lol
Reply

CosmicPathos
05-15-2011, 12:04 AM
lol Trumble will now jump in and say "exactly, belief in God/gods was easy to accept for primitive man or even animal-man in order make sense of his emergence out of no-where through evolution but it does not mean such belief is right. It is perhaps only a sub-conscious adaptation to the haunting reality of existence and we atheists have overcome that, sort of new evolution."

we can read your mind, which is not hidden anymore unlike those in sand *referring to the ostrich pic you posted earlier*
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 01:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
"exactly, belief in God/gods was easy to accept for primitive man or even animal-man in order make sense of his emergence out of no-where through evolution but it does not mean such belief is right. It is perhaps only a sub-conscious adaptation to the haunting reality of existence and we atheists have overcome that, sort of new evolution."
Lol!
It sounds very trumble-ish though it could have easily been from him! :D
Reply

Trumble
05-15-2011, 03:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mad_scientist
we can read your mind
If you could, you would know that my mind is just as 'rooted' to religious concepts as that of anyone else here! They just happen to be different ones from yours, and do not involve that of God. Actually, I'm not all surprised by the results of the study. The only difference is in the degree of sophistication and realization of those concepts, which is an 'evolutionary' process - but one of history and culture, not of natural selection.

Note, incidently, that despite the thread title, the article refers not to "belief in God' but to 'belief in divine beings and an afterlife" and "supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life". Hence it's findings would be just as applicable to Vikings or ancient Egyptians as for modern muslims or Christians.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-27-2011, 11:25 PM
Last time I checked history and culture didn't make people NATURALLY PREDISPOSED to things.
Reply

Trumble
05-28-2011, 12:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Last time I checked history and culture didn't make people NATURALLY PREDISPOSED to things.
May I suggest you 'check' your understanding of my last? AS I SAID the research suggests a natural predisposition to RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS, not to a monotheistic God exclusively as the thread title implies (i.e. such concepts include pantheistic and polytheistic beliefs, and indeed those of religions such as Buddhism and Daoism). It is WHAT THOSE CONCEPTS ARE that is the result of different histories and cultures. Hence your religious beliefs are not the same as those of an Ancient Egyptian, although you both - it is suggested - were/are naturally predisposed to have religious beliefs of some sort.
Reply

IAmZamzam
05-31-2011, 12:46 AM
Can you really do no better than to try so weakly to divert the issue from your ludicrous and desperate claim that culture and history can change people's inherent predispositions from birth to the absence of some specific trait of the predisposition I never even claimed was there?
Reply

selsebil
05-31-2011, 08:16 AM
Assalaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,

Scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi RA says:

" Without any shadow of a doubt, man cannot live without religion, aimlessly. He cannot. Even the most irreligious person is compelled to take refuge in religion. For the only point of support for impotent man in the face of the innumerable disasters and the external and internal enemies that plague him, and the only point from which he may seek help and assistance in the face of the innumerable needs with which he is afflicted, and his desires that stretch to eternity, despite his utter want and poverty, is in recognizing the Maker of the world, in faith, and in believing and affirming the hereafter. There is no help for awakened mankind apart from this.
If the jewel of true religion is not present in the shell of the heart, material, moral, and spiritual calamities of untold magnitude will break loose over humanity and man will become the most unhappy, the most wretched, of animals."

http://www.lightofquran.info/damascus.htm
Reply

Trumble
06-02-2011, 11:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Can you really do no better than to try so weakly to divert the issue from your ludicrous and desperate claim that culture and history can change people's inherent predispositions from birth to the absence of some specific trait of the predisposition I never even claimed was there?
My 'claim' is quite clear, and far from from being 'ludicrous and desperate' is both straightforward and, I would have thought, quite uncontroversial. It's just a pity you can't peer over the top of your vastly over-inflated ego long enough to admit you have made a straightforward comprehension mistake as a result of not reading carefully enough. We all do it occasionally, nothing to be ashamed of.

I have NOWHERE claimed that culture and and history are either responsible for, or can change people's inherent dispositions. I 'claimed' what to my mind is obvious, as illustrated by the example I gave, that the particular religious concepts in which any such natural predisposition is manifested are shaped by culture and history. How else would you possibly explain the huge diversity in religious views?

Read more carefully next time and you won't make a fool of yourself.
Reply

GuestFellow
06-02-2011, 11:51 PM
Salaam,

£1.9 million study? That is too expensive. :skeleton:
Reply

Ramadhan
06-03-2011, 03:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Guestfellow
Salaam, £1.9 million study? That is too expensive.
Researchers also have home mortgages to pay, you know. It's better to lavish funds on science, research and studies, than on frivolous expenses, like MPs holiday benefits
Reply

Dagman
06-05-2011, 06:37 AM
Actually this doesn't prove anything like you guys are trying to make out to do.

A proclivity to believe in God does not in any way mean that there is a God. There's a clear distinction that must be made there.

Religion has existed for millenia, long before Islam or Christianity or even Judaism existed. Why? Well there are many reasons and they have evolved with time, but essentially it comes down to humans needing to give our existence meaning.
Reply

al yunan
06-05-2011, 07:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagman
but essentially it comes down to humans needing to give our existence meaning.

All the Hindu deities plus the ancient world Gods Egyptian, Greek and Roman their combined effort could not give your existence meaning or value.
Reply

Dagman
06-05-2011, 08:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by al yunan
All the Hindu deities plus the ancient world Gods Egyptian, Greek and Roman their combined effort could not give your existence meaning or value.
If you think that insulting me instead of addressing my posts is going to dissuade me you are sadly mistaken.
Reply

GuestFellow
06-05-2011, 09:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dagman
Well there are many reasons and they have evolved with time, but essentially it comes down to humans needing to give our existence meaning.
Well all humans desire some sort of meaning to their existence.
Reply

جوري
06-05-2011, 02:34 PM
I am not sure why you guys deigned to write a reply to this troll?

:w:
Reply

Dirt 101
06-08-2011, 07:30 PM
'...part of human nature.'

Every candle, potentially, has from within itself the ability to dispell darkness.

From those constituent elements from which it is made... inherently and potentially, the ability to dispell darkness,
both for itself and whatever is nearby.

But this can only happen if and when the candle is lit from another burning candle. An electric, battery-powered candle can't do it. Paper matches? A cigarette lighter? Well... this is an analogy, after all.

Two or three or a boxful of unlit candles are as useless as... you name it.

One lit candle... I'm sure, would feel much better having purpose in it's life; providing and performing service with the only
gift it's life can give, which is light, illumination, removing the darkness... which is no small thing, after all.
Reply

IAmZamzam
06-08-2011, 11:36 PM
Trumble, your exact words were, "The only difference is in the degree of sophistication and realization of those concepts, which is an 'evolutionary' process - but one of history and culture, not of natural selection." I replied that the last time I checked history and culture did not make people naturally predisposed to anything whatsoever. That you accuse me of egotistically misunderstanding your exact words when the very subject you were responding to in the first place is over BABIES BEING BORN WITH AN INHERENT PREDISPOSITION ALREADY IN THEM, not due to anything history and culture might have brought them, is an irony so tremendous it would be offensive were it not so funny. Or maybe it's the other way around.

Let me guess: you're going to try to redefine what you said as some kind of unrealistic scenario in which history and culture put the ideas in people's heads at birth via evolution, even though you quite deliberately put the word evolution in quotation marks before. Am I somewhere in the ballpark?

This will probably be the last argument I ever let myself get into on this board. It's just too aggravating. Posting here (or virtually anywhere) is like regularly going to social activities where most every day someone ropes you into playing chess with them and every single person there plays exactly the same game, move for move, or otherwise is equally predictable. I have a lower tolerance for repetition and changelessness than I should already; if I keep this up it's going to drive me to insanity.
Reply

Trumble
06-12-2011, 12:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Trumble, your exact words were, "The only difference is in the degree of sophistication and realization of those concepts, which is an 'evolutionary' process - but one of history and culture, not of natural selection."
They were indeed.

I replied that the last time I checked history and culture did not make people naturally predisposed to anything whatsoever.
So you did (do you 'check' that often?). That reply was irrelevant as I made no such claim, as I explained in my last. To me the distinction between inherent predispositions and the products of such predispositions in thought and behaviour is crystal clear, I really can't see where you are trying to go.

That you accuse me of egotistically misunderstanding your exact words when the very subject you were responding to in the first place is over BABIES BEING BORN WITH AN INHERENT PREDISPOSITION ALREADY IN THEM, not due to anything history and culture might have brought them, is an irony so tremendous it would be offensive were it not so funny. Or maybe it's the other way around.
Can you 'egotistically misunderstand' something? No, I accused you of being unwilling to accept you had made a simple mistake and it seems the situation has not changed. The rest of that is plain gibberish, caps or no. I was expanding the discussion simply to make the point that the inherent predisposition in question was NOT that of 'belief in God', as the title states. Belief in God is one possible manifestation of such an inherent predisposition, not the only one.

An inherent predisposition might as well not exist if not manifested in some form or other. Indeed it's arguable such a thing cannot exist at all without such a manifestation - ontologically speaking what sort of thing is an 'inherent predisposition'?

Let me guess: you're going to try to redefine what you said as some kind of unrealistic scenario in which history and culture put the ideas in people's heads at birth via evolution, even though you quite deliberately put the word evolution in quotation marks before. Am I somewhere in the ballpark?
No. You aren't even in the right city. At least credit me with being about to post something that actually makes sense even if you are struggling to understand the issues being discussed. 'History and culture put ideas in people's heads at birth via evolution'. Er, what? Complete nonsense, as you are perfectly well aware.

Just as with any other sort of inherent predisposition (if we are assuming a Jungian type model of such things) what there is at birth is essentially a form of processing machinery. It can only process data it receives after birth, obviously - assuming purely for the sake of argument that conciousness starts at that time, anyway. It is not a belief in itself; sensory data goes in one end and the belief or beliefs come out the other.

This will probably be the last argument I ever let myself get into on this board. It's just too aggravating. Posting here (or virtually anywhere) is like regularly going to social activities where most every day someone ropes you into playing chess with them and every single person there plays exactly the same game, move for move, or otherwise is equally predictable. I have a lower tolerance for repetition and changelessness than I should already; if I keep this up it's going to drive me to insanity.
Your call. May I humbly suggest, though, you might consider the possibility that you yourself are as responsible for your frustrations as anyone else? The only common denominator in the arguments you find so irritating is, after all, yourself.
Reply

IAmZamzam
07-04-2011, 09:52 AM
As a matter of fact, Trumble, I am, at least in all practical respects, the only person responsible for my frustrations. What you have interpreted elsewhere as me "running off and sulking" at a predictable outcome you thought I somehow didn't see coming was just me running out of what little patience I had left--the time and thread could just as easily have been any other at that point--and if it has caused me to be unfair to you or anyone else then I'm sorry. Message boards, I feel, will be the death of me if I continue getting into the same arguments thirty times each per year. I honestly don't even know how anyone with a lot more patience than myself can endure them. That's why I've hardly been discussing theology at all outside of direct dawah lately, and I'm gradually learning to stop entirely, and as you can see I'm already starting to get less crabby for it. Had I continued I'm sure that in another month I would have easily given vale's lily a run for her money, as she herself has predicted before.

As for discussion of inherent dispositions I don't think the very idea of a thread on anything that isn't about people's current actions as adults now was a good idea in the first place and neither you nor I should have even bothered to participate. I'm resurrecting the thread (I can just hear Pygoscelis's typically literal-minded wisecracking now) to say in a place where it seems the most appropriate that you won't have to worry about me being so short with you anymore. It's so much more peaceful staying out of all that s-word. One final word: I suggest that you do the same, because frankly you are at times every bit as bad as I can get. It could do you good to quit.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!