David Mills Explains Religious Belief
In his Atheist Universe David Mills is asked by an interviewer: “But why so many people believe in God?” He replies: “Because, again, they were taught to believe as small children and because almost everybody they know believes in God also. We should recognize that all children are born as atheists. There is no child born with religious belief.” (29)
Well, slap me silly. If this generation were taught to believe as children by the previous generation, how did that previous generation itself come to believe? Were, they, too, taught by their parents? And the latter by theirs? Are we not having an infinite regress here, a favorite atheistic trick? Surely, we must at some point come to a time when Christianity was confined just to Jesus’s 12 apostles. They were not taught by their parents, were they? Nobody they knew were Christians. Why did they believe? And how did Christianity spread and increase in influence generation after generation, often against impossible odds? Why, for example, did so many people die for their faith? These are the questions Mills should be asking.
Now Mills might reply that having gained so many followers, Christianity has become self-sustaining. Yet he himself writes, correctly, that “We tend to believe that, once knowledge has been acquired and technology developed by man, these gains are ‘locked in’ and the future will only build upon these past achievements. But history argues forcefully against such an optimistic assumption.” (49) The very same point applies to any religious tradition. Truths about God must be relearned and defended and taught anew by each generation. One slip, and it’s all over. Thus, secondly, Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, and Judaism for thousands of years longer. Why, I want to ask Mills, has the Church endured for so long? It would have taken a single generation that mostly refused to believe, and Christianity would have withered, contrary to our Lord’s proclamation that “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Mt 16:18) The Church has continued triumphant, and its teachings have been preserved and deepened. How?
Mill’s pleads that “all children are born as atheists,” as if it meant something. Well, all children are born not knowing their parents’ names, that the earth is round, that 2 + 2 = 4; in fact, they seem to be born with no knowledge at all. Should they therefore stay ignorant? Or should they learn as much as they can, including about God?
Posted: February 22nd, 2007 under Philosophy, Religion.
Comments
Comment from Jean Luc-Antony
Time May 30, 2007 at 4:50 pm
The claim that children are born as atheists is among the most ridiculous, ignorant claims I’ve heard come from the atheist camp. At most, children are noncognitivists, which means they do not have the resources to ponder or understand questions pertaining to the existence of God.
Mills, the philosophically depraved person he must be, is working under the assumption that atheism is the absence of belief in God. He fails to consider the absurd consequences of such an outdated view. (It means, e.g., that Craig’s cat Muff is an atheist, or that bees, lions, and cockroaches are all atheists.)
Nontheist =/= atheist. Mills is wrong.
Comment from Landon
Time June 8, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I think that Mills is half correct, as are you. The vast majority of theists do not actually undertake a critical study of the evidence for their faith. In fact, most simply accept their beliefs from authority figures–whether they be parents, pastors, or apologists who they know of but may not have read. In this sense, much of religious faith is indeed taken on tradition. Also, it’s possible that Christianity, being the social norm for centuries (wasn’t it?), was strengthened by a lack of dissent. So in a way, Mills is correct to assert that tradition and acceptance of an authority figure are primary reasons for the continued success of Christianity.
However, I understand your concern that this is a very crude analysis on Mills’ part. In regards to children being born as atheists, I have actually argued the same thing before, though perhaps not the same as Mills has argued it (it’s been quite some time since I’ve read this book). I’m interested in the “intuitive theists” theory that JD Walters mentioned, but I’m quite skeptical about it. As to Jean Luc-Antony’s comments, I think there might be a misunderstanding about exactly what is being asserted. When somebody says that children are born as atheists, they are not necessarily implying that children are born believing the truth of the proposition “God does not exist.” Instead, they are born without any opinion on the matter. You might call them “agnostics” (in the sense that they have not committed to belief or to disbelief, not in the sense that they believe it’s impossible to know one way or another). Jean says “Nontheist =/= atheist,” but this might very well be a subjective opinion on wording, since the English prefix “a” means “not.” Adding “theist” would make “not theist” or “non theist.” This might have been how the early Ancient Greeks used the word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology). In any case, an argument can be made that non theism is indeed atheism, but these trivial wording matters don’t really affect the actual issue.
(By the way, Jean Luc-Antony, since you believe that “The claim that children are born as atheists is among the most ridiculous, ignorant claims” you’ve ever heard from atheists, would it be fair to say that JD Walters’ comment that “More and more cognitive scientists are beginning to accept the idea that infants may be ‘intuitive theists’ for whom believing in a super-powerful, all-knowing, invisible creator being comes quite naturally” is one of the most ignorant claims you’ve heard from the Christian camp?)
Comment from Dmitry Chernikov
Time June 9, 2007 at 12:11 am
Landon,
- Why are pastors or apologists accepted as authority figures?
- Why should these authority figures pick Christianity as the doctine to promote and not some other set of beliefs?
- Why has Christianity been the social norm for centuries?
- Lack of dissent? Are you serious? There have been hundreds of false ideas concerning faith and heresies over the two thousand years of the Church’s history.
Comment from Landon
Time June 9, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Dmitry,
(1) It is hard to determine exactly why people take pastors as authority figures, since it doesn’t seem to be a very rational thing to do in this so-called “Age of Reason.” I could suggest a couple of possibilities, however: (1) Perhaps some Christians believe that their pastors have had some sort of spiritual enlightenment (depending upon how convincing and sincere the pastor sounds during his sermons), or (2) Maybe a personal relationship between the person and the pastor has allowed the person to invest a certain amount of trust in what the pastor is saying. And as David Mills points out in his book, most pastors are good at preaching the Bible but not very good when it comes to proving the Bible. Which moves us to the next point.
(2) Apologists can be used as authority figures for entirely different reasons. If the apologist seems to be a rational person who has weighed the evidence and has come to the conclusion that Christianity is true, it tends to put them in a position of authority (perhaps even more powerful than the pastor’s authority). Often times when I watch a debate with Dr. William Lane Craig, or when I read one of his articles, I’m simply amazed at his ability to systematically argue for whatever position he is defending. This in itself, despite the fact that I haven’t yet read any of Dr. Craig’s books, puts me in a position to invest a certain amount of trust in him. “How could somebody who seems so rational actually be overlooking the important evidence? He is so sincere, and so intelligent. Maybe he’s right…” The same can obviously be said about atheists investing trust in an authority–some people might do the same for Richard Carrier or Michael Martin. The fact is, somebody who sounds convincing when arguing for one thing can be used as an authority figure in regards to other things. I trust Dr. Craig enough to believe that his critique of naturalism must have *some* substantially good arguments. So even without having read his book-length critiques, I’m predisposed to not invest too much trust in naturalism. Do you understand my point?
I’ve been trying to work in the area of epistemology for some time now. From my observations thus far, I would argue that using people as an authority is a way that some people come to believe what they believe. Do you disagree?
(3) I am not arguing that any particular authority figures should pick one doctrine over another. Perhaps the pastor had his own authority as he was growing in his faith–a previous pastor, or an apologist. It must certainly be the case that there are several good-hearted pastors across the United States who have not undertaken a comprehensive study of the historicity of the gospels or the arguments for and against the existence of God. Some pastors are just pastors because they came to know the “Truth” when they were young and they were able preachers. Apologists, on the other hand, have usually actually looked at the evidence and came to a decisions. There are two possibilities here: (1) The apologist carefully examined all of the evidence without bias, and came to the decision that Christianity was true, or (2) The apologist was a believer to begin with (perhaps because of an authority figure), and decided to try to find the evidence to confirm his or her belief. The same can be said of other sets of beliefs, so don’t think that I’m singling out Christianity as the only authority-based system. According to philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (in “The Fixation of Belief”), it is quite natural for people to use this method in coming to their beliefs. You should read his essay here if you’re interested: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html
(4) I’m not entirely sure why Christianity has been the social norm, or if it even has. I merely postulated a reason for people to believe which would explain the fact that some people believe without undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the evidence. There have surely been times and places where the social norm was Christianity, and this would strengthen the faith by helping to enlist the next generation. Peirce’s essay might be helpful here as well. However, the fact that Christianity has been the social norm in certain times and places should not lead you to believe that its main tenets are true. The same can be said of Islam or Hinduism. It depends upon the time and the place where the particular faith has prospered.
(5) My point about the lack of dissent was apparently misunderstood by you. I do not mean to claim that there have never been dissenting voices within Christianity (I hope I don’t seem *that* dull), but the lack of dissent point was supposed to be another aspect of the social norm argument. In the places where Christianity prospered, it may be the case that the absence of people declaring Christianity to be false strengthened peoples’ belief that it was true. I hope you now understand.
Overall, I see no reason to believe that every Christian of every generation has studied the evidence. Therefore, I suggest that we need to look at belief more realistically. David Mills was somewhat correct when he stated what he did, but it is certainly clear that he has not analyzed the situation enough. Do you disagree with my analysis that many people simply believe because it is traditional to believe, or because they choose authority figures? Do you agree with me that times and places where Christianity prospered and acted as the social norm (with a lack of dissent) could partially account for the cultural success of the faith? I might be wrong, but so far the evidence seems to be convincing me that I’m correct on these points.
Comment from Dmitry Chernikov
Time June 9, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Landon,
The age of reason is the best age for faith, as well.
> So even without having read his book-length critiques, I’m predisposed to not invest too much trust in naturalism.
If you are serious about studying philosophy, you should pick an area you are interested in and learn all there is to know about it and make your own opinion. We all have our intuitions and perhaps some infused grace which point us in some direction or other, but that direction can change with progress in learning.
> I’m not entirely sure why Christianity has been the social norm, or if it even has.
Be careful, lest you come up with pseudo-explanations. Saying that “Christianity was the social norm” is the same as saying that at some time or another lots of people believed in the Christian articles of faith and influenced those others who did not yet believe. But the question is precisely how the critical mass of believers was reached.
It is rather like attributing teenage crime to “peer pressure.” But what is peer pressure but other teenagers committing crimes and inviting their buddies to come along?
This particular fallacy is called reification: regarding something abstract as a material or concrete thing with its own causal powers.
> I see no reason to believe that every Christian of every generation has studied the evidence.
No, of course not. If we make the time-honored distinction between “the simple” or “the vulgar” and “the philosophers,” then only the latter have studied these matters. But it is up to them then to teach the former what they have discovered, while perhaps omitting the subtleties and technical details.
Comment from Landon
Time June 10, 2007 at 12:01 am
Dmitry,
(1) I *am* interested in philosophy, and I will be studying certain areas in great detail in the near future. Naturalism is, of course, one of them. I stated that the fact that I know that somebody such as William Lane Craig has critiqued metaphysical naturalism automatically makes me somewhat cautious about investing too much “faith” in the concept, but I didn’t mean to convey that I’m so shallow that I have decided to reject naturalism based on that fact. My purpose in stating that was to give you an example of how it works to take an apologist as an authority.
(2) I understand your concern with “reification.” However, I don’t believe that Christianity being the social norm in some locations at some times is a purely abstract hypothesis. I believe that it must surely be the case that at some places and times, Christianity was the social norm. This is no difficult concession. The question becomes, is this fact alone enough to account for a growing number of believers? I would suggest that it is, because the lack of any great amount of dissent in such a place would lead younger generations to adopt the belief more readily, as it would seem to be a cultural tradition. I can personally attest to method of belief, since my introduction to Christianity (and my subsequent beliefs) were formed in this manner.
(3) I’m glad that you concede that not all Christians have good reasons to believe. Apologists *do* attempt to reach out to the less-informed and give them more rational reasons for believing what they already believe, as you said. However, Mills’ point was that there are many Christians who do not have good reasons to believe (those who subscribe to the methods of belief I have outlined). His point is correct, despite the fact that he did not analyze the situation enough. Your objection to Mills’ point seems to inflate the actual claim Mills was making. I assume that he would not claim that *no* Christian has good reasons to believe. The main point for consideration is that many (if not most) Christians have only bad reasons for belief. This is why I stated that “I think Mills is half correct” in my first post. Do you agree with me that Mills was correct in his assertion (assuming that he was not talking about *all* Christians)? If not, what parts of my reasoning aren’t convincing? Do you actually believe that most Christians have good reasons for believing?
Comment from Dmitry Chernikov
Time June 10, 2007 at 12:21 pm
There have been enough true, intelligent, and passionate believers who made Christianity so widespread and influential.
Comment from Landon
Time June 10, 2007 at 1:01 pm
So are you disagreeing with my assertion that many Christians have believed (and currently do) without good reasons? Do you disagree with my analysis that many people come to believe what they do based on tradition and authority, and that this has almost surely been the case for Christianity as well as most (if not all) other religious faiths? You seem to be avoiding the conclusion that is glaring you in the face: David Mills was halfway correct so long as you don’t over-inflate his position as you seem to have done in your post. Forgive me if I don’t find your one sentence response to be suitably equipped to refute the argument I have outlined.
Comment from Dmitry Chernikov
Time June 10, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I don’t know why other people believe in God; but I speculate that they believe for a variety of reasons. Are you aware of any studies or polls done to determine people’s reasons for their belief in God?
Comment from Janet Greene
Time February 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I would like to briefly share my story. I am the daughter of a fundamentalist protestant father and went to church every sunday until age 18. I was in teh choir, bible studies, youth group, and sunday school. From the time I was about 8 or 9, I accepted Jesus into my heart at every opportunity and prayed like crazy; then waited for jesus to take away my bad thoughts. Never worked. I kept asking Jesus into my heart because I was never quite sure of my salvation; this persisted for years. Every alter call; there was me going to the front again. I was terrified that I would be left behind in the rapture; every time mom and dad were not there I was certain the rapture had come and I was left behind (I still have post-traumatic stress about this).
I lived in constant terror; that my dad would kill me (being a godly man, he might be tested like godly men in teh bible – and what if god did not stay his hand???) I read the horror stories in the bible; hundreds of stories where god commanded people to murder, genocide, rape, kidnap of virgins, throwing babies against walls, etc. I tried to accommodate the god of the OT with the merciful god of the NT since now, the old laws no longer applied, right? Wrong. Jesus came to fulfill the law. And Jesus is God. And God is the same yesterday, today and forever. I knew in my soul that god was still the angry and jealous god of the old testament. I had questions; why was it ok for god to do all these terrible things when people would be arrested and thrown in jail for the same things?
I struggled internally for years as a christian. Church did not feed my soul and neither did the bible. Only made me more confused and frightened. I developed a serious eating disorder as a teenager; my dad refused to take us for family therapy because it would be a poor example for others in the church if the pastor could not deal with his own family. He said he would be my coiunselor. Things went from bad to worse. I became a cocaine addict and married an abusive man (not much different from the fear-inspiring, jealous, violent and angry god I had come to know, actually).
I was in a life or death struggle. Why had christianity failed me when I had prayed so hard and so long? Why did god not answer my prayers? Why would a loving god create billions of people when most of them would burn in hell forever simply for not believing in Jesus? Why did the bible contradict common sense and science over and over? Was lack of belief enough to warrant eternal torture? Would I do that to my child who disagreed with me? Why why why? I started to read and learn with a vengence. I was on a quest for truth. It took years and years of searching, but one day I realized that I no longer believed any of it. I was free! Christianity was a myth; a scam! The bible was written by ignorant nomads thousands of years ago. It had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with control.
I was angry for years when I discoverd that I had been so badly deceived. Now I have gotten past it and rejoice in my atheism. I now have a conscionce; I am no longer motivated by fear of hell or reward of heaven; I do good for others because of compassion and empathy, as well as a deep feeling that we are all somehow connected.
I don’t know if you will allow this post to continue on your website, but I hope you do.
Thanks for listening to my story.
Comment from Dmitry Chernikov
Time February 11, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Your story is poignant, but I would suggest that Christianity is quite a bit more subtle than you give it credit for. Also, have you considered the possibility that God gave you a test “like [to] godly men in the Bible,” and you have so far failed to be reconciled to Him?
The case for God does not begin with the Bible; it begins with nature and with one’s wonder about it. God’s existence is a conclusion from the last steps of reasoning within numerous fields of inquiry. Absolutely nothing in natural theology points toward a “fear-inspiring, jealous, violent and angry god.” I mean, Zeus may be like that, but certainly not the God of the philosophers.
Some replies to your arguments:
1. Rapture is certainly not a Catholic doctrine.
2. Religion is about “control”? Are you saying that duplicitous priests go on a power trip every time they say a homily? These guys are spiritual garbagemen who do God’s dirty work, they can’t even marry, and they rely on voluntary donations! Talk about humble.
3. It is not a Catholic article of faith that non-believers are necessarily damned, any more than that believers are necessarily saved. (I personally am sympathetic to universal salvation.)
4. Interpreting the Bible is not a trivial task at all; on the contrary, it requires great wisdom.
5. See my reply to Raymond D. Bradley for a take on OT violence, as well as Understanding the Salvation History.
6. Bad thoughts go away if you fight them. Jesus will not fight your battles for you. It is precisely in the spiritual combat that you hone your skills and improve your character.
7. Your bad childhood experiences cannot make God and the arguments for His existence disappear, anymore that on the contrary a happy childhood can make God’s command to be “perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” less demanding.
Comment from sam
Time July 29, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Janet Green, thank you. I had a similar experience in that my mother taught sunday school in the Baptist Church and I absorbed every word of her stories, Old Testament….then New Testament. I “accepted Christ” at age 12. By age 14, I realized what a sham it was that an all powerful God would permit such evil spouting from the protestant pulpipts, moreover, that I would burn in hell for my doubts and questions. I am sorry you had to suffer so long. I liberated myself by age fifteen or so. Dimitry’s answer to you is ludicrous as str the arguments of most goddists. Ignore him and those who continue to spread falsehoods in the name of God. Dimitri, you sound like a fairly intelligent fellow. But tell me, how can you be so stupid in beliving in an all powerful God when his so called creation has had so much pain and suffering. Is that the way your God planned it?Do you get paid for spouting the stuff you do? I’m sure you do…just like the preachers of my childhood did. We even gave them food from our fields that we sweated and toiled to produce. Their thanks and their blessing did not improve my life. It retarded my development in to a productive human being, grateful to be alive at 85, and free, free, free! Are you going to call your God’s vengance down on me? Am I going to be left behind at armegeddon day? I could only wish. Sam
Comment from sam
Time July 29, 2010 at 3:51 pm
…and another thing, Dimitri, in your blog you say, “well slam me sillly.” Unnecessary. You are already silly. Sam
Comment from sam
Time July 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm
…also Dimitri, in your point # 2, you admiringly of priests as “garbage men” who do God’s dirty work? Really? They do this and still have time to sexually abuse choir boys so frequently? How do you explain that? …or do you just close your eyes and trust in God? Is it possible that you are a priest yourself? How do you earn a living? I would really like your answer on this one.
Comment from JD Walters
Time May 18, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Mr. Mills is completely ignorant of the latest scholarship in the cognitive science of religion. More and more cognitive scientists are beginning to accept the idea that infants may be ‘intuitive theists’ for whom believing in a super-powerful, all-knowing, invisible creator being comes quite naturally. Not that he’d pay any attention to it, but he should read Justin Barrett’s “Why would anyone believe in God?”.
But of course even if he did then he’d just change his tune and complain that everyone’s ‘hardwired’ into faith and that’s why religious belief is still so widespread, ignoring the fact that other mental faculties which we cannot do without, like Theory of Mind and agency detection are similarly hardwired.