"Ending religion lessons in schools leads to overall decline in belief but not morals"

[Tcg]

.

This article reports on data from Germany that reveals that abolishing religious teaching in schools leads to a decline in belief but not morality:

Ending religion lessons in schools leads to overall decline in belief but not morals
Torsten Bell

Data taken from across Germany reveals that as mandated RE was abolished, atheism increased as a collective choice

We tend to think about religiousness as a personal decision but new research examining the role of schools illustrates that collective choices have a part to play. The authors use data from Germany, exploiting the fact the religious education mandated by the postwar West German constitution was removed across different states at different times from the 1970s. They find abolishment significantly reduced religiousness, both in private (less praying) and public (church attendance). The effect was biggest in Catholic areas.

Before the social conservatives get all up in arms, note there was no impact on moral or ethical views, life satisfaction or political leaning. That may be because religious education was replaced with non-denominational ethical teaching, rather than more maths.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... not-morals

Does this finding support the claim some make that humans are indeed atheists at birth and will remain so unless or until they are taught to believe in god/gods?

Is it likely that some will continue to view atheists as being less moral than theists even though the data reported here contradicts that view and if so, why?


Tcg

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #19

Clearly the first theist was the one taught about a god by someone and they believed it.

Then they weren't the first theist, were they?

Sure they were (or certainly could have been). You are implying that the person who taught the first theist was themselves a theist. If they made up the god in question, they didn't necessarily believe it themselves, they just wanted to create a reason for something (like lightning).

By your logic, the first person to believe in Santa Claus actually saw and/or knew the real Santa Claus. Do you think that is the case?

[Veridican]

So, you just delete my response to you? I answered your question, and you delete it?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #19

Clearly the first theist was the one taught about a god by someone and they believed it.

Then they weren't the first theist, were they?

Sure they were (or certainly could have been). You are implying that the person who taught the first theist was themselves a theist. If they made up the god in question, they didn't necessarily believe it themselves, they just wanted to create a reason for something (like lightning).

By your logic, the first person to believe in Santa Claus actually saw and/or knew the real Santa Claus. Do you think that is the case?

You're speculating that the first person who taught theism wasn't a theist. If you were in my shoes, you'd be asking for evidence.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #19

Clearly the first theist was the one taught about a god by someone and they believed it.

Then they weren't the first theist, were they?

Sure they were (or certainly could have been). You are implying that the person who taught the first theist was themselves a theist. If they made up the god in question, they didn't necessarily believe it themselves, they just wanted to create a reason for something (like lightning).

By your logic, the first person to believe in Santa Claus actually saw and/or knew the real Santa Claus. Do you think that is the case?

You're speculating that the first person who taught theism wasn't a theist. If you were in my shoes, you'd be asking for evidence.

And you are speculating that they had to have been. If you read my response carefully you'll see what I'm talking about. Yes, the first theist could have made up a god and then subsequently believed it. That doesn't get you out of your original pickle (people are inherently theists because there could be no 'first' theist). There very likely were other people before the first person invented a god. In fact, evolution shows us that modern humans have developed from earlier hominids. At some point in the evolutionary tree, someone (something) invented the idea of a god and assigned it agency over things not yet understood. Or are you going to double down and claim single cell organisms are theists?

Back to your original question "If it isn't, who taught the first theist to believe in gods?". The first theist either believed in the god they invented themselves, or taught someone else about it as a way to explain the unknown.

Perhaps you also think no one has invented any gods? History is full of various god stories.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #8

I guess the main idea is that humans will not believe in god/gods until they are taught to.

I think it fairly evident that theology is innate. If it isn't, who taught the first theist to believe in gods?

The data presented in this article reveal that theology is not innate. When education doesn't include teaching about god/gods less people believe in god/gods. If it were innate, as you claim, education or lack thereof wouldn't change the rate of theism in the population. The reality is that it does.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #24

That doesn't get you out of your original pickle (people are inherently theists because there could be no 'first' theist).

You obviously either don't remember or weren't paying attention to what I wrote. I didn't say there "could be no first theist"; I asked "....who taught the first theist?"

[otseng]

So, you just delete my response to you? I answered your question, and you delete it?

Moderator Intervention

I checked the logs for the past day. There has been no posts that has been deleted anywhere on the forum.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13

Nothing more than a desire to avoid the existential realities of life and of course death.

You do realize that this is an ad hominem argument, don't you?

No, but if you support your accusation, I'll consider it so.


Tcg

Since you ask for support:

An ad hominem is when you insult someone. So when you say, "Nothing more than a desire to avoid the existential realities of life and of course death." you are claiming that the person is not able to face reality. That is an ad hominem. It is an insult to claim that Christians do not want to face reality.

So yes it is in my view an ad hominem.

Of course, if via an argument, the conclusion is something someone does not want to hear then that does not make the conclusion an ad hominem. Also of course the truth is rarely something anyone wants to hear.

[Tcg]

You guys are supposed to be familiar with logical fallacies.

Who exactly are the "You guys" you are referring to here?


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #25

The data presented in this article reveal that theology is not innate. When education doesn't include teaching about god/gods less people believe in god/gods. If it were innate, as you claim, education or lack thereof wouldn't change the rate of theism in the population. The reality is that it does.

The data in the article may suggest that theology isn't innate, but there's usually more than one side to a story.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387772