Nature Or Nurture: Does God Exist?
The nature versus nurture is a debate within psychology that looks into whether we acquire certain characteristics and behaviours through our genes or whether we learn them from our environment. [1] Nature is what we are supposed to of have inherited via genetics therefore is biologically apart of who we are whereas nurture is the idea that we learn our behaviours and develop certain characteristics from our environment.
Does god exist? This has probably been the most disputed question for over centuries. How do we know? How do we know whether this life is the first of many, whether we exist in a phenomenal world separate from those in the divine, or is this all a false ideology that gives us hope and reason to carry on living without wondering …show more content…
about the purpose of our existence, the nature versus nurture offers many explanations as to why we may use religions as a false comfort.
The ‘God gene’ [2] hypothesis can be used as support to the nature side of the debate, the god gene hypothesis is a hypothesis that claims that a specific gene known as vesicular monoamine transporter 2 inclines humans to spiritual and mystical experiences which are often interpreted as religious experience therefore influence the belief of religion and god. This can be used in support to the nature side of the debate as this hypothesis is suggesting that the god gene is present in us therefore we don’t have the privilege to choose whether we believe in a religion as the god gene automatically leads us to do so because it is the only explanation that could logically justify these mystical and spiritual experiences.
Adoption and twin studies can be used to further support the nature side of the debate, during one study that was carried out, researchers looked at religious belief in a number of adopted twins raised apart. They found exactly the same result--greater similarity in identical twin pairs, even if raised apart. The conclusion is unavoidable: faith is definitely influenced by genes. [3] this study can be used as proof that some people are genetically prone to believe in a religion therefore nature can be used to explain religion, if the results were different and the identical twins didn’t have a similarity in faith then it could be concluded that religion is nurture as the explanation for this would have been because each twin must have been bought up in different environments therefore learnt different behaviours however this has been proven to not be the case.
In oppose to the previous arguments The Social Learning Theory Albert Bandura (1977) can be used in support of the nurture side of the argument, the social learning theory offers the explanation that learning is done through a cognitive process.[4], Bandura suggests that people learn behaviours from one another and this is done via three processes known as observation, imitation and modelling.Bandura (1961) conducted a study to investigate if social behaviors (i.e.
aggression) can be acquired by observation and imitation. This study is known as the Bobo doll experiment, the reasoning behind the experiment was to add credibility to his belief that all human behavior was learnt through social imitation and copying rather than genetic factors [5] (nature), the study involved two groups of children, one group were made to watch a adult in the room behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll, the second group children observed adults behaving calm with the doll. The two groups of children were then also put into the room with the doll alone and individually, there behaviors and actions were observed and recorded and it was concluded that the children who saw the adults behaving aggressively also behaved aggressively and those who witnessed the adult acting calm with the doll also acted friendly and calm with the
doll. The Social Learning theory can be applied to the nurture side of the argument as it brings forward the idea that the only reason people believe in a religion is because they are brought into a family that practices a religion therefore they learn the behavior from them through observation, imitation and copying and genetic factors have no role in this.
.[6]Positive reinforcement described by B.F. Skinner in his theory of operant conditioning, Skinner discovered that you could increase the amount of times a desired behaviour occurred by giving a reward whenever the desired behaviour occurred.[8] He performed a number of experiments that proved you would see an increase of the rewarded behaviour over time. Positive reinforcement is the most effective when it takes place immediately after behaviour. This means that the shorter the amount of time between a behaviour and a reward, the stronger the connection between the two will be. Positive reinforcement therefore strengthens a behaviour by giving a sequenced consequence that the individual finds rewarding.
Religion can be explained further by using the theory of positive reinforcement as one may believe in a religion continuously as they discover there are rewarding factors for practising the religion for example an individual may look forward to a religious festival which can be perceived as a reward for practising the religion, another example of a positive reinforcement for a religious person can be praying, an individual may feel as though if they practise and believe in a religion there prayers will be answered and this is a reward, and these rewards can reinforce and encourage their beliefs in religion, therefore skinners theory of operant conditioning can also be used as support to the nurture side of the debate leaving no room for genetic factors influencing level of faith.
Sigmund Freud was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis. Freud’s theory of religion suggests that neither nature nor nurture can explain religion and we as humans use religion as nothing more than a false comfort, we use it to give us hope and motivation to carry on living our lives without questioning and beliefs that death isn’t a reality as our souls will live on into the hereafter.[7] "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." --Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933”Freud also explains religion as a childhood neurosis, this entertains the idea that humans spend their lives longing to be at one with their parents, this means having the desire to forever have the relationship with the parents as you did as a baby, Freud implies that humans try to replace this desire by believing in ‘god’ and hoping to one day reunite with him. This overlooks the nature versus nurture argument as it suggests that religion is none other than an illusion that we use to comfort us and nor genetic or environmental factors have a role in this.
Does god exist? This has probably been the most disputed question for over centuries. How do we know? How do we know whether this life is the first of many, whether we exist in a phenomenal world separate from those in the divine, or is this all a false ideology that gives us hope and reason to carry on living without wondering …show more content…
about the purpose of our existence, the nature versus nurture offers many explanations as to why we may use religions as a false comfort.
The ‘God gene’ [2] hypothesis can be used as support to the nature side of the debate, the god gene hypothesis is a hypothesis that claims that a specific gene known as vesicular monoamine transporter 2 inclines humans to spiritual and mystical experiences which are often interpreted as religious experience therefore influence the belief of religion and god. This can be used in support to the nature side of the debate as this hypothesis is suggesting that the god gene is present in us therefore we don’t have the privilege to choose whether we believe in a religion as the god gene automatically leads us to do so because it is the only explanation that could logically justify these mystical and spiritual experiences.
Adoption and twin studies can be used to further support the nature side of the debate, during one study that was carried out, researchers looked at religious belief in a number of adopted twins raised apart. They found exactly the same result--greater similarity in identical twin pairs, even if raised apart. The conclusion is unavoidable: faith is definitely influenced by genes. [3] this study can be used as proof that some people are genetically prone to believe in a religion therefore nature can be used to explain religion, if the results were different and the identical twins didn’t have a similarity in faith then it could be concluded that religion is nurture as the explanation for this would have been because each twin must have been bought up in different environments therefore learnt different behaviours however this has been proven to not be the case.
In oppose to the previous arguments The Social Learning Theory Albert Bandura (1977) can be used in support of the nurture side of the argument, the social learning theory offers the explanation that learning is done through a cognitive process.[4], Bandura suggests that people learn behaviours from one another and this is done via three processes known as observation, imitation and modelling.Bandura (1961) conducted a study to investigate if social behaviors (i.e.
aggression) can be acquired by observation and imitation. This study is known as the Bobo doll experiment, the reasoning behind the experiment was to add credibility to his belief that all human behavior was learnt through social imitation and copying rather than genetic factors [5] (nature), the study involved two groups of children, one group were made to watch a adult in the room behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll, the second group children observed adults behaving calm with the doll. The two groups of children were then also put into the room with the doll alone and individually, there behaviors and actions were observed and recorded and it was concluded that the children who saw the adults behaving aggressively also behaved aggressively and those who witnessed the adult acting calm with the doll also acted friendly and calm with the
doll. The Social Learning theory can be applied to the nurture side of the argument as it brings forward the idea that the only reason people believe in a religion is because they are brought into a family that practices a religion therefore they learn the behavior from them through observation, imitation and copying and genetic factors have no role in this.
.[6]Positive reinforcement described by B.F. Skinner in his theory of operant conditioning, Skinner discovered that you could increase the amount of times a desired behaviour occurred by giving a reward whenever the desired behaviour occurred.[8] He performed a number of experiments that proved you would see an increase of the rewarded behaviour over time. Positive reinforcement is the most effective when it takes place immediately after behaviour. This means that the shorter the amount of time between a behaviour and a reward, the stronger the connection between the two will be. Positive reinforcement therefore strengthens a behaviour by giving a sequenced consequence that the individual finds rewarding.
Religion can be explained further by using the theory of positive reinforcement as one may believe in a religion continuously as they discover there are rewarding factors for practising the religion for example an individual may look forward to a religious festival which can be perceived as a reward for practising the religion, another example of a positive reinforcement for a religious person can be praying, an individual may feel as though if they practise and believe in a religion there prayers will be answered and this is a reward, and these rewards can reinforce and encourage their beliefs in religion, therefore skinners theory of operant conditioning can also be used as support to the nurture side of the debate leaving no room for genetic factors influencing level of faith.
Sigmund Freud was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis. Freud’s theory of religion suggests that neither nature nor nurture can explain religion and we as humans use religion as nothing more than a false comfort, we use it to give us hope and motivation to carry on living our lives without questioning and beliefs that death isn’t a reality as our souls will live on into the hereafter.[7] "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." --Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933”Freud also explains religion as a childhood neurosis, this entertains the idea that humans spend their lives longing to be at one with their parents, this means having the desire to forever have the relationship with the parents as you did as a baby, Freud implies that humans try to replace this desire by believing in ‘god’ and hoping to one day reunite with him. This overlooks the nature versus nurture argument as it suggests that religion is none other than an illusion that we use to comfort us and nor genetic or environmental factors have a role in this.