Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more

Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.


or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Start reading Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief on your Kindle in under a minute.

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief [Hardcover]

Justin L. Barrett

List Price: CDN$ 29.99
Price: CDN$ 18.80 & FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25. Details
You Save: CDN$ 11.19 (37%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Usually ships within 1 to 3 weeks.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca. Gift-wrap available.

Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition --  
Hardcover CDN $18.80  
Paperback CDN $12.41  
Join Amazon Student in Canada


Book Description

March 20 2012
Infants have a lot to make sense of in the world: Why does the sun shine and night fall; why do some objects move in response to words, while others won’t budge; who is it that looks over them and cares for them? How the developing brain grapples with these and other questions leads children, across cultures, to naturally develop a belief in a divine power of remarkably consistent traits––a god that is a powerful creator, knowing, immortal, and good—explains noted developmental psychologist and anthropologist Justin L. Barrett in this enlightening and provocative book. In short, we are all born believers.

Belief begins in the brain. Under the sway of powerful internal and external influences, children understand their environments by imagining at least one creative and intelligent agent, a grand creator and controller that brings order and purpose to the world. Further, these beliefs in unseen super beings help organize children’s intuitions about morality and surprising life events, making life meaningful. Summarizing scientific experiments conducted with children across the globe, Professor Barrett illustrates the ways human beings have come to develop complex belief systems about God’s omniscience, the afterlife, and the immortality of deities. He shows how the science of childhood religiosity reveals, across humanity, a “natural religion,” the organization of those beliefs that humans gravitate to organically, and how it underlies all of the world’s major religions, uniting them under one common source.

For believers and nonbelievers alike, Barrett offers a compelling argument for the human instinct for religion, as he guides all parents in how to effectively encourage children in developing a healthy constellation of beliefs about the world around them.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought


Product Details

  • Hardcover: 320 pages
  • Publisher: Atria Books (March 20 2012)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1439196540
  • ISBN-13: 978-1439196540
  • Product Dimensions: 23.7 x 16.3 x 3.1 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 481 g
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #177,780 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Product Description

Review

“Dr. Barrett provides a provocative, compelling, tender-hearted analysis of what young children believe, why they believe it, and what the implications are for us as adults and parents. A timely response to the New Atheists who argue that religious belief is unnatural or that religious values are inappropriate to pass on to the next generation.”

-- Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Chairman, Cordoba Initiative, and author of Moving the Mountain

“Born Believers will challenge the anti-religion camp with Barrett’s careful science. His analysis shows that infants have a natural inclination to believe in a supreme being, and that their subsequent beliefs cannot be explained as the sole result of indoctrination or brainwashing by heavy-handed adults. This book raises profound questions about the origins of theism and the place of religious belief in human affairs.”

-- Larry Dossey, M.D., author of Healing Words and The Power of Premonitions

“For those of us adults who have wondered from where our certainty derives that there is a Divine Force embedded within the world and in our lives, Justin Barrett in Born Believers provides the well-documented answer. My research into the physical and biological wonders of life’s cosmic development cemented this belief for me, but the origins, the initial stirrings, had always eluded me. Barrett’s well-written book solved that quandary.”

-- Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., author of The Science of God and God According To God

“A fascinating and readable account of why religious beliefs are

perfectly normal and virtually universal. In an age of atheism, this

book will challenge widespread assumptions that nonbelief is the default

and that children must be indoctrinated to believe. Jam-packed with

insight and wit, Born Believers should be required reading for all

parents and for anyone else interested in the spiritual lives of children.”

--Robert A. Emmons, Professor of Psychology, University of California,

Davis and Past-President, American Psychological Association’s Division of the

Psychology of Religion

“A must read for anyone interested in knowing where and how spirituality develops in our life and our brain. A great combination of stories and information that will provide everyone with a new way of thinking about our beliefs.” (Andrew Newberg, MD., author of How God Changes Your Brain and Why God Won't Go Away)

About the Author

Justin Barrett is the author of Why Would Anyone Believe in God? A senior researcher at Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind, Dr. Barrett lives in Pasadena, California.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.ca
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.0 out of 5 stars  4 reviews
11 of 16 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Natural April 21 2012
By Discerning Reader - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover|Verified Purchase
This book is the culmination of various studies in childhood psychology led by the author and supplemented by those of others in the field. It makes a good case for children naturally forming a belief in order and design behind life and the world around them. This "natural religion" seems to form before children can fully verbalize it. It might suprise some that this is typical among children from religious 'and' non-religious families (i.e. athiestic and agnostic). The studies experimental methodologies are described in detail and seem accurate. The value in this book is that it shows the origin of these basic beliefs are natural, but culture fills in the details. And contrary to the assertions of the New Athiests, these inclinations do not originate from culture. To the contrary, it takes many years of 'education' for westerners to begin to distance themselves from these explanations. Even then, the majority retain spiritual beliefs of some sort. The weakness in this book is that most of its' research was done in the west, but this is typical of psychological research. The author also holds back from concluding these religious inclinations 'prove' the existance of God. Belief in divinity might come naturally, but this cannot establish it is correct. In order verify this belief, one will have to go back to philosophy. But in my own opinion,it is interesting to note our instincts match the contention of theistic religions: God's existance is self-evident. Perhaps the greatest reason to buy this book is that it bolsters this claim. I leave it with 4.5 Stars.
5.0 out of 5 stars Compelling reading July 13 2014
By Graham Mc Donald - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover|Verified Purchase
A bit heavy going but a MUST read for all caring parents and children's workers in all spheres of Children's work.
3.0 out of 5 stars Good on the evidence, bad on many of the implications May 28 2014
By Dan Knauss - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover|Verified Purchase
==Critical Summary==
Born Believers summarizes some findings of contemporary cognitive and evolutionary psychology that suggest humans have an "instinct for religion." Barrett hypothesizes this instinct is based in something like the hypothetical "Language Acquisition Device," emerging in infancy and developing in children apart from any cultural influences but declining in power with age. Barrett uses western and non-western studies plus some anthropological data to make a case for there being several points of "natural religion" that nearly all people will normally gravitate toward, at least early in their life. Barrett does not spend much time speculating why this is the case, what good it is, and what problems it may cause. Instead he wishes to complicate skeptical arguments from Freud to the New Atheists that describe religious belief as infantile, illusory, and natural to outgrow if one is not exposed to religious indoctrination in one's family or culture. Barrett succeeds at all this, but his last three chapters are almost not worth reading. They fall into a confusing, disingenuous attempt to explain why atheists exist with mock suggestions for how they can build their confidence and numbers. This chapter seems to develop into satire with a polemical edge. The last two chapters advocate and prescribe both religious inquiry and passive indoctrination that will only make sense to western readers with some type of Christian background. Most will find Barrett's prescriptions too committed to a specific, rather deistic construction of God to jibe with their religious tradition. Barrett also seems highly conflicted in his attempt to assimilate (as a Christian and scientific researcher) modern, western values for dispassionate and critical thinking as well as fairness and tolerance to a religious commitment. He does not seem to appreciate the profound difficulty of reconciling the totalistic qualities of theistic belief with intellectual inquiry throughout the history of western theism and religion in general. (See Alasdair MacIntyre's "God, Philosophy, Universities" for example.) Barrett would have parents inculcate openness to critical questioning about religious topics as well as a sense of certainty and unshakeable conviction regardless of the parent's actual feelings. This is an interesting paradox if not an open contradiction that Barrett seems not to notice and leaves unexplored.

==In-Depth Summary and Review==
In Barrett's relatively young field, it has been established that people are biologically biased toward belief in gods and the supernatural as well as basic moral norms. We start by seeing all others (people and animals) essentially as gods, and we learn only slowly and with difficulty about the limited knowledge, power, and mortality of other humans. Young children don't have easy access to their own mental processes, for example, and it takes them a long time to understand other minds and perspectives as potentially mistaken or deceived. Young children assume no one else shares their ignorance to the point that they cannot comprehend that someone else could be wrong about or hold a contrary view of something that is plain to them. But even young infants are able to tell when purposeful, intentional action is taking place as opposed to random or arbitrary action. These and other related factors in early cognitive development collaborate to produce an initial conceptual framework defining our childhood experience of the world and others that is functionally religious. We simply assume there is a benevolent creator-god and supernatural forces behind and responsible for the natural world in whom fairly universal moral norms tend to be grounded later. Later intellectual development, whether it explicitly elaborates or contradicts these early ideas, must necessarily engage with them, amplifying, modifying, or inhibiting them.

Some religious readers may be troubled by the evidence for seeing their basic beliefs as artifacts of the limitations and misperceptions of the developing mind, or as the basis for some type of universal "natural religion." Certain western theologies and religious traditions are more and less hospitable to these ideas, but Barrett is not out to validate or falsify any of them. Instead he wishes to falsify certain anti-religious arguments. Non-religious readers who are troubled by the evidence for how widespread and "natural" religious beliefs are the targets of the middle and later chapters.

Instead of religion as a virus needing a vaccination as Richard Dawkins contends, Born Believers says religion is more like E. Coli -- a beneficial bacteria you can't live without, as long as it stays in your gut. This may not really disagree with Dawkins since religion that gets out of control tends to be ideological and totalistic, and totalistic ideologies that go viral among adults are like a deadly strain of influenza. If you see the New Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.) as legitimately attacking mainly fundamentalist religion, this book largely supports that view. If you think they are attacking all religious belief or that all religion is basically fundamentalism pumped into people by force, then you'll find that view being complicated if not dismantled by Barrett. He seems unsure which of those positions is actually held by the New Atheists, which is not an uncommon reaction -- they are very scattershot and not very theologically informed in their attacks on religious belief. But if Dawkins and Hitchens overstate the oppressiveness of religion and the ease with which children may be indoctrinated through more and less passive pressuring, Barrett probably understates how common and problematic it is.

Barrett believes his field of cognitive research establishes that religious belief is inevitable and benign if not beneficial in the basic concepts that most people start with. He acknowledges religious beliefs can become perverse and connect with oppressive and violent behavior, but how this happens, how often it is the case, and what should be done about it are not things he deals with. He seems entirely opposed to coercive, anti-intellectual fundamentalism that is closed to reason, but he seems to think that is not what a lot of religious belief and practice actually is. He cites studies showing how religious people are happier, better adjusted, and so forth while acknowledging that is no reason to be religious. Barrett does point out that it is adult religiosity that is violent, non-cooperative, and coercive while children rarely exhibit these traits. How that transition occurs in adults, from a benign childhood religiosity to a perverse form of religion is not explored. Instead he asks why there are atheists at all in a not very serious chapter that reveals the limits of his own perspective.

Barrett's own position is one he makes fairly clear in the course of the book, but it would have been better for him to lay it all out very clearly at the beginning. His institutional affiliations are Reformed/Calvinist, and he described himself as a product of a relatively soft fundamentalism that he has no great grievances against. In a book that should not be polemical or apologetic, Barrett does slip into those modes. He does not say atheism is unnatural in the chapter that considers this question, but it is clearly rare, and the best Barrett can do to account for it is to speculate how it might be a kind of disability, like not being able to walk. Male-brainedness, not having children, limited social networks, secure and privileged first world environments, less sensitive agency detection, and modern biases in favor of talking about human causes or pseudoagents instead of supernatural ones are all offered as reasons why there are atheists. The way Barrett then suggests atheists build "confidence" and propagate themselves (including the advice to not have any children) seems hostile and unserious. It is hard to say if any of this chapter is remotely serious or credible, but there are serious arguments from religious and non-religious perspectives about the social and intellectual history that produced western atheism, and any of it would be more relevant than Barrett's half-hearted jibes. The standard view is that missteps and misdeeds among and between religious thinkers and communities are highly responsible for the rise of modern skepticism -- something Barrett does not seem to recognize.

One important thing Barrett gets right about the "new atheists" is that they've made a mistake to think it would be good for the world if they imposed their own rather elaborate idea of the truth of reality on everyone because they assume what really matters is that people have "true" rather than "false" ideas. That is just a hopeless cause for so many practical social and epistemological reasons, but there is still a real problem the new atheists recognize that Barrett does not deal with: we need some basis for consensus and order in society. Sufficient agreement and trust is needed to hold things together, but this cannot happen with some people convinced that agreement and trust must flow from (especially a single) religious position while others are convinced it must flow from some type of rationalistic and skeptical if not anti-religious position. Both views tend to produce extremists so there are always plenty of unhelpful, immoderate voices wishing to drive their opposition into an irrelevant marginal status or eliminate it entirely. Barrett would have done better to focus on this problem and develop some of the ideas embedded in his last chapters in light of how several religious traditions have learned to handle the need to propagate themselves and live as active contributors to a society that includes others who don't share their beliefs. It is clear Barrett values curiosity and intellectual openness, the need for intellectual humility, and he sees the necessity for trusting people and believing something to learn and grow or communicate and interact socially at all.

Barrett seems to hesitate whenever he approaches a pragmatic view of the utility of religious belief apart from unresolvable ideas about its truth, probably because this is alien to the sensibility of both religious and non-religious dogmatists who insist things that are true are also good for us and vice versa. Barrett comes close to making the point that people can believe far-out religious myths for centuries and sustain complex and advanced civilizations. It has been possible, for example, for ancient Egyptian judges to behave in a recognizably just and impartial way because they believe they have been ordained by the Pharaoh -- the son and incarnate representative of Ra, the principal (solar) deity -- and for this reason the ma'at (divine justice, reason, truth, law) flows through them. The truth or falsity of these specific beliefs matters a lot less than the social proof for their value and legitimacy affirmed by the social cohesiveness they are able to effect and sustain. However, if people use belief in supernatural beings to avoid reality, slough off personal responsibility, and justify murder this would obviously be a bad outcome and the work of evil deities even if the reality of the supernatural beings was apparent to everyone.

Perhaps there is a Darwinian logic at work where religions conducive to human flourishing tend to prevail over time, but they can also fall into decadence, decline, and self-destruction. If religion is inevitable we should strive to keep it healthy, not dismantle it, but some (including religious believers) might argue some or all of the major religions are past redemption. It would have been interesting to see how Barrett would handle these issues because he clearly holds a pragmatic faith perspective that sees religion as inevitable, needful, and possible to keep on a healthy track. This position tends to carry its own skepticism and arrogance because it necessitates saying most people need to believe (and be helped to believe) things as certainties that really are no such thing. The collapse of objects of faith into quasi-scientific dogma probably marks the point where religion goes bad by trying to do science (describe how things are or came to be) rather than offer motives, goals, and limits for human knowledge and power through an ethical vision of how things should become. Barrett would have done better to acknowledge and wrestle with these problems. His own views on religious development in the final chapters are well-intended but superficial; they will probably disturb almost any religious perspective from the most conservative to the most liberal.

In the final chapters Barrett articulates a rather liberal, humanistic, and somewhat idealized vision of how religiosity should be shaped in children to support their increasing independence and maturity. For example, he recommends telling them what you regard to be true with love and humility (as in "you know you might be mistaken"), and he advocates shared inquiry that can never be resolved into simple, certain answers. Then he goes on to say "don't say you 'believe in' or 'have faith in'" something -- instead you should "talk as if there is no question about it." Barrett also advises that God be frequently referenced as a detectible, ultimate (not immediate) cause in all areas of life. This is similarly indoctrinational, but it also reduces the doctrinal content to forms of deism that lean heavily on European Christian assumptions. Barrett is very committed to the idea that religious belief ultimately ought to be the result of a relatively free adult choice, which also is intelligible only within substantially post-ethnic, post-traditional modern cultures influenced by Judaeo Christianity, European modernity. Without a favorable conception of individuality and conscience Barrett's prescriptions are threatening or nonsensical since they rehearse the compromises the Liberal state requires from religious particularists: you cannot impose your beliefs on others, even your own children as they come into their majority. In these matters Barrett is out of his area of competence. It would have been a better book if he focused more on explaining the science in his field with a more honest and rigorous account of its possible implications for how we understand religious belief in children, adults, and societies.
13 of 22 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Good, But May 21 2012
By William O. Straub - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Hardcover
The main question Dr. Barrett tries to address in his book is whether or not religion is innate. The question itself requires a detailed study of the religious attitudes of children, and he has done this well.

However, in Chapter 8 ("So Stupid They'll Believe Anything?") Barrett focuses on the subject of the religious indoctrination of children, and asks if this is the primary reason for religious propagation. While Barrett reaches some valid conclusions regarding the limitations and applicability of indoctrination, he fails to see the obvious, which is this: early on, children are subject to indoctrination primarily by way of unthinking mimicry via parental example, whereas later on they become indoctrinated because of fear. Barrett's kindly grandparents are acting not so much out of altruism and goodness, but out of fear of what may happen to them if they don't; their very young grandchildren simply don't understand any of this.

Barrett details the hypothetical example of a person who, for whatever reason, decides to believe in ghosts, and how this belief can propagate down through generations of family members, and he compares this situation with a similar decision to believe in trans-dimensional cows and mind-reading socks. But normal human beings, even children, are not afraid of trans-dimensional cows and mind-reading socks. They're afraid of ghosts simply because ghosts, if real, can hurt you. Young children come to the conclusion -- rationally reinforced as they reach the age of reason -- that there may be some very negative supernatural consequences for refusing to believe in a god or gods and paying them due tribute, usually by way of some kind of ritualistic behavior.

Barrett, a Christian, should consider this: if religion were innate in children, the true god or gods would ultimately manifest themselves through a convergence in the minds of all people to the true god or gods. However, the extreme diversity of religious beliefs on this planet would seem to prove that this is certainly not happening. Children in India tend to believe in the Hindu gods, while children in America tend to believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition of Jehovah and Christ; the gods involved simply couldn't be more different.

For these reasons, I believe Barrett's promotion of the "human instinct for religion" is flawed. Still, it's a book well worth reading.

Look for similar items by category


Feedback