It is innate in us to assign agency to events that occur. If there is an effect--there must be a cause. And, it is natural for people to assign that agency to some paranormal power (a god, spirits, demons etc...) when they are ignorant of the natural causes, or cannot see the immediate cause of some event.

Fortunately, we are also born with the innate ability to reason and to look for non-supernatural causes. And, the more science we learn, the more we realize that no god is necessary for things to happen as they do, and for the universe to behave as it does.

Unfortunately, we also have the ability to set our ability to reason aside--and to even fear it--causing us to deny the natural causes and to accept that which we have been programmed to believe.

Which is precisely why the religious indoctrination of children should be
classified as a First-degree felony.

Two things to keep in mind: Whatever you decide about this question will also apply to everything kids are taught in school. And... the capacity for religious believing, just like our capacity for language, is innate according to biologist John Wathey. [amazon.com]

Every man is a god to his dog*
Just because something is not innate does not make it not true. We learn that 2+2=4. People surmise the existence of higher powers through teaching and often through emotional experiences. We on here reject the illogical idea of a deity, others do not. Who are we to say that they do not feel that it is innate?

*Cats take a more cynical view on this. Having once been a deity themselves and still holding considerable powers (Look at the way they have taken over the internet). They are if not agnostic, then at least adolescent in their disregard for such blind obedience

Why do people teach children to be racist, homophobic, mysogonistic, etc... ? Because that's what they know...

if there was such a thing there would be no need to push it. There would be proof every where.

Oh why should they be taught grammar or mathematics then? Is it there in the genetic memory?

Are you a parent? Newborns babies are helpless.

It took patience and practice to teach Claire to suckle.

Born prematurely, I spent two months in an incubator with a collapsed lung. The incubator helped me breathe.

Your argument is flawed.

All animals have those instincts, or are you saying they are religious as well ?. Does you DOG have a GOD ??

Everyone is born an atheist.

Your analogy makes a category error, conflating lower, pysiological functions, which are basically innate/instinctual reflexes, to higher, intellectual functions, such as reasoning, which must be learned.

I like your argumentative point. I may use it.

It does seem logical that an all powerful being would make knowledge of himself/herself innate, and then it would be up to each individual to chose from there. It is a more reasonable, rational and logical system under the idea of there even being an all powerful being.

What a fascinating question. But let’s first define our terms. Especially the concept “innate.” “Innatism is a philosophical and epistemological doctrine that holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a "blank slate" at birth.” “It asserts that not all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses.” (Wikipedia). This concept originate with Plato and Descartes. I would also argue that this doctrine is wrong, as have Aristotle and many others. As others who have responded to this post have suggested, anyone who has had children knows that they are not born with ideas, knowledge and beliefs. They must learn about the world around them.

Genetic memory, however, is a biological term. The functions that you reference are also biological. “Genetic memory” [is a term that describes] that memory is recorded in the genetic material. These biological terms are used to describe processes, not knowledge.

I find no evidence to suggest that genetic memory is considered by science to be the the same thing as innate memory… (or as learned ‘knowledge'.

To suggest that these are innate is conflating two very different terms.

The concept of “God” is an idea, created in the mind of man, just as the (incorrect) idea that women or people of color are somehow less intelligent than white men, for example, is created in the mind of man. These ideas are ‘mere’ opinion’ with no informed knowledge, no scientific research, to support them. Ideas (and knowledge) are not biological in nature.

However, the heart of your question: why do some parents feel a need to teach their children about a “God” is the important, part of this post. I believe it is natural for parents to teach their children the things the parent has learned. Sadly, this is true of things ‘learned’ that are incorrect. Those things the parent has learned that they have emotional ties to, are likely to be the most strongly reinforced.

“Teach your children well...and feed them on your dreams..” - Graham Nash Just make sure the dreams you teach are based in reality.

Take that one step further, if an omnipresent being created us, why did it not create the knowledge of existence into our genetic make up?

Why indeed, but there are a lot of people who have the "need" of finding the meaning of life, instead of just being and enjoying. They seem to think that humans are oh so very "special and important" that there can not possibly be nothing more to we are born, we live and then we die.

Interesting, you talk about genetic memory which in a way could be reincarnation. At least in part so far as the body is concerned. As for what is learned or indoctrinated that needs to be studied. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we could take normal baby from a family of say 3000 years ago, plunk her in a family today without any of the parents knowing and observe whether that child progressed normally?

No, not everything is innate or genetically ingrained, kids need parents and teachers to learn many different things. It is true we are all born atheists and it is true parents, society and environment "shape" what we think (brainwashing). But to say that everything comes from genetic memory is a fallacy.

You have to tell them that so they know the true religion from the false ones.

This is a very good question. All the things you mentioned are innate not only to humans, but to all mammals - and if memory serves me correctly to all animals as well.

As far god or the all powerful entity, it was created by men and must be thought to future generations in order for it to continue as a meme.

However, a question that I ask myself due to the belief in higher powers being as old as recorded history is : Is the human proclivity towards asking the questions why are we here and what is the meaning of it all innate? I am currently leaning towards yes because these two questions seem to be as old as human consciousness itself.

Same reasoning behind teaching a child that fire burns. Because the parent or family member thinks that knowing these things is one of the many keys to survival. Biology is one thing (breathing, et. al.), teaching is cultural. Although I do believe all children, no matter their birthplace, will be taught that fire is one nasty beastie.

Circumcision is not medically necessary (no genital mutilation is), yet little boys are routinely abused this way. To me, it is as barbaric as teaching a child about religion.

Take intro to biology sometime

It cracks me up that adults think a child might not eat and therefore starve. Sorry. It just does not happen when there is food to eat, even if that child does not eat to suit you.

Also, I do understand potty training to degrees but some people ac like the child may not crap unless taught to do so. This is why so many adults strain like crazy to do something that comes naturally. Stop putting a time on this bowel activity and jut live your life. You may end up healthier.

genetic memory doesn't cover everything, and human babies are born particularly helpless. (and actually sometimes a newborn does need to be "taught" to breathe.) we are, unless impaired, innately able to learn things that were not innate. now, i agree that religion is not one of the better things we should learn. i would prefer that everyone bypass that particular lesson. but the reason for its uselessness is not that it isn't innate. that's just silly. many useful and necessary things are non-innate things we have to learn in order to use. that is not a reason to reject religion. there are a gazillion reasons, all of them discussed here ad infinitum, but that's not one of them.

g

Or taught morality. Kids can be mean but there's also some innate love in there, which for most people wins out after adolescence.

Yes! Asked the same in nearly the same way to a pod of pushers this summer ...and lost them.. We should know this shit, not need it shoved down our throats … if it were real