Lesson video

Hi there, my name is Ms. Marks and I'm going to be your religious education teacher today.

And our lesson today is called Religion as Nature or Nurture, and it's part of our unit on the psychology of religion, and this is one of the biggest debates that happens in social sciences.

So if you're ready, let's get started.

So by the end of the lesson today, you'll be able to explain the nature-nurture debate in social sciences and provide reasons why religion can be seen as a result of both human nature and human nurture.

So let's start with our keywords.

Our keywords are nature, nurture, predetermined, religious upbringing, and socialisation.

Nature refers to the biological and genetic aspects of a person that they're born with.

Nurture is the influence of learning such as upbringing and environment on a person's development.

Predetermined is when something is decided in advance and not down to chance.

Religious upbringing is the way that parents and carers may raise children to be part of a religion.

And socialisation is the process beginning in childhood where a person learns how to fit in with their society's rules and behaviours.

Our lesson today will have three steps, the nature-nurture debate in social sciences, religion as a result of human nature, and then religion as a result of human nurture.

So let's start with our first step, the nature-nurture debate in social sciences.

Imagine you meet a newborn baby.

Is there anything that you could predict about who they will be as an adult? You meet a brand-new baby, is there anything you could tell about what they're gonna be like as an adult? What language will they speak? What clothes will they wear? How tall will they be? What religious ideas might they believe in? Have a think.

You could talk to the person next to you or talk to me.

Some great ideas there.

And yes, there are some things that human beings are born with and this is known as nature.

There are many parts of human lives which we learn from those around them, though, and this is known as nurture.

The debate between what we're born with and what we learn is a really important one in social science and it's called the nature-nurture debate.

So this runs through lots of the social science subjects that you might be aware of, and it's also connected to our studies in religious education.

Let's do a quick check.

Nurture refers to the things we are born with, which stay the same no matter where we are or when we grow up.

Is that true or false? Yes, it's false, isn't it? But why? It's false because nature refers to the things we are born with, but nurture refers to the things we learn from childhood, for example, from our parents and carers.

One side of the debate is the argument that people are born with certain things predetermined.

Each person is born with a genetic code which has been passed on from their biological parents and ancestors before them.

So one example could be eye colour.

So the adult eye colour that somebody has is predetermined, it's already decided before birth by the genetic code that that person carries.

And are there other parts of development which are predetermined? Could you think of other things that might be decided already before somebody's born? This would be the nature side of the debate.

On the other side of the debate is the argument that humans have to learn how to live with each other in societies, and this is known as socialisation.

The first people they may learn from are their parents and carers, but the whole of society can take part of this process, such as the things we learn at school.

So this is the nurture side of the debate, the things that we pick up and we learn depending on where we are born and who we're brought up with and where we go to school and who we make friends with.

But many people see the nature-nurture debate as a spectrum, so it's not everything on one side or everything on the other, there can be different parts of us that are nature, different parts of nurture, and there's a debate about where some other things go along that line.

So we could see it as a line as we've got on the screen here and we could put at the nature end adult eye colour because that is predetermined and decided before you are born, what colour your eyes will be naturally when you're an adult.

And we could put something like the language spoken at the nurture end because people learn language from the people they're raised by and they spend time with, that's the language they'll pick up, the accent they'll speak with, and the kind of words they'll use for things.

So we know that language is very dependent on who you learn it from.

So there are two examples of what could be either end of the spectrum, but some things can be somewhere along the line.

Adult height, yes, that might be a bit influenced by genetics and by your biological size, but there are other things that can influence it too, if someone has a good diet or not, if someone exercises.

So we can see that some things can be somewhere along the spectrum.

So I'd like you to think now, where would you put religious belief on this spectrum? You can talk to each other about it or talk to me.

Well, really, I guess the point of this lesson is that there is different views on where religious belief will be put, and you can decide for yourself where it might be now and if you might move it along the line after we've covered this lesson.

So time for another check.

Which statement is correct about the nature-nurture debate? All scholars agree that nature has the biggest influence on who someone is as an adult, many scholars view the nature-nurture debate as a spectrum, or all scholars agree that nurture has the biggest degree on who someone is as an adult.

That's correct, it's b, because many scholars view it as a spectrum and not all agree on which one has the greatest influence.

So let's do a practise task to check what we've learned.

Jacob and Izzy are discussing the nature-nurture debate.

Who has the most accurate view? Explain why you think this.

Jacob.

"Scholars believe that we are either born with everything predetermined about us or we learn everything through socialisation.

There are no scholars who say it could be a combination of both." Izzy says, "There seem to be some things about people that are predetermined by their nature, and there are many other things which are learned as a person grows.

Most scholars argue this is a spectrum and not 100% one or the other." So pause the video and off you go.

I'll see what you've done in a moment.

Well done, that was some really good thinking there.

We can see that Izzy's view is more accurate, but why? Your answers may have included, Izzy is more accurate because some people have things that are predetermined by their nature, but there are other things that are learned through nurture.

Izzy shows that many scholars view it as a spectrum and it's usually a combination of both.

Jacob is incorrect as he thinks there are no scholars who say it could be a combination of both nature and nurture.

So onto our second step of the lesson, religion as a result of human nature.

So one way that we can look at things being a result of human nature rather than human nurture is to look at identical twins.

Identical twins have the same genetics as each other because they come from the same biological parents and they carry the same genetic code if they're identical.

So by looking at identical twins, we could see what have they been born with, that's nature, may be compared to what they pick up as they grow up that could be seen as nurture.

But of course, identical twins who are raised in the same household with the same parents, with the same experiences, might end up with similarities because of nurture, not necessarily because of nature.

And so one interesting case to look at is where identical twins have been raised in different households, then we could see what they're born with and what might they have picked up along the way because they would've been raised in different households and have different experiences.

We can start to see the impact that those experiences might have had on them rather than the nature, what they were born with.

And so social scientists are really interested in these cases and they can use them to investigate further the nature-nurture debate.

But obviously it's not a super common thing that happens, and so we end up with quite small samples, which is interesting to bear in mind when we look at the data.

Well, the University of Minnesota did just this in 1990.

They did some research on identical twins who were raised in separate households, they might have been adopted, for example, and through looking at that, they wanted to see what were some of the things that were the same between those twins who had the same genetic code, but were raised in a different household.

What do you think they found out about identical twins raised separately? Pause the video and have a think.

You can talk to the person next to you or talk to me.

So what the University of Minnesota study found out was that identical twins raised separately still had similar ways of behaving, things they were interested in, religions that they followed, and general levels of intelligence in the ways these things checked.

So this study found that even though these twins were raised in separate households, in separate places, there were many things about them, about their character, about the way they acted, about the things they believed in that were similar.

So, does that mean that those twins were born with that and that it's a result of human nature rather than human nurture? Does this show that religion is a result of human nature? Have a think about this.

You could talk to the person next to you or talk to me.

Pause the video and off you go.

Humans are not born with a religious gene or religious part of their brain, although this is investigated by neuroscientists.

There isn't one bit of the brain or one gene that we could isolate to say that is religion in that person.

But some scholars, however, do argue that humans are born more likely to accept religious ideas in their mind.

Does this show religion is part of nature rather than nurture? What do you think? Izzy is thinking about religious ideas being a result of human nature? Izzy says, "Religious ideas are common across the whole world, in many cultures and throughout history.

Perhaps the human mind is naturally inclined to accept religious ideas.

Religious ideas might have helped humans through the process of evolution.

Maybe the human mind was designed to accept religious ideas." So maybe the fact that so many people are religious through history and across cultures shows that there is something natural 'cause it happens in all different cultures and times, not dependent on the family or the place.

Let's do a quick check.

True or false? Scientists have found a religious gene.

That is false, but why? Well, there's no religious gene, but the human mind does seem to naturally accept religious ideas, so religion may be a result of human nature.

Let's meet Ann Taves.

Professor Ann Taves is a scholar of religion who argues that humans naturally ask questions which religions and other worldviews can answer.

For example, as humans, we naturally ask, how did we get here, as a big question, and religions and other worldviews are going to give us that answer.

And she calls these questions, big questions.

Whilst we might not all come up with the same answers, she argues it's part of human nature to ask these questions.

So whilst there may be different religions and different worldviews and different answers to these questions, Ann Taves says it is natural for humans to ask them, so maybe religion is part of human nature.

Let's do a quick check.

What questions does Ann Taves say are natural for humans to ask? That's right, she says there are big questions that humans ask naturally.

Let's do a task to see what we've learned.

Sam is trying to explain how religion can be seen as a result of human nature.

Part of her explanations are incorrect.

Rewrite her explanations so it becomes correct.

And Sam says, "Religion could be a result of human nurture, as humans seem to ask small questions naturally.

Religions can answer those questions, which means it is in part natural.

Religions have been found in no cultures, so perhaps the human body accepts religious ideas naturally." What mistakes has Sam made and how can you correct them? So pause the video and have a go and we'll check what you've written in a moment.

Well done, that was some really good work there.

Sam is trying to explain how religion can be seen as a result of human nature, and I asked you to rewrite it so that her mistakes become correct.

Your answer may have included, religion could be a result of human nature, as humans seem to ask big questions naturally.

Religions can answer those questions, which means it is in part natural.

Religions have been found in all cultures, so perhaps the human mind accepts religious ideas naturally.

So now to the third part of our lesson, religion as a result of human nurture.

According to World Religion Day, there are 3,000 religions in the world today.

And this map shows where many religions are across the world with different colours representing them.

Does this variety show that religion is a result of human nurture? If there's so many different religions across the world in different places, does that mean it's how humans have been brought up or how they have learned from one another, rather than it being natural within them? We can see how the variety of religions can show religion as a result of human nurture like this.

Different religions are found in different parts of the world.

And religious beliefs in religions are diverse and varied, depending on the society that they're found in.

Therefore, people are not born with religious ideas, but learn them from their societies through socialisation, so this forms the nurture side of the debate.

Let's do a quick check.

According to World Religion Day, there are only 300 religions in the world today.

Is that true or false? Yes, that's false, isn't it? Why? Because according to World Religion Day, there's 3,000 religions in the world today.

One part of this socialisation could be religious upbringing, so the idea that people are learning how to fit into their society, and one of those things could be learning how to fit in by following a religion.

One example could be children in a family being shown how to pray or meditate or take part in other daily religious practises as a way to show them how religion is done in that family and how to encourage them to maybe take it up for themselves.

Children in a family might take part in festivals and other ceremonies, such as infant baptism, as a way of welcoming a child into the faith and raising them within it.

Could these activities be part of their socialisation? Teaching them how to fit in and how things are in their society? Meet Nadia and David.

Nadia is a Muslim and David is Christian and they're describing some memories they have of their childhood.

Nadia says, "I remember praying with my family as a child and copying my sisters to learn the prayer movements." David says, "I remember reading the Bible with my parents before going to bed and learning stories about Jesus." And I wonder if Nadia and David had been born to different families or raised in different parts of the world or lived in different centuries, would they still have the same religious belief or not? 'Cause that can help inform our discussion about nature and nurture.

How could their religious upbringing have encouraged their religious belief? Have a think about your answer.

Talk to someone next to you or you can talk to me.

So we had lots of ideas there about how the religious upbringing could have encouraged them to stay in that religion and have that faith.

Does that mean then that it was part of nurture, or was it still part of nature? Let's do a quick check.

Which two statements are accurate about religion and human nurture? Religious upbringing is one way that religion can be seen as a result of human nurture.

Religious upbringing can be a part of socialisation.

Religious upbringing never has any influence on someone being religious or not.

So, which two statements are accurate? Well done, it's a and b.

Religious upbringing is one way religion can be seen as a result of human nurture.

And b, religious upbringing can be a part of socialisation.

Time for another task now to see what we've learned.

On the left-hand side of the table below there are some reasons why religion could be seen as a result of human nature.

So I've got here the human mind has evolved to accept religious ideas, identical twins raised apart have similar religious beliefs, and humans naturally ask big questions.

So these are all reasons someone could give for why religion could be seen as a result of human nature.

Your task now is to complete the right-hand side of the table to show reasons why religion could be seen as a result of human nurture.

So you're going to think of three different reasons why religion could be seen as a result of human nurture rather than human nature.

So pause the video and off you go.

Well done, some fantastic work there.

This is one of the biggest debates in social sciences that we've been grappling with today, so well done.

So I showed you a table with some reasons why religion could be seen as a result of human nature.

And the reasons I had was that the human mind has evolved to accept religious ideas, that identical twins raised apart have similar religious beliefs, and that humans naturally ask big questions.

And I asked you to think of three reasons why religion could be seen as a result of human nurture, and your answers might have said something like this, religious upbringing, a variety of different religious ideas in the world, and socialisation encouraging religion.

And as you can see from the table here, there are reasons that people could give on each side and it is a debate that still goes on today.

And I wonder which side you fall on the nature-nurture debate.

Well done, everybody.

So let's recap what we've learned today.

In social sciences, such as sociology, there's a debate around what humans are born predetermined with and what they learn over time.

This debate is known as the nature-nurture debate.

Some scholars, such as Ann Taves, would argue that religion is a result of human nature.

Other scholars would argue that religion is a result of human nurture through processes such as socialisation and religious upbringing.

And I wonder where you stand on the nature-nurture debate.

Well, thank you for all your hard work today.

I look forward to learning with you again soon.

Okay, bye-bye.