Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

Article that points out differences in switching religion in US vs England (US has far more switching than UK).

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/08/religion-switching-in-the-uk-and-usa/

By the way, did you read the text at your link?

"Whats more, non-Christians almost all have stayed religious very few have switched out to non-religion. I guess thats because these people are mostly first or second-generation immigrants, for whom religion forms an important part of their cultural identity."

Yes I did. That's interesting about the non-Christians in the UK staying religious. So they don't believe anymore but continue to participate. Is that the population you'd like to focus on? Non-religious that don't want to disappoint their families?

 

[Joe Bryant]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would you see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

 

[Otis]

clipped

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

Thanks Shader. I don't know much about the Pew Report but I have often heard their name in Religious polling. I think they're well respected.

Couple of questions I'd ask on this.

As with any statistics, one has to be careful to make sure "the rest of the story" is there. For instance, is there something in Hindu culture that makes leaving the religion way worse than it is in Buddhist culture? I don't know that.

And the bigger question I'd ask is what do these numbers tell us? Is it better to have an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults and then follow their parent's choice? Or does it speak better for an organization where the vast majority of the children grow into adults that reject their parent's choice?

Not to single you out Otis (while I single you out, GB ) what would you rather see? The list above has a wide range. Which end of the list is more attractive from the legacy angle?

J

It certainly raises interesting points, doesn't it?

If your religion has a very high retention rate, I guess the question I'd ask is why? It can't have anything to do with it being the "truth" because Hindu's and Catholics share an almost identical rate of "I was born into this religion" adherents, at around 90%, and the two religions are very far apart.

If your church had an abnormally low retention rate, you'd also probably want to ask yourself why that is? Are people leaving because they don't believe it? Can't live up to the standards?

I don't find the quoted statistic all that meaningful in this discussion. Other statistics at that link are far more pertinent.

Feel free to point them out. I felt that one was significant, but I'd love to get your opinion of the other stats that relate to this discussion.

The statistic that we are looking for is this:

What percentage of people who self identify as religious have adopted a religion that is the same as, or very similar to, the religion of the household in which they were brought up.

That's the number we need. I bet it's very high.

 

[Otis]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

My suspicion is that Otis is clinging to the parents thing because it's the explanation that makes the most sense to him. Every athiest and agnostic knows and respects lots of folks that are both religious and very smart. But it's difficult for us to understand how someone that is so brilliant could believe in things that we regard as fairy tales and superstitions. One explanation that seems at least plausible is that, when a person is raised in a religious environment, these beliefs are considered so natural and commonplace that they don't seem absurd when that person reaches adulthood. But smart people that choose a religion as an adult are tougher for us to understand.

Smart people throughout the ages have believed in the bible. You shouldn't have to wonder why smart and brilliant people could believe in miracles (which I assume is the fairy tales/superstitions comment). As I've posted numerous times, if God could create the universe, of which the earth is a tiny speck, than healing sick people, parting a river or even flooding the earth are not difficult things at all.

I would say that man in general has the inborn need to worship a higher power. This is evident not only throughout history, but even today. Despite evolution and science advancing, atheism is under 2.5% in adults, according to a quick google search. So while atheists may wonder why brilliant people could believe in "fairy tales and superstitions", in reality they are wondering why 97% of the people on the planet believe in some sort of higher power. To most people it's obvious. Taking the leap from believing in a higher power to believing in that higher power performing some powerful acts in the past is really not that great of a leap.

I don't think I really disagree with much here, I'm just trying to explain it from my perspective, as someone who does not believe in a higher power.

When I talked about fairy tales and superstitions, I wasn't just talking about miracles, but also about the existence of god in the first place. I will admit that it is difficult for me to comprehend how an intelligent person can look objectively at the world around them, consider everything carefully, and come to the conclusion that, say, the Bible or the Koran or the Torah is handed down from god. Just like it is difficult for some religious people to understand how another intelligent person can look at the world around him and fail to see all the evidence of god's existence. So we all search for explanations that can make some sense of it. Maybe it's something environmental that causes people to think in different ways. Maybe there's some genetic reason why what seems obvious to some seems absurd to others. I don't know.

 

[mr roboto]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make. Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

 

[Otis]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

 

[mr roboto]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

OK.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

Keep at it. If you keep tossing out any study that quotes a number too low for you to claim victory, eventually you will get it right.

 

[The Commish]

As an aside -- and I know this is a cheap shot -- but I'm watching this special on the Boston marathon on CNN right now, and it's very hard to believe any all powerful and good-meaning being in any universe would allow savagery like this. And it happens way, way too often in this world. That's disappointing.

What's cheap about that? Your question is essentially "why do good things happen to bad people?" People are lying if they claim not to struggle with that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

But there are way more career options than religions.

I'm just honestly trying to understand high retention being a bad thing. And trying to honestly understand what kind of churn is enough but not too much where you'd see it as a positive and not a negative.

J

 

[Otis]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

Keep at it. If you keep tossing out any study that quotes a number too low for you to claim victory, eventually you will get it right.

Am I missing something? Has anyone posted a study that has this statistic? I saw the link above -- the quoted data in the post isn't the data I'm talking about, and the data in the link seems closer to what I'm looking for, but not on point.

Seriously, am I missing it?

 

[shader]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

It is a powerful statistic, but what do you think it means?

 

[Otis]

As an aside -- and I know this is a cheap shot -- but I'm watching this special on the Boston marathon on CNN right now, and it's very hard to believe any all powerful and good-meaning being in any universe would allow savagery like this. And it happens way, way too often in this world. That's disappointing.

What's cheap about that? Your question is essentially "why do good things happen to bad people?" People are lying if they claim not to struggle with that.

It's not a relevant data point to this discussion. It's a gripe with religion, but not directly related, and just feels like a cheap shot.

 

[mr roboto]

I still don't know the EXACT statistic you are looking for Otis.

 

[shader]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

Keep at it. If you keep tossing out any study that quotes a number too low for you to claim victory, eventually you will get it right.

Am I missing something? Has anyone posted a study that has this statistic? I saw the link above -- the quoted data in the post isn't the data I'm talking about, and the data in the link seems closer to what I'm looking for, but not on point.

Seriously, am I missing it?

The link was people in a religion that grew up that religion. Is that not waht you wanted? And yes the numbers were overall very high.

 

[Joe Bryant]

As an aside -- and I know this is a cheap shot -- but I'm watching this special on the Boston marathon on CNN right now, and it's very hard to believe any all powerful and good-meaning being in any universe would allow savagery like this. And it happens way, way too often in this world. That's disappointing.

What's cheap about that? Your question is essentially "why do good things happen to bad people?" People are lying if they claim not to struggle with that.

Agreed.

J

 

[proninja]

As an aside -- and I know this is a cheap shot -- but I'm watching this special on the Boston marathon on CNN right now, and it's very hard to believe any all powerful and good-meaning being in any universe would allow savagery like this. And it happens way, way too often in this world. That's disappointing.

What's cheap about that? Your question is essentially "why do good things happen to bad people?" People are lying if they claim not to struggle with that.

Agreed.

J

I don't know a single Christian who has given any thought to their faith at all that hasn't struggled with the problem of evil existing.

 

[Otis]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

It is a powerful statistic, but what do you think it means?

Again, I think it means -- if it's right (people in here seem to believe it's not true) -- that religion is largely influenced by your parents' religion.

If that's true, then that largely diminishes the power of belief, as it in essence means your religion is arbitrary. Every time someone is born into the world, there is a strong chance they will have the religion of their parents/local region. Not one of their own choosing or belief.

That calls into question the soundness of the belief. If 90% of people in the world are just walking around believing what they've been told to believe, isn't that meaningful?

It also calls into question the "truth" of one religion as compared with another. Everyone is in the same boat. They all adopted the religions of their families/regions. And if it's that arbitrary, who is to say any one family or region knows better than another. And if all religions are basically inconsistent with one another, then not just one is likely "wrong" on this reasoning, but all are wrong.

 

[Otis]

I still don't know the EXACT statistic you are looking for Otis.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I spelled it out in line one line. It shouldn't be a complicated one to find, but it hits at the heart of my question. I assume it's out there somewhere, but I can't seem to find it either.

 

[shader]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

It is a powerful statistic, but what do you think it means?

Again, I think it means -- if it's right (people in here seem to believe it's not true) -- that religion is largely influenced by your parents' religion.

If that's true, then that largely diminishes the power of belief, as it in essence means your religion is arbitrary. Every time someone is born into the world, there is a strong chance they will have the religion of their parents/local region. Not one of their own choosing or belief.

That calls into question the soundness of the belief. If 90% of people in the world are just walking around believing what they've been told to believe, isn't that meaningful?

It also calls into question the "truth" of one religion as compared with another. Everyone is in the same boat. They all adopted the religions of their families/regions. And if it's that arbitrary, who is to say any one family or region knows better than another. And if all religions are basically inconsistent with one another, then not just one is likely "wrong" on this reasoning, but all are wrong.

I actually agree with a lot of what you posted here.

 

[Otis]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

You're absolutely right. It's also not 99%. And religious switching is far more prevalent now than in the 1300s. And far less prevalent in Iran than in the US. And far more prevalent in former communist countries where religion is a new choice for the population to make.Social, cultural, familial and geographical factors impact decision making.

Of course. But maybe it's 90%. Or 80%. Even in this world of information sharing. And that to me is a pretty powerful statistic. But again, I'm guessing at the number. I just suspect it's really, really high.

Keep at it. If you keep tossing out any study that quotes a number too low for you to claim victory, eventually you will get it right.

Am I missing something? Has anyone posted a study that has this statistic? I saw the link above -- the quoted data in the post isn't the data I'm talking about, and the data in the link seems closer to what I'm looking for, but not on point.

Seriously, am I missing it?

The link was people in a religion that grew up that religion. Is that not waht you wanted? And yes the numbers were overall very high.

My bad, you're right. That looks like the right info.

 

[shader]

I still don't know the EXACT statistic you are looking for Otis.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I spelled it out in line one line. It shouldn't be a complicated one to find, but it hits at the heart of my question. I assume it's out there somewhere, but I can't seem to find it either.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

Look on page 27 of that doc. Is that not what you are looking for?

 

[mr roboto]

From the OP.

I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X.

So you want to know what % of people that are currently religious are solely that way due the religion their parents taught them?

 

[Joe Bryant]

The link was people in a religion that grew up that religion. Is that not waht you wanted? And yes the numbers were overall very high.

I don't think that's exactly what he wanted but it's in the ball park.

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pew...y-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

My question is which one of these is more attractive? Buddhist where only 27% were raised Buddhist meaning most of the people in the Buddhist Temple that day grew up with something different and found their way to the Buddhist Temple? Or Hindu? Where 90% of the people in the Hindu church experienced the Hindu religion growing up and decided that's what they wanted to have as adults.

If I'm understanding Otis right, I think he'd say Buddhist is superior to Hindu in that regard. But I don't know that's the case. I'd see it as a ton of the people in the Hindu faith liked what they experienced and wanted that as adults.

J

 

[Otis]

From the OP.

I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X.

So you want to know what % of people that are currently religious are solely that way due the religion their parents taught them?

I don't think there's any way to prove the bolded.

It looks like the data quoted actually applies. My bad. Too much skimming.

 

[mr roboto]

From the OP.

I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X.

So you want to know what % of people that are currently religious are solely that way due the religion their parents taught them?

I don't think there's any way to prove the bolded.

It looks like the data quoted actually applies. My bad. Too much skimming.

 

[Otis]

From the OP.

I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X.

So you want to know what % of people that are currently religious are solely that way due the religion their parents taught them?

I don't think there's any way to prove the bolded.

It looks like the data quoted actually applies. My bad. Too much skimming.

Those were your words. Solely, 99%. I think that's what we are reacting to honestly.

I think maybe just you're reacting. I've said as many ways as I can that I don't know the number, and that I'm guessing, and that it's maybe 90% or 80% or some other statistically meaningful number. I was raised Catholic, it turns out the number in the above link for that religion is 89%. I wasn't totally off the wall with my gut feel estimate.

Does the difference between 99% and 90% change the point any?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I challenge you to find a religion thread that went 8 pages deep here and stayed as respectful and even-keeled as this one.

Eight pages. Yours has now surpassed mine, though.

 

[shader]

The link was people in a religion that grew up that religion. Is that not waht you wanted? And yes the numbers were overall very high.

I don't think that's exactly what he wanted but it's in the ball park.

A great report to read is here: http://religions.pew...y-chapter-2.pdf

An interesting stat in this link is the percentage of people in the Church that were raised as a member. Here are some numbers:

Hindu: 90%

Catholic: 89%

Jewish: 85%

Orthodox: 77%

Mormon: 74%

Muslim: 60%

Protestant: (it lumps them all together) 54%

Jehovah's Witness: 33%

Buddhist: 27%

My question is which one of these is more attractive? Buddhist where only 27% were raised Buddhist meaning most of the people in the Buddhist Temple that day grew up with something different and found their way to the Buddhist Temple. Or Hindu? Where 90% of the people in the Hindu church experienced the Hindu religion growing up and decided that's what they wanted to have as adults.

If I'm understanding Otis right, I think he'd say Buddhist is superior to Hindu in that regard. But I don't know that's the case. I'd see it as a ton of the people in the Hindu faith liked what they experienced and wanted that as adults.

J

I think I see it now. The above post relates to the % of people in a particular religion that grew up in that religion. He is looking for a stat that indicates the percentage of people that grew up in a religion and stayed in that religion. A subtle difference, but very closely related. The first could be skewed a bit by a religion with a high growth rate.

As to the questions you pose, I see the point in "liking what they experienced". But if you are looking for "truth", that really isn't relevant is it? Not if you are a person that believes in some sort of absolute truth.

 

[proninja]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

 

[Otis]

I challenge you to find a religion thread that went 8 pages deep here and stayed as respectful and even-keeled as this one.

Eight pages. Yours has now surpassed mine, though.

Suck it, Maurile!11!

 

[mr roboto]

From the OP.

I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X.

So you want to know what % of people that are currently religious are solely that way due the religion their parents taught them?

I don't think there's any way to prove the bolded.

It looks like the data quoted actually applies. My bad. Too much skimming.

Those were your words. Solely, 99%. I think that's what we are reacting to honestly.

I think maybe just you're reacting. I've said as many ways as I can that I don't know the number, and that I'm guessing, and that it's maybe 90% or 80% or some other statistically meaningful number. I was raised Catholic, it turns out the number in the above link for that religion is 89%. I wasn't totally off the wall with my gut feel estimate.

Does the difference between 99% and 90% change the point any?

See my edit. I'm over this string.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

But there are way more career options than religions.

I'm just honestly trying to understand high retention being a bad thing. And trying to honestly understand what kind of churn is enough but not too much where you'd see it as a positive and not a negative.

J

What would you think of a parent that made their kid say a chant about becoming a doctor before every meal? Before every bedtime? For X hours every Sunday with a bunch of other people chanting about how they are all, or want to become, doctors? On every holiday? Made them read a medical textbook every night? All because the parent thinks that their kid becoming a doctor is best for them.

 

[Otis]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

 

[Otis]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

But there are way more career options than religions.

I'm just honestly trying to understand high retention being a bad thing. And trying to honestly understand what kind of churn is enough but not too much where you'd see it as a positive and not a negative.

J

What would you think of a parent that made their kid say a chant about becoming a doctor before every meal? Before every bedtime? For X hours every Sunday with a bunch of other people chanting about how they are all, or want to become, doctors? On every holiday? Made them read a medical textbook every night? All because the parent thinks that their kid becoming a doctor is best for them.

To follow your thinking, add in the statement that, telling the kid that if she doesn't become a doctor, she will go to hell.

Ouch.

 

[datonn]

What would you think of a parent that made their kid say a chant about becoming a doctor before every meal? Before every bedtime? For X hours every Sunday with a bunch of other people chanting about how they are all, or want to become, doctors? On every holiday? Made them read a medical textbook every night? All because the parent thinks that their kid becoming a doctor is best for them.

^ You just described 2-3 kids/families that I know. Kind of like parents who force their kids to take thousands of hours of piano/violin lessons. [/hijack] (sorry, just reminded me of a few families who've been prepping their kids for "Julliard" since they cut the umbilical chord).

 

[Otis]

BREAKING NEWS ON CNN -- THE AIR SEARCH FOR MH370 IS SUSPENDED DUE TO BAD WEATHER

He really just said this like it was big news. I thought he was going to say they found the plane. I think I've found the one reason I most believe there cannot possibly be a god -- humanity is so, so stupid.

 

[shader]

From 2008 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-02-25-survey_N.htm

Faith is fluid: 44% say they're no longer tied to the religious or secular upbringing of their childhood. They've changed religions or denominations, adopted a faith for the first time or abandoned any affiliation altogether.

This isn't helpful data because of the bolded. Lots of folks are leaving religion, and they are counted in this data as a "change of religion." That skews the numbers.

So I'd ask, "What kind of things would see as being a positive in this area"?

Are you looking for something like a ton of the new 20 year old believers at the Jewish Temple were raised by Muslim parents? But when those now Jewish Temple folks have kids, it'll be negative if they stay at the Jewish Temple?

If the opposite of legacy is a good thing, are we saying it's a positive to have constant churn in a church? That doesn't seem like a good thing.

J

Honestly, what would be most meaningful? The same divergence as in your career example. In any given household, limited correlation between the occupation of the parents and occupation of the kids; and a widespread divergence in choices. That would be interesting to me, as it would evidence to me that -- as in the occupation context -- people are independently finding their way to their various religions. But the breakdown of religion in the world as we know it is nothing like that.

But there are way more career options than religions.

I'm just honestly trying to understand high retention being a bad thing. And trying to honestly understand what kind of churn is enough but not too much where you'd see it as a positive and not a negative.

J

What would you think of a parent that made their kid say a chant about becoming a doctor before every meal? Before every bedtime? For X hours every Sunday with a bunch of other people chanting about how they are all, or want to become, doctors? On every holiday? Made them read a medical textbook every night? All because the parent thinks that their kid becoming a doctor is best for them.

That's a little unfair. Few parents care if their kids become doctors, as long as they have good lives. But parents want their kids to do well in life, so they send them to school, make them do their homework, make them obey their teachers, teach them how to be good people, spend tons of money growing up for their education, save money for their collegiate education, and spend immense amounts of time trying to help them become a success. Are they "brain-washing" their kids? Why not tell them that being homeless is a choice too, so school is not necessary?

Similarly, if parents are convinced that there is a Creator, than why shouldn't they also teach their kids about that Creator?

 

[Henry Ford]

BREAKING NEWS ON CNN -- THE AIR SEARCH FOR MH370 IS SUSPENDED DUE TO BAD WEATHER

He really just said this like it was big news. I thought he was going to say they found the plane. I think I've found the one reason I most believe there cannot possibly be a god -- humanity is so, so stupid.

Made in His image.

 

[Galileo]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

My opinion here...Otis can speak for himself...but a higher retention rate may imply people keep a particular faith simply because it is what they have always been told rather than coming to some type of self realization of what is "true". The problem with this is that just knowing a number is not enough.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

From the OP.

I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X.

So you want to know what % of people that are currently religious are solely that way due the religion their parents taught them?

I don't think there's any way to prove the bolded.

It looks like the data quoted actually applies. My bad. Too much skimming.

Those were your words. Solely, 99%. I think that's what we are reacting to honestly.

I think maybe just you're reacting. I've said as many ways as I can that I don't know the number, and that I'm guessing, and that it's maybe 90% or 80% or some other statistically meaningful number. I was raised Catholic, it turns out the number in the above link for that religion is 89%. I wasn't totally off the wall with my gut feel estimate.

Does the difference between 99% and 90% change the point any?

If you had said "Catholic" instead of "religious" in the OP, we'd be down to nitpicky correlation/causation stuff.

If you meant "religious" when you said "religious", those numbers from religions of non-trivial size like Muslim (60%) and Protestant (54%) disprove the statement you made in the OP pretty cleanly.

So I guess it depends on how much you're willing to move the goal posts to avoid admitting you were wrong in the OP.

 

[proninja]

What would you think of a parent that made their kid say a chant about becoming a doctor before every meal? Before every bedtime? For X hours every Sunday with a bunch of other people chanting about how they are all, or want to become, doctors? On every holiday? Made them read a medical textbook every night? All because the parent thinks that their kid becoming a doctor is best for them.

^ You just described 2-3 kids/families that I know. Kind of like parents who force their kids to take thousands of hours of piano/violin lessons. [/hijack] (sorry, just reminded me of a few families who've been prepping their kids for "Julliard" since they cut the umbilical chord).

My wife is a violin teacher. I fully support their efforts.

 

[KCitons]

Someone mentioned the avoidance of religion and politics discussion in real life.

Otis, does this same theory apply to politics? I know my political stance is very different from my parents. But, for some reason they don't care, they just want me to go to church on Sunday.

 

[Galileo]

Someone mentioned the avoidance of religion and politics discussion in real life.

Otis, does this same theory apply to politics? I know my political stance is very different from my parents. But, for some reason they don't care, they just want me to go to church on Sunday.

Politics is only a temporary phenomenon of our earthly existence. Clearly, your parents are seeing the bigger picture here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

 

[Otis]

From the OP.

I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X.

So you want to know what % of people that are currently religious are solely that way due the religion their parents taught them?

I don't think there's any way to prove the bolded.

It looks like the data quoted actually applies. My bad. Too much skimming.

Those were your words. Solely, 99%. I think that's what we are reacting to honestly.

I think maybe just you're reacting. I've said as many ways as I can that I don't know the number, and that I'm guessing, and that it's maybe 90% or 80% or some other statistically meaningful number. I was raised Catholic, it turns out the number in the above link for that religion is 89%. I wasn't totally off the wall with my gut feel estimate.

Does the difference between 99% and 90% change the point any?

If you had said "Catholic" instead of "religious" in the OP, we'd be down to nitpicky correlation/causation stuff.

If you meant "religious" when you said "religious", those numbers from religions of non-trivial size like Muslim (60%) and Protestant (54%) disprove the statement you made in the OP pretty cleanly.

So I guess it depends on how much you're willing to move the goal posts to avoid admitting you were wrong in the OP.

I still don't believe I was wrong. I'm not moving the goalposts. The data above supports my view, no?

Do you disagree with my theory that people tend to take on the religion that is handed to them as children?

 

[Otis]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

 

[Joe Bryant]

Otis, if you've answered this I'm sorry, but the thread is moving awful fast.

What would you consider to be an ideal retention rate for religions when kids grow up? Is lower always better? Higher? Something in the middle?

I'm not looking for better or worse. I was just wondering if my gut instinct was right.

I suppose better or worse depends on who you are. If you're catholic and you want to see your religion thrive, then better is a higher retention and growth rate. If you're hindu, that data is maybe bad for you.

For me personally, there is no better or worse. I was just curious.

But a higher retention rate -- along with a very low rate of people leaving one religion they were raised in for a different religion -- would support my theorem.

This was all about a search for the numbers in the Pew report?

I thought this was about the big questions and the "choke point"?

Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.

J

Huh??

I'm confused. In one post you said you didn't really know if high or low retention was better or worse and that you were just curious.

But earlier you said a high retention rate was a "choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith"

J

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

If you had said "Catholic" instead of "religious" in the OP, we'd be down to nitpicky correlation/causation stuff.

If you meant "religious" when you said "religious", those numbers from religions of non-trivial size like Muslim (60%) and Protestant (54%) disprove the statement you made in the OP pretty cleanly.

So I guess it depends on how much you're willing to move the goal posts to avoid admitting you were wrong in the OP.

I still don't believe I was wrong. I'm not moving the goalposts. The data above supports my view, no?

Do you disagree with my theory that people tend to take on the religion that is handed to them as children?

I wholeheartedly disagree with your OP statement " I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X." That's a much more extreme statement than "people tend to take on the religion that is handed to them as children".

Your OP statement claims religious people are only religious because their parents are, and their parents are only religious because of where they live.

Your revised statement is so uncontroversial and so widely accepted, it doesn't qualify as insightful. You shouldn't be taking credit for it as "your" theory, and you certainly should be trying to equate it with what you said in the OP.

Shouldn't it be expected that the child takes on at least some of the attributes of their parents? We're talking about shared DNA in the vast majority of cases here, and environmental factors controlled by the parents as well. The vast majority of children are not randomly assigned.