Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on January 27, 2016, 02:31:47 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a two year old child's prayer when she is all alone in bed...seen through the monitor cameras.
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/31054025/parents-capture-childs-long-prayer-on-baby-monitor
Cute... and shows that such small children can comprehend the idea of an abstract God and relate to it.
Great... I must say!.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Dear Sriram,
Amen to that old son ;)
The usual suspects will be along in a mo with cries of indoctrination and child cruelty.
Gonnagle.
-
My grandson, then two, challenged his mother as to why she believed in Jesus as she couldn't see, hear or feel him.
-
Dear Sriram,
Amen to that old son ;)
The usual suspects will be along in a mo with cries of indoctrination and child cruelty.
Well it certainly wasn't spontaneous that's for sure:
"We were shocked at how long her prayer was when we captured this because she rushes through her prayers with us every night," said Kathryn.
-
My grandson, then two, challenged his mother as to why she believed in Jesus as she couldn't see, hear or feel him.
We've got two bid, two bid, who;s going to go younger, give me younger, youngest baby saying something wins!
Argumentum ad baby is a new one.
-
We've got two bid, two bid, who;s going to go younger, give me younger, youngest baby saying something wins!
Argumentum ad baby is a new one.
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
-
And the idea that any two-year-old child, however inteligent, can comprehend the idea of an abstract god and relate to it ... well, that's justdaft.
-
And the idea that any two-year-old child, however inteligent, can comprehend the idea of an abstract god and relate to it ... well, that's justdaft.
Argument from incredulity. Though I will add what is an 'abstract god' is it like a Mondrian, or is it more Kandinsky?
-
Argument from incredulity.
No it isn't, actually.
-
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
Trying to point out that use the words of babes and sucklings as an argument, while it might have a history isn't a much copy. And I was trying to use the auction reference to parody quite how ridiculous an attempt to cite a younger or equivalent aged child was.
-
No it isn't, actually.
Just declaring something as 'just daft' is exactly that. No justification other than the asserted daftness.
-
This is just learned behaviour without any real understanding, and I'd imagine anyone who has been involved in the day-to-day routine of young children will realise this.
My youngest grandson is currently going through a Toy Story phase and often exclaims 'To Infinity and Beyond' whenever (and wherever) the mood takes him, and I'd say that this prayer example is of no greater relevance or really merits public interest, since most young children are this type of 'cute': but then we are talking Fox here, so might there be an agenda!
-
Just declaring something as 'just daft' is exactly that. No justification other than the asserted daftness.
I was thinking that when we have members here who are fifty-two (and well over) stating that they're unable to comprehend what the god they claim to believe in actually is (and seeming to make this somehow almost praiseworthy), that this would be true of a two year old seemed pretty much a given.
-
And the idea that any two-year-old child, however inteligent, can comprehend the idea of an abstract god and relate to it ... well, that's justdaft.
Well my grandson certainly did, he is highly intelligent as well as having Asperger's syndrome.
-
Ew. Deeply creepy story.
But then my middle child used to lie in bed aged two and recite the words to Dear Zoo completely perfectly. Amazing spiritual insight into snakes being to scwawy.
-
I was thinking that when we have members here who are fifty-two (and well over) stating that they're unable to comprehend what the god they claim to believe in actually is (and seeming to make this somehow almost praiseworthy), that this would be true of a two year old seemed pretty much a given.
As I added in the post, I don't really have much clue as to what is meant by 'abstract god', but in order to think it is daft we have to be incredulous that anyone could conceive if what is meant, and that a two year old couldn't. I don't see just declaring something as daft is any less of an incredulity argument than Leonard or Alan's for free will.
The point here surely is that whatever a two, fifty two or a hundred and two year old does or says isn't any form of argument for or against anything (other that a person of that age does that thing)
-
Ah so no intellectuals can have imagination, or all imaginative people must be thick? I'm not at all sure what you use the word intellectual to mean, Rose.
-
Our grandson never believed in fairies etc, or even Father Christmas, which was a bit sad. Mind you our eldest daughter worked out for herself when she was three that Father Christmas couldn't possibly get around all the kids in one night, and it must be her Daddy pretending to be him!
-
Our grandson never believed in fairies etc, or even Father Christmas, which was a bit sad. Mind you our eldest daughter worked out for herself when she was three that Father Christmas couldn't possibly get around all the kids in one night, and it must be her Daddy pretending to be him!
Our son was about twelve by the time we felt we had to break the illusion and save him the embarrassment at school.
At that point he was under the impression that, as the world population had grown, St Nich' had expanded into franchising, and most parents around the world earned a few extra pounds each year wrapping presents for Santa Inc.
O.
-
Any apparent comprehension of a God/god in a two-year-old is learnt behaviour, and I would assert probably parrot-fashion, from instruction by adults.
A child will only believe that such an idea is true if taught to do so by adults.
The vocabulary required to comprehend anything about such an idea as God is well beyond a two-year-old.
I didn't bother to try and track it down, but I'm pretty certain I've read about children's ages and a bstract thought.
|I did not even try to watch whatever was on the link - a child who is filmed saying a prayer is, in my opinion, being exploited.
It's not 'cute' or 'sweet'; if anything such things are cringe-making.
Thank you, Shaker - I think I was arguing from scientific info!!
-
I was thinking that when we have members here who are fifty-two (and well over) stating that they're unable to comprehend what the god they claim to believe in actually is (and seeming to make this somehow almost praiseworthy), that this would be true of a two year old seemed pretty much a given.
A two year old just about has the understanding that a person who leaves will eventually reappear. The concept of an unseen father god? No.
My son could recite numbers to twenty aged 18 months. That doesn't mean he understood what those numbers meant.
-
Good read here.
http://deltaflute.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/abstract-thinking-cognitive-development.html?m=1
-
I think children do things like that, because they have vast amounts of imagination and little experience.
Imagining God is just as easy as imagining Santa, fairies, or other things they have been told about.
Please explain. How can a child imagine God? What picture do you think a two-year-old would have in his/her mind?
It is quite different from riding an imaginary horse. No adult has told a child that this imaginary horse lives in something called heaven, answers prayers, loves you and all other humans, etc etc
-
Where did that definition of intellectual come from?
-
A two year old can only imagine God as presented to them by adults in a picture book. It's why many of us grew up with the idea of God being an old man with a beard.
A four year old can however.
-
Good read here.
http://deltaflute.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/abstract-thinking-cognitive-development.html?m=1
Which is part of my issue with this 'abstract god' idea, what is abstract about any god while it has any specificity? Surely the claim that the child is praying to some god is precisely a denial of 'abstractness'. Just to note I know this isn't your position that the kid is doing it, using your post and the excellent link to speculate. All gods are in their specificity concrete, the idea of 'god' might be an abstract though even that feels a bit dodgy. What is an abstract toddler?
-
Which is part of my issue with this 'abstract god' idea, what is abstract about any god while it has any specificity? Surely the claim that the child is praying to some god is precisely a denial of 'abstractness'. Just to note I know this isn't your position that the kid is doing it, using your post and the excellent link to speculate. All gods are in their specificity concrete, the idea of 'god' might be an abstract though even that feels a bit dodgy. What is an abstract toddler?
Ok...maybe I should be answering that.
I mentioned 'abstract' because the child wasn't praying to any concrete idol or picture. It was praying in the dark to an invisible entity. That is why I used the word 'abstract'.
-
The usual suspects will be along in a mo with cries of indoctrination and child cruelty.
Indoctrination, child cruelty :)
Strange that you brought that up Gonners perhaps your getting to the truth of religion after all ;D
Susan children can imagine anything they are told about... Indoctrination, child cruelty!
-
Ok...maybe I should be answering that.
I mentioned 'abstract' because the child wasn't praying to any concrete idol or picture. It was praying in the dark to an invisible entity. That is why I used the word 'abstract'.
Would you talk about an 'abstract friend' as equivalent to imaginary friend? If child is taught to pray, not to an idol or picture, then it isn't making the jump to abstracted. Does the fact that it mentioned mommy and daddy quite so many times mean that some of those were 'abstract mommies and daddies'?
-
Would you talk about an 'abstract friend' as equivalent to imaginary friend? If child is taught to pray, not to an idol or picture, then it isn't making the jump to abstracted. Does the fact that it mentioned mommy and daddy quite so many times mean that some of those were 'abstract mommies and daddies'?
Alright! I am not going to start arguing over some words. I have explained why I used the word 'abstract'. 'Abstract' means something not concrete.
It is not an 'imaginary God' because the child believes she is talking to a real entity. Maybe she was picturing the idol of Jesus that she has seen...or something.
-
If the child believed she was talking to an invisible unicorn would she also be talking to a real entity?
Your definition of abstract sums up religion perfectly :)
-
Alright! I am not going to start arguing over some words. I have explained why I used the word 'abstract'. 'Abstract' means something not concrete.
It is not an 'imaginary God' because the child believes she is talking to a real entity. Maybe she was picturing the idol of Jesus that she has seen...or something.
using real and abstract as synonymous seems odd.
-
using real and abstract as synonymous seems odd.
No...its not. Dark Energy is abstract but it could be real. So also Parallel universes, Dark Matter, several dimensions and many other things.
Abstract just means 'not concrete' . It does not mean 'unreal'.
-
No...its not. Dark Energy is abstract but it could be real. So also Parallel universes, Dark Matter, several dimensions and many other things.
Abstract just means 'not concrete' . It does not mean 'unreal'.
And concrete means real, you seem a bit confused. Unknown is not synonymous with abstract, neither is unevidenced.
-
Our son was about twelve by the time we felt we had to break the illusion and save him the embarrassment at school.
At that point he was under the impression that, as the world population had grown, St Nich' had expanded into franchising, and most parents around the world earned a few extra pounds each year wrapping presents for Santa Inc.
O.
Wow, that is old to still believe in that myth!
-
As has often been said, all imaginary friends do not last beyond childhood. To me, it is very sad that the equally, and totally non-existent,* imaginary friend labelled God, or something equivalent,is still believed in by people.
* I have not forgotten the vanishingly, infinitesimally small ;possibility that a god might one day turn up.
-
Blind autistic boy sings, Open the eyes of my heart Lord, I want to see you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F_W_zl61bI
-
And concrete means real, you seem a bit confused. Unknown is not synonymous with abstract, neither is unevidenced.
LOL! What am I confused about?
Abstract means 'not concrete' or 'difficult to understand'. It does NOT mean 'unreal'.
So...something can be abstract and still be real. Such as God, 7 dimensions, and the other things I have mentioned above.
-
LOL! What am I confused about?
Abstract means 'not concrete' or 'difficult to understand'. It does NOT mean 'unreal'.
So...something can be abstract and still be real. Such as God, 7 dimensions, and the other things I have mentioned above.
That's incorrect. Abstract does not mean 'not concrete' or 'difficult to understand'. Dark energy and dark matter are not abstract either, they are just poorly (or not yet) understood. Abstract means more like 'conceptual'.
-
Abstract I thought meant something that exists as an idea, rather than a thing, like love, beauty etc.
It can be real but has no physical existence.
Maths perhaps.
It doesn't have to be difficult to understand though.
Real effectively means actual existence, not imaginary, or conceptual so I struggle to see how abstract and real can be easily combined. As per the earlier comment an imaginary friend, no matter how complex, would not be real. In that sense imaginary and real are antonyms.
Tbh I think here is one of those cases, where the writer has tried to make something sound important by choosing a more loaded word than can be justified. We've all done it, and I don't even think it is deliberate. We try to convey things but language is a slippery tool. I even get what Sriram is trying to convey and I am struggling to come up with an exactly suitable word, I think 'immaterial' is probably best but even that has connotations which aren't justified in the circumstances.
In the end, I would suggest the problem is that too much is being made of it. If we put child talks to imaginary god, that reads as an attempt to make little if it. Abstract reads as an attempt to aggrandise it. It isn't as significant as either of those and they read as attempts at spin. There is the tendency, as mentioned earlier, to treat the actions of the babes and sucklings as way more meaningful than they can support.
-
Dear Sriram,
I told you, no! I did tell you ;) you got them all frothing at the mouth :P
How do you quieten a two year old atheist, give him a page of the God Delusion to suck on ;D ;D
Anyway, I was interested in Susan's post, when she asked what the child was imagining, adults when praying don't imagine, or do they, I certainly don't, when I pray it is all about emotion, joy, sadness, anger, maybe I am doing it wrong :o
Gonnagle.
-
That's incorrect. Abstract does not mean 'not concrete' or 'difficult to understand'. Dark energy and dark matter are not abstract either, they are just poorly (or not yet) understood. Abstract means more like 'conceptual'.
Just refer any online dictionary. Why is everyone coming up with their own definition?
-
Dear Sriram,
I told you, no! I did tell you ;) you got them all frothing at the mouth :P
How do you quieten a two year old atheist, give him a page of the God Delusion to suck on ;D ;D
Anyway, I was interested in Susan's post, when she asked what the child was imagining, adults when praying don't imagine, or do they, I certainly don't, when I pray it is all about emotion, joy, sadness, anger, maybe I am doing it wrong :o
Gonnagle.
You are right. There is more digression than discussion! LOL!
-
You are right. There is more digression than discussion! LOL!
I think you are using the terms digression here to mean disagreeing with you in some way, and discussion to mean agreeing.
What 'frothing at the mouth' has there been?
The reason why I raised the question of abstract is that it's about what you want to make of this. That the child isn't talking to a physical thing has already been covered in that imaginary friends are not physical but we wouldn't regard them as real. You are also when challenged using different possible definitions of abstract as if the different uses are all necessarily in line with what you are trying to covey.
At base, the question here is what are we meant to take away from this, and I think you are attempting to make more of it than it can support - just as Floo does in the opposite fashion with her anecdote about her grand kid.
-
I think you are using the terms digression here to mean disagreeing with you in some way, and discussion to mean agreeing.
What 'frothing at the mouth' has there been?
The reason why I raised the question of abstract is that it's about what you want to make of this. That the child isn't talking to a physical thing has already been covered in that imaginary friends are not physical but we wouldn't regard them as real. You are also when challenged using different possible definitions of abstract as if the different uses are all necessarily in line with what you are trying to covey.
At base, the question here is what are we meant to take away from this, and I think you are attempting to make more of it than it can support - just as Floo does in the opposite fashion with her anecdote about her grand kid.
There is no problem with the definition of 'abstract'. Just check the dictionary.
You are just trying to convey that 'God' is imaginary and not abstract (because it could be REAL). That is your problem!
-
There is no problem with the definition of 'abstract'. Just check the dictionary.
You are just trying to convey that 'God' is imaginary and not abstract (because it could be REAL). That is your problem!
Am I? That's a bit strange when I specifically said in an earlier post that I thought that using imaginary would be wrong and another type of spin. Care to retract the misrepresentation?
-
Am I? That's a bit strange when I specifically said in an earlier post that I thought that using imaginary would be wrong and another type of spin. Care to retract the misrepresentation?
You always manage to digress and accuse people of misrepresenting, don't you? Never fails!
Anyway, I am at the airport and not on my PC. So cannot manage long discussions. Have a nice day.
-
You always manage to digress and accuse people of misrepresenting, don't you? Never fails!
Anyway, I am at the airport and not on my PC. So cannot manage long discussions. Have a nice day.
Me Reply 46
'In the end, I would suggest the problem is that too much is being made of it. If we put child talks to imaginary god, that reads as an attempt to make little if it. Abstract reads as an attempt to aggrandise it. It isn't as significant as either of those and they read as attempts at spin. There is the tendency, as mentioned earlier, to treat the actions of the babes and sucklings as way more meaningful than they can support.'
You
Reply 52There is no problem with the definition of 'abstract'. Just check the dictionary.
You are just trying to convey that 'God' is imaginary and not abstract (because it could be REAL). That is your problem!
So care to retract? Or do you just want to 'digress' with incorrect personal attacks rather than try to actually discuss?