Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bubbles on July 05, 2015, 09:57:14 AM
-
.
-
Sounds very sensible and likely to me, though I am not knowledgeable in Anthropology and Mind. I expect the usual " experts" will turn up with their own research and huge knowledge to deny the project's findings.
-
Clearly humans are questioning beings and will try to put some structure and meaning into their lives. In the absence of alternatives this leads to belief in God or gods to try to explain the natural world around them. Children need structure and certainty and the fact that in our society this is fulfilled by a rudimentary belief in God (probably as a grey hair man in the clouds) isn't surprising. In other situations other gods will fill the need. So no, wouldn't deny the projects findings, just perhaps some people's interpretation of them.
-
Sounds very sensible and likely to me
Thought it might.
-
Dear Rose,
Very interesting, when someone tells me about humans blaming the volcano god I have always thought, sounds sensible but where did the idea of a god come from.
Gonnagle.
-
That throws a spanner in the idea atheism is the default position and children only become religious because they are brainwashed by society and parents.
It would only 'throw a spanner in the works' if these hypotheses are true.
Are they true?
-
It is perfectly natural for us to look for an explanation for everything, and since we don't, as yet, know the cause of the universe, a supernatural cause may well fill the bill for some people.
But to then go on and invent "knowledge" of that phenomenon, as the founders of all religions have done, is pure fantasy.
The only honest answer is "we don't know".
-
Dr Justin Barrett [...] argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God [...] "If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
I know some of his work and know that Dr. Barrett is a clever guy; certainly intelligent enough to know how easy it is to make claims knowing full well that they'll never even be tested.
Sadly, despite this fact, how many people have or are going to read what is no more than an empty and wholly untestable claim and take it as truth?
-
Dear Shaker,
You slay me old chum ;D
It's evidence, scientific evidence, but because it flies in the face of a old atheist argument it is rubbish evidence.
Gonnagle.
-
HI Gonners,
The only thing it is scientific evidence for is that some children succumb to the religious brainwashing of their culture.
Since we already knew that, it seems like a monumental waste of time and money.
-
The problem with this study is that it seems to fly in the face of the largest body of evidence we have and one which has also been extensively studied. Namely the religion or otherwise of kids brought up in religious or non religious households.
If religion was indeed the default for children even if they had little or no teaching about it by family or schools, then you would expect a large proportion of kids from non religious households being religious as adults. And for those brought up in a religious household the addition of a religious upbringing plus the default religious position should surely ensure that virtually all kids from religious households become religious as adults.
But of course the reverse is true. Virtually no kids brought up in households which aren't religious end up religious as adults - just 3%. And even with a religious upbringing purportedly adding to a default religiosity the likelyhood of a kid brought up in a religious household becoming religious is just 50:50, compared to 97:3 for kids in non religious households wending up non religious.
So this study is blown to pieces by real 'fieldwork' evidence.
Actually the picture may be a little more complex, needing assessment of different stages in development to adulthood. It is possible that at one stage in development kids are likely to have a default of belief but as they progress they grow out of it (unless specifically being brought up religious). That means that the default through to adulthood is non belief not belief as the evidence domonstrates.
And frankly religions have known this forever which is why they impose requirements for children to be brought up to believe, develop complex rituals at stages through childhood to cement that belief and often expect education to emphasise their religious belief.
-
I saw this.
Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth
"
Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.
He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
"
Here is a bit about it from science daily
"A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.
The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.
'The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project' led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies.
The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology and Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
That throws a spanner in the idea atheism is the default position and children only become religious because they are brainwashed by society and parents.
I note that at no point do your "experts" give the ages of the children who hold these beliefs.
I would suggest that if the child is more than two or three years old they are, in all probability, spouting exactly what their parents have taught them either directly or by the child listening to the parents vierws on the subject whterhe religious or atheist.
I would suggest that children are born with no interest in either side of the argiument - in the moths /year after birth their interest is purely in "I'm hungry", "I'm tired", or "I've wet/pooped my nappy and I am uncomfortable".
-
Dear Rose,
Very interesting, when someone tells me about humans blaming the volcano god I have always thought, sounds sensible but where did the idea of a god come from.
Gonnagle.
Me too, Gonners!
-
Dear Shaker,
You slay me old chum ;D
It's evidence, scientific evidence, but because it flies in the face of a old atheist argument it is rubbish evidence.
Gonnagle.
Not even evidence, Gonners - that's the point. It is, so far, just a hypothesis which its originator knows can never be tested. You can hypothesise that children raised on a desert island will come unprompted to some sort of god-concept all you like. (Jill Paton Walsh wrote a rather good novel on this precise theme, called Knowledge of Angels). But without the ability to test it, which would be utterly unethical, so what?
It's also subject to a whole raft of other fatal objections which were in my mind anyway but which I see the good Prof. has just covered in his typically detailed, methodical but sparklingly clear way.
-
Dear Prof,
Real fieldwork!! Well the evidence for the evidence sounds sound, but what the hell! Maybe they just want to sell some books.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Real fieldwork!! Well the evidence for the evidence sounds sound, but what the hell! Maybe they just want to sell some books.
Gonnagle.
Go check out the academic work of David Voas who is just about the most respected academic studying the transmission of religion from generation to generation.
If this notion of default religiosity was correct we'd necessarily see loads of kids brought up in no religious households becoming religious as adults, because according to this study kids are defaultly religious regardless of whether they are exposed to or taught to be religious.
But that's not what we see. With a tiny proportion of exceptions the only kids that end up religious as adults are those brought up to be religious. The default is clearly non religiosity, with religion only transmitted when actively promoted to children.
-
Dear Shaker,
You slay me old chum ;D
It's evidence, scientific evidence, but because it flies in the face of a old atheist argument it is rubbish evidence.
Gonnagle.
Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.
This is a claim, not evidence.
He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.
This is a claim, not evidence. What faith is he claiming they have? Or is it just that they assume some unseen person created stuff?
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose,"
It's a good survival strategy to anthropomorphise natural phenomena in this way.
"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
That's a claim, not evidence. He hasn't actually thrown any children onto a desert island to see if he is right. And if he did do the experiment, it is highly unlikely that they would come up with anything like the Christian god.
Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments
Oh good, let's wait nd see what they are.
-
Dearie Me,
Man!! you would thought Rose had just posted real scientific evidence of God.
I would suggest various posters read it again without their atheist vests on 8)
Gonnagle.
-
Dearie Me,
Man!! you would thought Rose had just posted real scientific evidence of God.
Why would anybody think that?
I would suggest various posters read it again without their atheist vests on 8)
Gonnagle.
I would suggest you read it again without your Christian vest on.
-
Dearie Me,
Man!! you would thought Rose had just posted real scientific evidence of God.
I would suggest various posters read it again without their atheist vests on 8)
Gonnagle.
Nope reading this with my scientific research and evidence 'vest' on. It's what I do as a profession and that world is full of 'models' that end up not supported by the evidence and being unable to predict what we see in the real world. This would appear to be a case in point.
If their notion was correct we'd see loads of kids from non religious households ending up religious as adults. But we don't.
I suspect they are looking at developmental stages too narrowly. So to give an analogy, there is a developmental stage where kids think that if they can't see you, you can't see them. Is this a 'default' - no, merely a specific point in development an understanding the world. And one that is rapidly overtaken by a recognition that others can potentially see them when the child has his or her eyes closed. It is a key point in development of empathic behaviour - being able to see things through the eyes of other (kind of literally in this case).
Humans as a species are both intelligent and inquisitive, so there may well be a default to understand the world around us, and sure at a particular stage that might result in a common conclusion of something that made it. But this isn't a fundamental default, because later (without specifically be taught that religion is correct) most kids develop a non religious outlook therefore the inquisitiveness has taken a more sophisticated turn with increased cognitive development to recognise that religion isn't needed to explain the world.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Can't, I'am indoctrinated, or am I ???
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Fair enough, but the article does state, preponderance of scientific evidence.
Gonnagle.
-
Clearly humans are questioning beings and will try to put some structure and meaning into their lives. In the absence of alternatives this leads to belief in God or gods to try to explain the natural world around them. Children need structure and certainty and the fact that in our society this is fulfilled by a rudimentary belief in God (probably as a grey hair man in the clouds) isn't surprising. In other situations other gods will fill the need. So no, wouldn't deny the projects findings, just perhaps some people's interpretation of them.
I wonder how many children have a picture of God as 'a grey hair man in the clouds' until they begin to see pictures such as those produced by the likes of Blake? Have to say that I think it unlikely. Rather, I suspect that the good professor is thinking about a far less anthropomorhic idea.
-
I can only speak from my own personal experience. I had the 'born again' dogma fed to me from birth, but held out against getting 'saved' until I was 11 as I wasn't ever comfortable with the idea of the deity etc. In the end the threats of hell were too scary and I caved in. It was a relief to ditch the faith by the time I was 19 when I married and moved to the UK.
-
That throws a spanner in the idea atheism is the default position and children only become religious because they are brainwashed by society and parents.
It would only 'throw a spanner in the works' if these hypotheses are true.
Are they true?
Do you have any better, Shaker - especially ones that are supported by evidence.
"A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.
The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.
The numbers underlined suggest that this wasn't a fly-by-night study, but one that was well organised and peer-reviewed
Out of interest, can it be claimed that the Higgs-Boson research has a dramatically wider research 'base'?
-
Dear Prof,
Fair enough, but the article does state, preponderance of scientific evidence.
Gonnagle.
but clearly not the scientific evidence that demonstrates that kids brought up in non religious households hardly ever become religious as adults.
Clearly forgot that rather crucial piece of scientific evidence.
-
I can only speak from my own personal experience. I had the 'born again' dogma fed to me from birth, but held out against getting 'saved' until I was 11 as I wasn't ever comfortable with the idea of the deity etc. In the end the threats of hell were too scary and I caved in. It was a relief to ditch the faith by the time I was 19 when I married and moved to the UK.
Whereas my personal experience is that I never felt any pressure as a child - despite being born in to Christian family and especially being a 'son of the manse'. In fact, throughout my childhood - both at home and school, I was encouraged to consider/question/debate all sorts of issues: political, religious, economic, moral, ethical, etc.
This might explain why, when I was 13/14, I began to investigate other world views, especially Hinduism and Buddhism. I also dabbled in the occult.
I am not trying to disprove what Floo says, just pointing out that individual experience isn't always the best evidence if used in isolation.
-
but clearly not the scientific evidence that demonstrates that kids brought up in non religious households hardly ever become religious as adults.
Clearly forgot that rather crucial piece of scientific evidence.
Is there actually that much evidence to that effect? After all, until very recently, how many households actually regarded themselves as 'non-religious'? They may well have not practised any elements of faith, but census results - even in 2011 - seem to indicate a huge number of the population placing themselves within a 'religious' sphere.
-
If their notion was correct we'd see loads of kids from non religious households ending up religious as adults. But we don't.
Don't we? Over the decades, a lot of them seem happy to self-define as 'religious' as adults when completing censuses. It's only within the last 10 to 20 years that this has become less prevalent.
-
Do you have any better, Shaker
Ahhhhh, your favourite! I didn't think it would be long, although I didn't think it would be that soon.
-
If their notion was correct we'd see loads of kids from non religious households ending up religious as adults. But we don't.
Don't we? Over the decades, a lot of them seem happy to self-define as 'religious' as adults when completing censuses. It's only within the last 10 to 20 years that this has become less prevalent.
Ah, change for the better :)
Be interesting to see how things continue to improve in the coming decades.
-
Whereas my personal experience is that I never felt any pressure as a child - despite being born in to Christian family and especially being a 'son of the manse'. .
No doubt you weren't pressurised, but you nevertheless grew up in a Christian family. That's when the damage is done.
-
That's when the damage is done.
What damage would that be?
-
Thinking the evil deity is a god of love, for starters!
-
Be interesting to see how things continue to improve in the coming decades.
I'd agree; iirc, Dave M suggested that disestablishment might see a growth in the Christian Church here in the UK. That is something that I have heard from a number of sources over the years. It mighrt even see a revitalised, more campaigning Church as belioevers see themselves more on the margins of society and sharing the marginalisation that so many of the generral populace feel they suffer every day.
-
Thinking the evil deity is a god of love, for starters!
But I don't believe that an evil deity is a god of love, Floo. I never have done, and I've never been taught that. I know that you seek to indoctrinate me and others here into that belief.
-
Whereas my personal experience is that I never felt any pressure as a child - despite being born in to Christian family and especially being a 'son of the manse'. .
No doubt you weren't pressurised, but you nevertheless grew up in a Christian family. That's when the damage is done.
You people bleat on and on for evidence, and when a reliable source provides some, you squirm like fish in the hand, to try and avoid accepting it. Predictable, and indicative of desperation.
"That's when the damage is done." And that comment is purely offensive. How dare you impugn the intelligence of millions by saying they are "damaged" in their beliefs! There are literally millions of so-called "damaged," who are a heck of a lot brighter than you, and plenty who are infinitely more open-minded.
-
Dear Hope,
You forgot to underline analytical and empirical.
Dear Prof,
Your arguments are compelling but I think you are reading far to much into the research, we are born believers, what happens in later life is open to debate.
Gonnagle.
-
Be interesting to see how things continue to improve in the coming decades.
I'd agree; iirc, Dave M suggested that disestablishment might see a growth in the Christian Church here in the UK. That is something that I have heard from a number of sources over the years. It mighrt even see a revitalised, more campaigning Church as belioevers see themselves more on the margins of society and sharing the marginalisation that so many of the generral populace feel they suffer every day.
Now that's faith for you.
-
Be interesting to see how things continue to improve in the coming decades.
I'd agree; iirc, Dave M suggested that disestablishment might see a growth in the Christian Church here in the UK. That is something that I have heard from a number of sources over the years. It mighrt even see a revitalised, more campaigning Church as belioevers see themselves more on the margins of society and sharing the marginalisation that so many of the generral populace feel they suffer every day.
Now that's faith for you.
I don't think you really have any idea what that word means, in reality.
-
You people bleat on and on for evidence, and when a reliable source provides some, you squirm like fish in the hand, to try and avoid accepting it. Predictable, and indicative of desperation.
There's no evidence to be had here. There are a lot of claims, and even more noticeably a lot of not only untested but untestable hypotheses, but no evidence worthy of that fine word.
-
Be interesting to see how things continue to improve in the coming decades.
I'd agree; iirc, Dave M suggested that disestablishment might see a growth in the Christian Church here in the UK. That is something that I have heard from a number of sources over the years. It mighrt even see a revitalised, more campaigning Church as belioevers see themselves more on the margins of society and sharing the marginalisation that so many of the generral populace feel they suffer every day.
Now that's faith for you.
I don't think you really have any idea what that word means, in reality.
The substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
That's what you lot have to think it is, isn't it? It's in your book.
-
Be interesting to see how things continue to improve in the coming decades.
I'd agree; iirc, Dave M suggested that disestablishment might see a growth in the Christian Church here in the UK. That is something that I have heard from a number of sources over the years. It mighrt even see a revitalised, more campaigning Church as belioevers see themselves more on the margins of society and sharing the marginalisation that so many of the generral populace feel they suffer every day.
Now that's faith for you.
I don't think you really have any idea what that word means, in reality.
The substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
That's what you lot have to think it is, isn't it? It's in your book.
As I suggested, you haven't a clue.
-
The quote I provided isn't in your book anymore? And there was me thinking it was within that slender collection of documents which you personally haven't completely thrown into the bin because it doesn't match your self-created conception of what you think God ought to be like.
In which case, do tell as to what you personally think faith actually is.
-
Thinking the evil deity is a god of love, for starters!
But I don't believe that an evil deity is a god of love, Floo. I never have done, and I've never been taught that. I know that you seek to indoctrinate me and others here into that belief.
How can you believe the deeds attributed to it are good?
-
The quote I provided isn't in your book anymore? And there was me thinking it was within that slender collection of documents which you personally haven't completely thrown into the bin because it doesn't match your self-created conception of what you think God ought to be like.
In which case, do tell as to what you personally think faith actually is.
Your googled answer does nothing to explain the complexities of faith, and what it means to individuals.
I, personally, and fully, rely on the death of Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sins. We must commit to the salvation that Jesus Christ has offered. This is saving faith for me. The faith God requires of us, for our, salvation is belief in what the Bible says about who Jesus is and what He did for is, and fully trusting in Jesus for that salvation.
Acts 16:31, says: "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." That is what faith is to me. I believe in Jesus, and what He said.
-
Thinking the evil deity is a god of love, for starters!
But I don't believe that an evil deity is a god of love, Floo. I never have done, and I've never been taught that. I know that you seek to indoctrinate me and others here into that belief.
Does Floo seek to indoctrinate you and others into that belief, or does she simply state her opinion, and what is the criterion or what are the criteria you would bring to bear in distinguishing the former from the latter, please?
-
Thinking the evil deity is a god of love, for starters!
But I don't believe that an evil deity is a god of love, Floo. I never have done, and I've never been taught that. I know that you seek to indoctrinate me and others here into that belief.
Does Floo seek to indoctrinate you and others into that belief, or does she simply state her opinion, and what is the criterion or what are the criteria you would bring to bear in distinguishing the former from the latter, please?
I just wonder why Floo feels the need to express her opinion so frequently, and so vehemently, and for so long. When does a simple opinion become something more?
-
Thinking the evil deity is a god of love, for starters!
But I don't believe that an evil deity is a god of love, Floo. I never have done, and I've never been taught that. I know that you seek to indoctrinate me and others here into that belief.
Does Floo seek to indoctrinate you and others into that belief, or does she simply state her opinion, and what is the criterion or what are the criteria you would bring to bear in distinguishing the former from the latter, please?
As we are all adults on this forum, many of us are OAPs, I wouldn't think stating ones views, as I am doing, is going to indoctrinate anyone unless they can't think for themselves! ::)
-
Thinking the evil deity is a god of love, for starters!
But I don't believe that an evil deity is a god of love, Floo. I never have done, and I've never been taught that. I know that you seek to indoctrinate me and others here into that belief.
Does Floo seek to indoctrinate you and others into that belief, or does she simply state her opinion, and what is the criterion or what are the criteria you would bring to bear in distinguishing the former from the latter, please?
I just wonder why Floo feels the need to express her opinion so frequently, and so vehemently, and for so long. When does a simple opinion become something more?
Why do you?
Is yours something more?
-
Your googled answer does nothing to explain the complexities of faith, and what it means to individuals.
Why are you so afraid of learning and remembering stuff that on an almost weekly basis you sling around the (needless to say, entirely unevidenced and unprovable) accusation that people Google stuff instead of having learnt and remembered it? This is a rare, sad and sour nadir of anti-intellectualism. Some people possess intellectual curiosity. Others possess memories. Some possess rather good memories.
The quote from Hebrews 11 is a very familiar phrase long established in the English language and very familiar to almost anyone passionately dedicated to the English language and the Western literary canon, of which the King James Bible or Authorized Version forms so large a part.
I don't know whether you're disturbed by the fact that some people know their Bible as literature but simply don't believe a word of it as a reflection of reality/divinely revealed truth, or what. I can do the same with Juan Mascaro's translations of the Bhagavad Gita and the Dhammapada (the ones I grew up on, and still my favourites) at the drop of assorted headgear, if required, and despite an enduring attraction to some - only some - aspects of both this makes me neither a Hindu nor a Buddhist.
Don't judge others by your own deficiencies.
-
Your googled answer does nothing to explain the complexities of faith, and what it means to individuals.
Why are you so afraid of learning and remembering stuff that on an almost weekly basis you sling around the (needless to say, entirely unevidenced and unprovable) accusation that people Google stuff instead of having learnt and remembered it? This is a rare, sad and sour nadir of anti-intellectualism. Some people possess intellectual curiosity. Others possess memories. Some possess rather good memories.
The quote from Hebrews 11 is a very familiar phrase long established in the English language and very familiar to almost anyone passionately dedicated to the English language and the Western literary canon, of which the King James Bible or Authorized Version forms so large a part.
I don't know whether you're disturbed by the fact that some people know their Bible as literature but simply don't believe a word of it as a reflection of reality/divinely revealed truth, or what.
Don't judge others by your own deficiencies.
As usual: best form of defence is attack! I'm beginning to think you don't have an original thought in your head. All you do is quote. That's deficiency.
-
I am asking you why you so regularly accuse people of having Googled this or that, instead of accepting that at least some people read widely and retain what they have taken in.
Either you can answer this question or you cannot.
-
I am asking you why you so regularly accuse people of having Googled this or that, instead of accepting that at least some people read widely and retain what they have taken in.
Either you can answer this question or you cannot.
I have just said what I think. Maybe you should spend more time on your reading and comprehension, instead of googling for everything.
-
That's repetition, not explanation.
-
That's repetition, not explanation.
It's both. I bet you googled for that response! :)
-
Sad :(
-
Sad :(
That's probably your only original comment today, one word being the limit. :D
-
Dear Me,
Ah that warm glow that in life something's never change.
Gonnagle.
-
Sad :(
Some people are obviously jealous they aren't as widely read as you are, and still struggling to get to grips picture books with simple sentences! ;D ;D ;D
-
Sad :(
Some people are obviously jealous they aren't as widely read as you are, and still struggling to get to grips picture books with simple sentences! ;D ;D ;D
Floo rides to your defence (!), and not an imo in sight! :D
-
Sad :(
Some people are obviously jealous they aren't as widely read as you are, and still struggling to get to grips picture books with simple sentences! ;D ;D ;D
Floo rides to your defence (!), and not an imo in sight! :D
I am always happy to see the agreement of those I like and whose company I enjoy, but I don't think I need defending. In the words of one of my precious few genuine life-long models and heroes, now sadly no longer with us or indeed anyone, my own opinion is enough for me, and I will defend it any time or any place against anyone or any majority.*
* (Going on on to add: "... anyone who disagrees can take a number, get in line and kiss it").
-
Sad :(
Some people are obviously jealous they aren't as widely read as you are, and still struggling to get to grips picture books with simple sentences! ;D ;D ;D
Floo rides to your defence (!), and not an imo in sight! :D
I am always happy to see the agreement of those I like and whose company I enjoy, but I don't think I need defending. In the words of one of my precious few genuine life-long models and heroes, now sadly no longer with us or indeed anyone, my own opinion is enough for me, and I will defend it any time or any place against anyone or any majority.*
* (Going on on to add: "... anyone who disagrees can take a number, get in line and kiss it").
I bet it would be a long line. :D
-
I saw this.
Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth ...
I don't have a problem with the idea that young children can take naturally to ideas about God. When my children were small I read them bedtime stories about trains that could talk and pigs that could fly. They love fantasy and magic. The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
-
I saw this.
Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth ...
I don't have a problem with the idea that young children can take naturally to ideas about God. When my children were small I read them bedtime stories about trains that could talk and pigs that could fly. They love fantasy and magic. The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
Because they don't think they are fantasies.
-
Sad :(
Some people are obviously jealous they aren't as widely read as you are, and still struggling to get to grips picture books with simple sentences! ;D ;D ;D
Floo rides to your defence (!), and not an imo in sight! :D
I am always happy to see the agreement of those I like and whose company I enjoy, but I don't think I need defending. In the words of one of my precious few genuine life-long models and heroes, now sadly no longer with us or indeed anyone, my own opinion is enough for me, and I will defend it any time or any place against anyone or any majority.*
* (Going on on to add: "... anyone who disagrees can take a number, get in line and kiss it").
I bet it would be a long line. :D
Not naturally gifted with patience, it can be as long as ever it wishes to be. I am in the saddle, always :)
-
Sad :(
Some people are obviously jealous they aren't as widely read as you are, and still struggling to get to grips picture books with simple sentences! ;D ;D ;D
Floo rides to your defence (!), and not an imo in sight! :D
I am always happy to see the agreement of those I like and whose company I enjoy, but I don't think I need defending. In the words of one of my precious few genuine life-long models and heroes, now sadly no longer with us or indeed anyone, my own opinion is enough for me, and I will defend it any time or any place against anyone or any majority.*
* (Going on on to add: "... anyone who disagrees can take a number, get in line and kiss it").
I bet it would be a long line. :D
Not naturally gifted with patience, it can be as long as ever it wishes to be. I am in the saddle, always :)
You'll need to get out of the saddle if you want them to kiss it! :)
-
I saw this.
Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth ...
I don't have a problem with the idea that young children can take naturally to ideas about God. When my children were small I read them bedtime stories about trains that could talk and pigs that could fly. They love fantasy and magic. The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
Because they don't think they are fantasies.
... and that, in answer to your repetitive question, is the perennial fascination of it ;)
-
I saw this.
Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth ...
I don't have a problem with the idea that young children can take naturally to ideas about God. When my children were small I read them bedtime stories about trains that could talk and pigs that could fly. They love fantasy and magic. The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
Because they don't think they are fantasies.
... and that, in answer to your repetitive question, is the perennial fascination of it ;)
Fascination for whom, and about what? Not sure what you mean: I'll have to google it. :D
-
Fascination for whom
For me and people like me.
and about what?
To paraphrase Michael Shermer, why people believe incredible things.
-
Dear Torridon,
Post 63, thank you, seems that even the slightest hint that atheist thinking is wrong should be jumped on from a very high height.
Gonnagle.
-
The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
It seems to me that an increasing number of people are continuing to indulge in fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
-
... and that, in answer to your repetitive question, is the perennial fascination of it ;)
Couldn't agree more, Shaker.
-
The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
It seems to me that an increasing number of people are continuing to indulge in fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
Such as?
-
The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
It seems to me that an increasing number of people are continuing to indulge in fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
And what research do you base that on? Just an opinion? Thought so. So, useless.
-
The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
It seems to me that an increasing number of people are continuing to indulge in fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
And what research do you base that on? Just an opinion? Thought so. So, useless.
Theist against theist again. Scrapscrapscrapscrapscrap!, as they used to say in the playgrounds of my youth :D
-
The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
It seems to me that an increasing number of people are continuing to indulge in fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
And what research do you base that on? Just an opinion? Thought so. So, useless.
Theist against theist again. Scrapscrapscrapscrapscrap, as they used to say in the playgrounds of my youth . :D
Don't ever say I accept everything fellow theists say, unlike atheists who all follow each other's opinions like sheep - baaa!
Wow! What a memory! :)
-
The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
It seems to me that an increasing number of people are continuing to indulge in fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
And what research do you base that on? Just an opinion? Thought so. So, useless.
Theist against theist again. Scrapscrapscrapscrapscrap!, as they used to say in the playgrounds of my youth :D
Yes, but in spite of the gratuitous insult, BA does have a point here.
-
The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
It seems to me that an increasing number of people are continuing to indulge in fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
And what research do you base that on? Just an opinion? Thought so. So, useless.
Theist against theist again. Scrapscrapscrapscrapscrap! :D
Don't ever say I accept everything fellow theists say, unlike atheists who all follow each other's opinions like sheep - baaa.
Really? Have you never read a conversation between two atheists on this board where they disagree?
-
The more interesting question is why some continue to indulge fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
It seems to me that an increasing number of people are continuing to indulge in fantasy beliefs into adulthood.
And what research do you base that on? Just an opinion? Thought so. So, useless.
Theist against theist again. Scrapscrapscrapscrapscrap! :D
Don't ever say I accept everything fellow theists say, unlike atheists who all follow each other's opinions like sheep - baaa.
Really? Have you never read a conversation between two atheists on this board where they disagree?
None come to mind. Any examples?
-
I have read most of the OP and my first reaction is: that is quite wrong. For a start no human child can live without depending entirely on an adult keeping it alive. Therefore, long before such a child becomes even partly independent, s/he has had several years of input from his/her environment , and that includes ideas of all sorts of belief. Okay, I'll go back and read the last part of the OP and subsequent posts.
-
HI Gonners,
The only thing it is scientific evidence for is that some children succumb to the religious brainwashing of their culture.
Since we already knew that, it seems like a monumental waste of time and money.
And, as I expected, I see already plenty of posts refuting the daft idea of this 'research'!
-
I have read most of the OP and my first reaction is: that is quite wrong. For a start no human child can live without depending entirely on an adult keeping it alive. Therefore, long before such a child becomes even partly independent, s/he has had several years of input from his/her environment , and that includes ideas of all sorts of belief. Okay, I'll go back and read the last part of the OP and subsequent posts.
I don't see any issue with recognising that children accept ideas about god readily. It's consistent with the nature of childhood which is largely about allegory and fantasy. I used to tell my boys that a man in a red suit climbed down our chimney on Christmas Eve to deliver their presents. This doesn't mean that theism is the default condition for humans, it just means that it is consistent with certain developmental stages. The source of real perennial bafflement for most atheists, is quite why for many people, the god beliefs do not eventually fade along with Santa Claus as they approach adulthood. I don't think we can put this all down to childhood indoctrination or cultural conditioning that is too simple. Religion in adults is a complex phenomenon requiring many answers, mostly I guess beyond the remit of this thread.
-
I have read most of the OP and my first reaction is: that is quite wrong. For a start no human child can live without depending entirely on an adult keeping it alive. Therefore, long before such a child becomes even partly independent, s/he has had several years of input from his/her environment , and that includes ideas of all sorts of belief. Okay, I'll go back and read the last part of the OP and subsequent posts.
I don't see any issue with recognising that children accept ideas about god readily. It's consistent with the nature of childhood which is largely about allegory and fantasy. I used to tell my boys that a man in a red suit climbed down our chimney on Christmas Eve to deliver their presents. This doesn't mean that theism is the default condition for humans, it just means that it is consistent with certain developmental stages. The source of real perennial bafflement for most atheists, is quite why for many people, the god beliefs do not eventually fade along with Santa Claus as they approach adulthood. I don't think we can put this all down to childhood indoctrination or cultural conditioning that is too simple. Religion in adults is a complex phenomenon requiring many answers, mostly I guess beyond the r
Maybe they read the Bible, or whatever religion attracts them, and take it on board. What is so baffling about that?
-
BA #83
Why did you just copy the post and not add anything?
-
BA #83
Why did you just copy the post and not add anything?
I've corrected it, SD
-
He did, but made a bog of the quote - BA's comment is tacked onto the end, beginning "Maybe they read the Bible ..."
-
I have read most of the OP and my first reaction is: that is quite wrong. For a start no human child can live without depending entirely on an adult keeping it alive. Therefore, long before such a child becomes even partly independent, s/he has had several years of input from his/her environment , and that includes ideas of all sorts of belief. Okay, I'll go back and read the last part of the OP and subsequent posts.
I don't see any issue with recognising that children accept ideas about god readily. It's consistent with the nature of childhood which is largely about allegory and fantasy. I used to tell my boys that a man in a red suit climbed down our chimney on Christmas Eve to deliver their presents. This doesn't mean that theism is the default condition for humans, it just means that it is consistent with certain developmental stages. The source of real perennial bafflement for most atheists, is quite why for many people, the god beliefs do not eventually fade along with Santa Claus as they approach adulthood. I don't think we can put this all down to childhood indoctrination or cultural conditioning that is too simple. Religion in adults is a complex phenomenon requiring many answers, mostly I guess beyond the r
Maybe they read the Bible, or whatever religion attracts them, and take it on board. What is so baffling about that?
Because the core beliefs are childlike in quality, being born of the naivety of prescientific cultures. Cosmologists and physicists try to understand what reality is all about, but they haven't come across a supreme being who wants to be my friend and will let me live with him forever if I believe in him. I keep having to pinch myself that so many people can entertain such beliefs in adulthood whilst in other areas they see the value of evidence and critical thinking.
-
If their notion was correct we'd see loads of kids from non religious households ending up religious as adults. But we don't.
Don't we? Over the decades, a lot of them seem happy to self-define as 'religious' as adults when completing censuses. It's only within the last 10 to 20 years that this has become less prevalent.
Given that the census has only asked about religion twice in 2001 and 2011 your claim seems rather far fetched don't you think.
-
we are born believers
No we aren't. That statement is complete non-sense.
There is no feasible way that a new born baby believes in god, or pretty much anything else. They have not developed that level of cognitive ability.
As to whether all new born babies are atheist depends rather on your definition. If it is simply not believing something (without necessarily having an understanding of the concept you don't believe in), a kind of passive non-belief then all new born babies are indeed atheist, as are non human animal species, plants, rocks, the sea etc etc.
But if you have an alternative approach to defining atheism as someone who recognises the concept of a god or gods but does not believe they exist, then new born babies are neither theist, nor atheist, but basically agnostic.
-
I saw this.
Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth
"
Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.
He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
"
Here is a bit about it from science daily
"A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.
The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.
'The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project' led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies.
The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology and Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
That throws a spanner in the idea atheism is the default position and children only become religious because they are brainwashed by society and parents.
I note you mention: "That throws a spanner in the idea atheism is the default position and children only become religious because they are brainwashed by society and parents".
Rose where are the places sited and how many are there set up to perform the torture necessary during the brainwashing processing of these children, or could it be you mean indoctrination?
ippy
-
Dear Prof,
Good morning sir ( polite bit out of the way ) sorry but your post reads like you have all the answers, we don't.
Gonnagle.
-
I saw this.
Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth
"
Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.
He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
"
Here is a bit about it from science daily
"A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.
The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.
'The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project' led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies.
The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology and Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
That throws a spanner in the idea atheism is the default position and children only become religious because they are brainwashed by society and parents.
Rose,
I can relate to this:
He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.
I knew their was a God and I have always believed that because of that people make a choice later in their life.
God has always been with me since a child. He never left me and luckily my partners never had a problem with my faith.
I think that Jesus comment of faith like a child is very relevant...
-
BA and Shaker - Thank you.
Seems to me that those who say babies are born believers, or that humans have a brain cell which wants to believe in a God or something* are trhying to gloss over or disguise the biological facts about babies.
-
BA and Shaker - Thank you.
Seems to me that those who say babies are born believers, or that humans have a brain cell which wants to believe in a God or something* are trhying to gloss over or disguise the biological facts about babies.
Hi Sue
Obviously babies are not born believers in the god of any religion, but I think as they begin to think about things they do expect there to be a purpose in everything and someone who is in charge of them.
This is probably because they have to rely on their parents/carers for everything and see it as the way it has to be.
Young kids always ask question after question and so that initial natural tendency to think there is an answer to everything means that when their parents answer them, that parent's views and beliefs get taken in.
At school they are then taught about the school's beliefs, Christian, Muslim or whatever, so it isn't surprising that they put certain bones on those first tendencies and if their parents are religious, they will become religious themselves.
When my kids asked about this sort of thing I gave them my views, which opposed the teaching of their primary school, and so I suppose I indoctrinated mine just as much as the religious indoctrinate theirs.
-
When my kids asked about this sort of thing I gave them my views, which opposed the teaching of their primary school, and so I suppose I indoctrinated mine just as much as the religious indoctrinate theirs.
That would depend entirely on whether your kids considered their teacher's opinion more valid than yours, simply because he/she was a teacher and you weren't.
-
BA and Shaker - Thank you.
Seems to me that those who say babies are born believers, or that humans have a brain cell which wants to believe in a God or something* are trhying to gloss over or disguise the biological facts about babies.
Hi Sue
Obviously babies are not born believers in the god of any religion, but I think as they begin to think about things they do expect there to be a purpose in everything and someone who is in charge of them.
This is probably because they have to rely on their parents/carers for everything and see it as the way it has to be.
Young kids always ask question after question and so that initial natural tendency to think there is an answer to everything means that when their parents answer them, that parent's views and beliefs get taken in.
At school they are then taught about the school's beliefs, Christian, Muslim or whatever, so it isn't surprising that they put certain bones on those first tendencies and if their parents are religious, they will become religious themselves.
When my kids asked about this sort of thing I gave them my views, which opposed the teaching of their primary school, and so I suppose I indoctrinated mine just as much as the religious indoctrinate theirs.
Congratulations on making that admission - so, not all atheists are in denial as to their effect.
-
BA and Shaker - Thank you.
Seems to me that those who say babies are born believers, or that humans have a brain cell which wants to believe in a God or something* are trhying to gloss over or disguise the biological facts about babies.
Hi Sue
Obviously babies are not born believers in the god of any religion, but I think as they begin to think about things they do expect there to be a purpose in everything and someone who is in charge of them.
This is probably because they have to rely on their parents/carers for everything and see it as the way it has to be.
Young kids always ask question after question and so that initial natural tendency to think there is an answer to everything means that when their parents answer them, that parent's views and beliefs get taken in.
At school they are then taught about the school's beliefs, Christian, Muslim or whatever, so it isn't surprising that they put certain bones on those first tendencies and if their parents are religious, they will become religious themselves.
When my kids asked about this sort of thing I gave them my views, which opposed the teaching of their primary school, and so I suppose I indoctrinated mine just as much as the religious indoctrinate theirs.
Congratulations on making that admission - so, not all atheists are in denial as to their effect.
If any parent thinks they have no influence on what their kids think, they're kidding themselves. As Len says though, outside of the home, they are given religious instruction at school so they have to work it out for themselves.
If parents and school agree though, they've no hope of getting an unbiased opinion and they're well on their way to become little Bashful Anthonys, Lord help them!.
-
If parents and school agree though, they've no hope of getting an unbiased opinion and they're well on their way to become little Bashful Anthonys, Lord help them!.
Except they aren't.
Only half of children brought up in a religious household, so therefore likely to get reinforcement of the religious message both at school and at home (and likely as not at church too) end up religious as adult.
If one parent is religious and the other not, then that proportion falls to 25%.
Being non religious is readily tractable generation to generation, religion isn't, even when kids are specifically brought up to be religious.
And this is what makes the OP notion non-sense when it is actually 'tested' in the real world.
-
Being non religious is readily tractable generation to generation, religion isn't, even when kids are specifically brought up to be religious.
And this is what makes the OP notion non-sense when it is actually 'tested' in the real world.
PD, your comment that I've underlined can be taken to mean that the indoctrination that non-religious parents gave to their children is that much more effective than that of religious parents. Could it suggest that they try to reduce the amount of freedom of thought their children are allowed to exercise?
-
Being non religious is readily tractable generation to generation, religion isn't, even when kids are specifically brought up to be religious.
And this is what makes the OP notion non-sense when it is actually 'tested' in the real world.
PD, your comment that I've underlined can be taken to mean that the indoctrination that non-religious parents gave to their children is that much more effective than that of religious parents. Could it suggest that they try to reduce the amount of freedom of thought their children are allowed to exercise?
No it doesn't mean that at all although it does suggest that the indoctrination of religious parents isn't very effective.
The reality is that for non religious parents religion simply isn't a feature of their lives, or the lives of their children. That is no more 'indoctrination' into being non religious that parents who aren't interested in Opera somehow indoctrinate their children into being non opera lovers.
Indoctrination needs to be active, and most non religious parents aren't 'active' in ensuring their children become non religious in the way that religious parents are in ensuring their children become religious.
The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.
-
The reality is that for non religious parents religion simply isn't a feature of their lives, or the lives of their children. That is no more 'indoctrination' into being non religious that parents who aren't interested in Opera somehow indoctrinate their children into being non opera lovers.
Indoctrination needs to be active, and most non religious parents aren't 'active' in ensuring their children become non religious in the way that religious parents are in ensuring their children become religious.
The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.
Unfortunately, PD, this forgets that a lot of teaching, let alone indoctrination, is NOT active, but passive. How often do parents say something along the lines of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'
The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.
So how do you explanation the decision of people to turn away from non-religiousness and embrace religion in their adulthood?
-
The reality is that for non religious parents religion simply isn't a feature of their lives, or the lives of their children. That is no more 'indoctrination' into being non religious that parents who aren't interested in Opera somehow indoctrinate their children into being non opera lovers.
Indoctrination needs to be active, and most non religious parents aren't 'active' in ensuring their children become non religious in the way that religious parents are in ensuring their children become religious.
The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.
Unfortunately, PD, this forgets that a lot of teaching, let alone indoctrination, is NOT active, but passive. How often do parents say something along the lines of 'Do as I say, not as I do.'
I'm sorry Hope but you really are stretching a point.
To be indoctrinating someone there must be a deliberate and active approach by parents (or others) to inculcating an idea or belief into the next generation. Sure there are parents who set out to inculcate a view that religion is wrong in an active sense (in a similar but opposite manner to religious indoctrination) but that isn't I believe the norm. For most non religious parents religion simply isn't a part of their day to day lives - they aren't actively bringing up their children to be non religious, they are simply not bringing them up to be religious.
And if this is indoctrination then a christian bring their children up as christians is not only indoctrinating them to be christian, but also not to be buddhist or atheist or jedi etc. That's non-sense. Indoctrination must be deliberate and active.
-
The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.
So how do you explanation the decision of people to turn away from non-religiousness and embrace religion in their adulthood?
Sure there are very rare exceptions and my comment was necessarily generalising. But the point remains that only 3% of kids brought up in non religious homes end up becoming religious as adults, 97% remain non religious.
So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.
-
So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.
I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence for this, PD. After all, everything is extrapolated from the soft evidence of statistics, which don't always tell the reality since so often they are based on subjective Q&A sessions.
-
So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.
I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence for this, PD. After all, everything is extrapolated from the soft evidence of statistics, which don't always tell the reality since so often they are based on subjective Q&A sessions.
Sure there is hard evidence - go and read the work of David Voas, probably the most respected academic studying religiosity and its generational transference in the land.
And why is 'statistics' soft evidence. Actually statistics is what allows us to understand and interpret evidence and its significance.
So Voas' data actually suggest that:
Less than 3% of children brought up in a non religious household become religious as adults.
If both parents are religious, 46% of children are likely to be religious as adults.
If one parent is religious and the other not only 23% of children choose to be religious as adults.
And your basically get exactly the same proportions whether you consider religious affiliation or active church-going.
-
The idea that kids have a sense of agency about toys and so on, has been known for a long time. But to go from that to 'a religious sense' is something of a wild leap, I think. For one thing, children's views are evolving all the time - I think Prof. D. made the point that young children have the peekaboo illusion, which involves various 'errors', e.g. that objects disappear, when you can't see them, and that I am invisible if I cover my eyes. But they don't remain at that stage.
So the term 'default' is a real pig's ear, I think, since children don't 'freeze' in a particular cognitive position.
This week's free gift - a very charming painting of peekaboo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peekaboo#/media/File:Kou-Kou_by_Georgios_Iakovidis.jpg
-
So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.
I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence for this, PD. After all, everything is extrapolated from the soft evidence of statistics, which don't always tell the reality since so often they are based on subjective Q&A sessions.
Sure there is hard evidence - go and read the work of David Voas, probably the most respected academic studying religiosity and its generational transference in the land.
And why is 'statistics' soft evidence. Actually statistics is what allows us to understand and interpret evidence and its significance.
So Voas' data actually suggest that:
Less than 3% of children brought up in a non religious household become religious as adults.
If both parents are religious, 46% of children are likely to be religious as adults.
If one parent is religious and the other not only 23% of children choose to be religious as adults.
And your basically get exactly the same proportions whether you consider religious affiliation or active church-going.
I am not up on the statistics but as a father I know that when my kids came home and told me the things they had learned in Religious education, I always told them my views of the matter in question. Whether that's indoctrination or not I don't know, but I would imagine most fathers would try to right the things they hear their kids have been taught that they think are wrong..
-
So for all intents and purposes a religious upbringing is pretty well an essential and necessary requirement is someone is going to become a religious adult.
I'm not sure that there is any hard evidence for this, PD. After all, everything is extrapolated from the soft evidence of statistics, which don't always tell the reality since so often they are based on subjective Q&A sessions.
Sure there is hard evidence - go and read the work of David Voas, probably the most respected academic studying religiosity and its generational transference in the land.
And why is 'statistics' soft evidence. Actually statistics is what allows us to understand and interpret evidence and its significance.
So Voas' data actually suggest that:
Less than 3% of children brought up in a non religious household become religious as adults.
If both parents are religious, 46% of children are likely to be religious as adults.
If one parent is religious and the other not only 23% of children choose to be religious as adults.
And your basically get exactly the same proportions whether you consider religious affiliation or active church-going.
I am not up on the statistics but as a father I know that when my kids came home and told me the things they had learned in Religious education, I always told them my views of the matter in question. Whether that's indoctrination or not I don't know, but I would imagine most fathers would try to right the things they hear their kids have been taught that they think are wrong..
That's probably right, but that is a purely reactive situation. If asked you may (or may not) give your opinion on the matter in hand. However if they hadn't told you about what they learned in that particular class, or indeed if they weren't including religious education in their school's curriculum then I suspect you would be bringing up the matter as a routine.
That is a world away from a 'typical' actively religious household bringing up their children in their faith where there will be proactive 'indoctrination' - the parents don't just wait until their children tell them (or not) about what they learned at school. Nope they will be being actively taught the faith at home, quite possible sent to a school which the parents have chosen because it will also reiterate that learning of their faith, and likely will make sure the child engages in the ritualistic practices of their religion which may well include preparatory lessons and learning of the faith (e.g. Sunday school, preparation classes for holy communion etc etc).
There is a world of difference. And of course don't forget that on top of the religious parents proactively inculcating their children with their faith they will also probably give exactly the same reactive views if their children come home and say they'd been learning about hinduism for example, where a christian parent might say 'very interesting darling, but we don't believe in that'.
-
There is a world of difference. And of course don't forget that on top of the religious parents proactively inculcating their children with their faith they will also probably give exactly the same reactive views if their children come home and say they'd been learning about hinduism for example, where a christian parent might say 'very interesting darling, but we don't believe in that'.
I notice that you have suddenly jumped to a new term in this paragraph - 'inculcate'. I wish I'd thought of using it in any of my earlier posts as it has a far less perjorative meaning than indoctrination or brainwashing, which over the months seem to have been the terms of choice amongst several posters.
However, your post still ignores the importance of passive means of teaching one's children one's world view.
-
There is a world of difference. And of course don't forget that on top of the religious parents proactively inculcating their children with their faith they will also probably give exactly the same reactive views if their children come home and say they'd been learning about hinduism for example, where a christian parent might say 'very interesting darling, but we don't believe in that'.
I notice that you have suddenly jumped to a new term in this paragraph - 'inculcate'. I wish I'd thought of using it in any of my earlier posts as it has a far less perjorative meaning than indoctrination or brainwashing, which over the months seem to have been the terms of choice amongst several posters.
However, your post still ignores the importance of passive means of teaching one's children one's world view.
Yes I think inculcate is a good term because it is less pejorative than indoctrinate.
And no I don't ignore passive 'teaching' (if that's the right term) - but I don't see how that differentiates between a religious household and a non religious one. In a religious household kids will be 'taught' religion in a passive manner by simply being aware of the religious elements in their daily lives, just as a kid in a non religious household will not get that passive 'teaching'. But the child in a religious household is much, much more likely to receive active inculcation on the faith (direct teaching of bible stories, being required to go to church, Sunday school etc etc) than the child in the non religious household. What do your think happens there - Dawkins colouring books, learn the next chapter of your Hitchens for you Saturday atheism school classes. Non-sense.
There is no equivalence.
-
As my husband and I had been indoctrinated by religious parents, and lost our faith when we were mature enough to see its flaws, we decided that our kids would be free to follow their own path without any indoctrination from us. They attended church and Sunday school and decided Christianity suited them, we are grateful of course that they aren't Biblical literalists.
-
As my husband and I had been indoctrinated by religious parents, and lost our faith when we were mature enough to see its flaws, we decided that our kids would be free to follow their own path without any indoctrination from us. They attended church and Sunday school and decided Christianity suited them, we are grateful of course that they aren't Biblical literalists.
If they were brought up in a non religious household but have become religious as adults then they are a rare breed indeed - less than 3% will do that. Of course that doesn't mean kids that become religious following an upbringing in a non religious household don't exist (that would be non-sense to suggest) merely that it is a rare occurrence.
-
However, your post still ignores the importance of passive means of teaching one's children one's world view.
Lets try it this way with an analogy which hopefully illustrates the point without entering the religious/non religious debate.
Imagine two families.
In family 1 the parents are passionate about fishing, spend as much of their spare time fishing as they can and are really keen that their children develop a love for fishing too, so want to inculcate their children with knowledge and practice. So they start to teach their kids to fish from an early age and for the kids seeing their parents fish is second nature, as is all the fishing paraphernalia around the house. A trip to a tackle shop is commonplace. There are fishing magazines all over the place and the parents get the kids mini-fishing rods for birthdays/xmas from an early age. As the kids grow up they become interested in fishing and that love lets a lifetime.
Family 2 have never been into fishing and throughout their upbringing fishing is never a part of their or their children's lives. They aren't overtly anti fishing and actually the parents can never remember any significant conversation with their kids about fishing. It simply never comes up. There isn't any fishing equipment in the house (although the kids may see it at some friends or on holiday) and they know there is a fishing tackle shop down the road (not that they've ever been in). The kids never show any interest in fishing as adults.
Are you really suggesting that family 2's inculcating of 'non fishing' in their kids is equivalent to family 1's inculcating 'fishing' in theirs. Of course they aren't.
-
The real issue here is that religion isn't believable unless you have been actively brought up to believe it.
So how do you explanation the decision of people to turn away from non-religiousness and embrace religion in their adulthood?
Sure there are very rare exceptions and my comment was necessarily generalising. But the point remains that only 3% of kids brought up in non religious homes end up becoming religious as adults, 97% remain non religious.
Maybe it is those 3% that are the ones that are somewhat concerning. It seems often the case that jihadists are people who suddenly 'get religion' for the first time as young adults, not having been exposed to it during their upbringing. But there again, these people probably have some underlying issues with mental stability.
-
Just goes to show that all religious people are just big kids!!! ;D
But seriously folks, this is an interesting proposition.
Jungian psychology could of course explain why this is so.
-
The problem with this study is that it seems to fly in the face of the largest body of evidence we have and one which has also been extensively studied. Namely the religion or otherwise of kids brought up in religious or non religious households.
If religion was indeed the default for children even if they had little or no teaching about it by family or schools, then you would expect a large proportion of kids from non religious households being religious as adults. And for those brought up in a religious household the addition of a religious upbringing plus the default religious position should surely ensure that virtually all kids from religious households become religious as adults.
But of course the reverse is true. Virtually no kids brought up in households which aren't religious end up religious as adults - just 3%. And even with a religious upbringing purportedly adding to a default religiosity the likelyhood of a kid brought up in a religious household becoming religious is just 50:50, compared to 97:3 for kids in non religious households wending up non religious.
So this study is blown to pieces by real 'fieldwork' evidence.
Actually the picture may be a little more complex, needing assessment of different stages in development to adulthood. It is possible that at one stage in development kids are likely to have a default of belief but as they progress they grow out of it (unless specifically being brought up religious). That means that the default through to adulthood is non belief not belief as the evidence domonstrates.
And frankly religions have known this forever which is why they impose requirements for children to be brought up to believe, develop complex rituals at stages through childhood to cement that belief and often expect education to emphasise their religious belief.
I think the nub of your data is saying is that people are very different and will respond to life in different ways, bucking some aspect of their upbringing. Some will try to buck it but may fail and so will contribute to an uncertain variance in the data.
-
Dearie Me,
Man!! you would thought Rose had just posted real scientific evidence of God.
I would suggest various posters read it again without their atheist vests on 8)
Gonnagle.
Nope reading this with my scientific research and evidence 'vest' on. It's what I do as a profession and that world is full of 'models' that end up not supported by the evidence and being unable to predict what we see in the real world. This would appear to be a case in point.
If their notion was correct we'd see loads of kids from non religious households ending up religious as adults. But we don't.
I suspect they are looking at developmental stages too narrowly. So to give an analogy, there is a developmental stage where kids think that if they can't see you, you can't see them. Is this a 'default' - no, merely a specific point in development an understanding the world. And one that is rapidly overtaken by a recognition that others can potentially see them when the child has his or her eyes closed. It is a key point in development of empathic behaviour - being able to see things through the eyes of other (kind of literally in this case).
Humans as a species are both intelligent and inquisitive, so there may well be a default to understand the world around us, and sure at a particular stage that might result in a common conclusion of something that made it. But this isn't a fundamental default, because later (without specifically be taught that religion is correct) most kids develop a non religious outlook therefore the inquisitiveness has taken a more sophisticated turn with increased cognitive development to recognise that religion isn't needed to explain the world.
But that presupposes being brought up in our present world. The question would be what would happen if, as they say in the OP, people grew up on an island away from all civilised influences, including science and religions?
I would guess some basic form of paganism could develop just from our inquisitive human nature and projection of anthropomorphic tendencies.
-
Dearie Me,
Man!! you would thought Rose had just posted real scientific evidence of God.
I would suggest various posters read it again without their atheist vests on 8)
Gonnagle.
Nope reading this with my scientific research and evidence 'vest' on. It's what I do as a profession and that world is full of 'models' that end up not supported by the evidence and being unable to predict what we see in the real world. This would appear to be a case in point.
If their notion was correct we'd see loads of kids from non religious households ending up religious as adults. But we don't.
I suspect they are looking at developmental stages too narrowly. So to give an analogy, there is a developmental stage where kids think that if they can't see you, you can't see them. Is this a 'default' - no, merely a specific point in development an understanding the world. And one that is rapidly overtaken by a recognition that others can potentially see them when the child has his or her eyes closed. It is a key point in development of empathic behaviour - being able to see things through the eyes of other (kind of literally in this case).
Humans as a species are both intelligent and inquisitive, so there may well be a default to understand the world around us, and sure at a particular stage that might result in a common conclusion of something that made it. But this isn't a fundamental default, because later (without specifically be taught that religion is correct) most kids develop a non religious outlook therefore the inquisitiveness has taken a more sophisticated turn with increased cognitive development to recognise that religion isn't needed to explain the world.
But that presupposes being brought up in our present world. The question would be what would happen if, as they say in the OP, people grew up on an island away from all civilised influences, including science and religions?
I would guess some basic form of paganism could develop just from our inquisitive human nature and projection of anthropomorphic tendencies.
And then progress onto all the different kinds of religious belief which we have at present.
BUT ALL PRODUCTS OF THE HUMAN MIND.
-
1 - I put a * in #93 but forgot to say what it was for … and now I can’t remember!
-
2 - All children’s thinking is as a result of information received through the senses. It is, therefore, a non—starter to say that children have an in-built anything in terms of beliefs. Their genetic make-up will affect the way the nurture they receive is adopted; and Prof Davey has said something on similar lines with which I agree.
-
Dearly beloved,
Boy!! If ever a thread has went sideways, the OP, the study, the science is simply saying we are born believers, it does not say we are born believing in God or that kids are religious.
It's simple, we are mean seeking animals, if kids don't have an answer, Godidit.
It's a bloody human instinct, we all do it, how does that lightbulb work, magic, no! We all want to know, we all have inquiring minds.
Gonnagle.
-
Dearly beloved,
Boy!! If ever a thread has went sideways, the OP, the study, the science is simply saying we are born believers, it does not say we are born believing in God or that kids are religious.
It's simple, we are mean seeking animals, if kids don't have an answer, Godidit.
It's a bloody human instinct, we all do it, how does that lightbulb work, magic, no! We all want to know, we all have inquiring minds.
Gonnagle.
We are not born believing anything, that is the point.
We are through evolution geared to accept what we are told so that we survive. Children at a young age just accept what you tell them. It is very important at that age NOT to tell them that there IS a god.
-
Dearly beloved,
Boy!! If ever a thread has went sideways, the OP, the study, the science is simply saying we are born believers, it does not say we are born believing in God or that kids are religious.
It's simple, we are mean seeking animals, if kids don't have an answer, Godidit.
It's a bloody human instinct, we all do it, how does that lightbulb work, magic, no! We all want to know, we all have inquiring minds.
Gonnagle.
We are not born believing anything, that is the point.
We are through evolution geared to accept what we are told so that we survive. Children at a young age just accept what you tel
What a low opinion you have of your fellow humans! Whatever they are told when young, if they have half a brain, as they grow up, they will make up their own minds. It is arrogance, if not ignorance, to assume that people are so gullible when adult.
-
I saw this.
Which disputes the idea that atheism is the default position for children from birth
"
Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.
He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.
"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
"
Here is a bit about it from science daily
"A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.
The £1.9 million project involved 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.
The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.
'The Cognition, Religion and Theology Project' led by Dr Justin Barrett, from the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University, drew on research from a range of disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. They directed an international body of researchers conducting studies in 20 different countries that represented both traditionally religious and atheist societies.
The findings are due to be published in two separate books by psychologist Dr Barrett in Cognitive Science, Religion and Theology and Born Believers: The Science of Childhood Religion."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm
That throws a spanner in the idea atheism is the default position and children only become religious because they are brainwashed by society and parents.
Rose,
I can relate to this:
He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.
I knew their was a God and I have always believed that because of that people make a choice later in their life.
God has always been with me since a child. He never left me and luckily my partners never had a problem with my faith.
I think that Jesus comment of faith like a child is very relevant...
In response to the quote, it all depends on what one mean by God.
And to your personal bit, which God was it, that you knew as a child, was always with you?
-
Dear Berational,
Is it me!! The article is just about child development, it is not about God or religion.
Bloody hell!! Is this not one of the old atheist arguments regarding how religions started, a volcano erupts, early man, the child, blames the volcano gods.
Gonnagle.
-
Dearly beloved,
Boy!! If ever a thread has went sideways, the OP, the study, the science is simply saying we are born believers, it does not say we are born believing in God or that kids are religious.
It's simple, we are mean seeking animals, if kids don't have an answer, Godidit.
It's a bloody human instinct, we all do it, how does that lightbulb work, magic, no! We all want to know, we all have inquiring minds.
Gonnagle.
We are not born believing anything, that is the point.
We are through evolution geared to accept what we are told so that we survive. Children at a young age just accept what you tell them. It is very important at that age NOT to tell them that there IS a god.
I suppose now you'll specially plead that it is important at that age to tell them there isn't a God.
-
It is not wise to lie to children, for that will undermine their trust in you.
-
As my husband and I had been indoctrinated by religious parents, and lost our faith when we were mature enough to see its flaws, we decided that our kids would be free to follow their own path without any indoctrination from us. They attended church and Sunday school and decided Christianity suited them, we are grateful of course that they aren't Biblical literalists.
If they were brought up in a non religious household but have become religious as adults then they are a rare breed indeed - less than 3% will do that. Of course that doesn't mean kids that become religious following an upbringing in a non religious household don't exist (that would be non-sense to suggest) merely that it is a rare occurrence.
But that may be a function of our times. It would seem to me that many peasants of yesteryear were Christians because they had to be and that many didn't really care either way.
I forget the name but there was someone or group in the 13thC who didn't believe in a lot of what the church said. Laggards? But the more educated people even in those medieval days did rebel against all that God stuff.
I think the 3% doesn't show those who think about it but feel more inclined to follow the atheistic crowd of our present era.
-
What a low opinion you have of your fellow humans! Whatever they are told when young, if they have half a brain, as they grow up, they will make up their own minds. It is arrogance, if not ignorance, to assume that people are so gullible when adult.
... except that there's such pitifully plentiful evidence of it. I wish I could say otherwise, but I can't.
-
Just goes to show that all religious people are just big kids!!! ;D
But seriously folks, this is an interesting proposition.
Jungian psychology could of course explain why this is so.
not forgetting neoteny, also ;)
-
But that presupposes being brought up in our present world. The question would be what would happen if, as they say in the OP, people grew up on an island away from all civilised influences, including science and religions?
I would guess some basic form of paganism could develop just from our inquisitive human nature and projection of anthropomorphic tendencies.
Yes I would think so. Cognitive biases like Agent Detection would come into play, new religions would form. Somebody ought to write a novel, Lord of the Flies, style. Wigginhall, you da man.
-
Dear Berational,
Is it me!! The article is just about child development, it is not about God or religion.
On the contrary the point is that this guy seems to use standard child development studies to support a conclusion that there is a developmental default belief in god. And it is an enormous and completed unevidenced leap. There is nothing in studies that, for example, demonstrate that children at an early stage begin to recognise that an object placed behind a curtain hasn't disappeared but is, well, behind the curtain, remotely to support his conclusions.
In fact virtually all of the developmental experiments can be explained by combinations of the following:
1. The hugely complex cognitive development of the human brain requires learning and therefore human babies are born with little physical or mental abilities (compared to many other species) but learn massively in early weeks, months and years.
2. The first point makes the human baby extremely vulnerable so it is important evolutionarily that both parent and baby have a protection instinct that keeps baby close to adults.
3. Humans are social animals and therefore require interactions and comfort from other humans, both for protection and for development.
4. Humans, largely due to their exceptional cognitive capacity are both inherently inquisitive (which is important for survival) and emotionally advances (which supports their social behaviour, which is also important for survival and development).
All explained through classic survival and evolutionary needs - no magic sky fairy required although I have no doubt that the inquisitiveness coupled with a lack of rational understanding of the world around us may lead to the god of the gaps syndrome. But that's a massive jump away from a suggested default belief in god, which runs completely counter to the known evidence that without being brought up religious children are very unlikely simply to choose to be religious (even in a culture where evidence of religion is all around them).
-
The question would be what would happen if, as they say in the OP, people grew up on an island away from all civilised influences, including science and religions?
But if you took a bunch of new born human babies free from any cultural conditioning and put them on a desert island, they'd die!
And this isn't a frivolous point. The point is that new born humans (unlike many other species) have no ability to survive unaided. They are entirely dependent on the input of older members of the species, who necessarily will have been exposed to the cultural and social norms of their group (or society) and will necessarily transfer that cultural, knowledge etc to the new born as they develop. And this is essential to the natural human development. So the notion of trying to determine the 'default' position of a human baby, detached from social and cultural norms is non-sensical because it doesn't actually exist in the real world for strong evolutionary reasons.
-
Dear Prof,
Shame! You were doing so well right up to magic sky fairy.
Sorry Prof but you are reading far to much into the research.
Kids want a reason for everything, every parent knows this, without a reasonable explanation, they will default to a outside force, Godidit.
I have had a quick google regarding this subject, this is not the only study which has come to this conclusion.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Shame! You were doing so well right up to magic sky fairy.
Sorry Prof but you are reading far to much into the research.
Kids want a reason for everything, every parent knows this, without a reasonable explanation, they will default to a outside force, Godidit.
I have had a quick google regarding this subject, this is not the only study which has come to this conclusion.
Gonnagle.
So you are recognising that the notion of god is therefore not a reasonable explanation for the world around us. You've got there in the end, well done.
-
Kids want a reason for everything, every parent knows this, without a reasonable explanation, they will default to a outside force, Godidit.
I am not sure I agree with you. For a child to conclude that godidit they need to have some concept of the notion of god, and they will only have that if that is implanted in their minds by social and cultural forces. It isn't a default, merely a facet of the prevailing culture.
Were there an anti rely atheist culture where the notion of god as a concept had long been forgotten and the society and culture was based on rationalism and science then I suspect the kids couldn't be concluding that godidit, but that physics-didit because that's what the cultural norm imposes on them.
-
Dear Prof,
No, I have no concept of God, except through the life and teachings of Our Lord.
The kid might call it God, but that concept could be lots of descriptions, kids don't have a working knowledge of how a tree grows, Godidit or their concept of God, of course it could be your wonderful description, magic sky fairy :(
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
No, I have no concept of God, except through the life and teachings of Our Lord.
The kid might call it God, but that concept could be lots of descriptions, kids don't have a working knowledge of how a tree grows, Godidit or their concept of God, of course it could be your wonderful description, magic sky fairy :(
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
I full understand that kids have no working knowledge of how a tree grows, but that doesn't mean they necessarily default to godidit - they could just as easily default to 'its nature', 'its magic' or (as mentioned earlier) 'it's physics' (or even the 'magic sky fairy'). But in order to default to any of those they need some notion of what those things are (in very broad brush terms) and they will get that from their culture and society.
But returning to the OP, this study (if you can call it that) try to suggest that developmental studies demonstrate that young children and babies attribute purpose and meaning to what they see about them, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Indeed I think one of the joys of childhood is the ability to interact, enjoy and play without any notion of purpose or meaning.
-
Dear Prof,
No, I have no concept of God, except through the life and teachings of Our Lord.
Gonnagle.
Can you tell me why you have elevated an intelligent human, a Jewish teacher, into "Our Lord"?
-
No, I have no concept of God, except through the life and teachings of Our Lord.
Which you acquired entirely independently of your cultural inheritance, or you acquired through your culture and society, for example by being taught about something called god, and amperson called Jesus and a book called the bible that you might want to (or be required to read) etc etc.
Your whole concept of your god and your religion is completely entwined within the prism of your societal and cultural heritage.
-
Dear Prof,
You are nearly there, a concept of God, nature.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
I would love to explain why I use the term Our Lord but you are a highly intelligent and wonderful person, I will leave you to the joy of working it out for yourself :)
Gonnagle.
-
"Lord," does not mean God, as some think. It simply means "master. " In the OT, even David is called "Lord." It basically means that the person you address as Lord has power and authority over you. Do some reading,
-
Dear Bashers,
Just Leonard being.... Well just Leonard.
Gonnagle.
-
"Lord," does not mean God, as some think. It simply means "master. " In the OT, even David is called "Lord." It basically means that the person you address as Lord has power and authority over you. Do some reading,
But for the love of all that's holy DON'T DO YOUR READING ON BLOODY GOOGLE!
-
;D
-
"Lord," does not mean God, as some think. It simply means "master. " In the OT, even David is called "Lord." It basically means that the person you address as Lord has power and authority over you. Do some reading,
But for the love of all that's holy DON'T DO YOUR READING ON BLOODY GOOGLE!
I don't need to do that; especially so with such a basic , simple, question. Nor do I need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time, just for a little spurious attention - your hapless, sad, posts will do that effectively enough.
Iy's not you, is it Shaker, trying to score a cheap point! ;D
-
Dear Leonard,
I would love to explain why I use the term Our Lord but you are a highly intelligent and wonderful person, I will leave you to the joy of working it out for yourself :)
Gonnagle.
But as an average intelligence, non-wonderful person, I'm afraid I can't 'work it out for myself'. If you can't be bothered to explain, I will understand. :)
-
Prof davey #131 and
#132
Excellent posts.Dear Prof,
Shame! You were doing so well right up to magic sky fairy.
Sorry Prof but you are reading far to much into the research.
Kids want a reason for everything, every parent knows this, without a reasonable explanation, they will default to a outside force, Godidit.
I have had a quick google regarding this subject, this is not the only study which has come to this conclusion.
Gonnagle.
But it is you who are ignoring the basic biological facts - please read Prof Davey's posts 131 and 132 ten times each which are spot on. These basic biological facts are so often ignored or glossed over by writers of articles, religious pundits on BBC Radio 4's 'Thought for the day', etc. etc.
-
Dear Prof,
You are nearly there, a concept of God, nature.
Gonnagle.
Never had you down as a pantheist gonners.
But why can't the awe inspiring power of nature be just that ... nature. Why do some people feel the need to devalue and anthropomorphise it by equating it to something man-made, namely god.
-
Why do some people feel the need to devalue and anthropomorphise it by equating it to something man-made, namely god.
Because we aren't 'anthropomorphising it by equating it to something man-made, namely god'. That's what folk like yourself do, which not only devalues nature but also humanity as part of nature.
-
It is not wise to lie to children, for that will undermine their trust in you.
I would agrre wholeheartedly, Len, which is why children need to be given the opportunity to learn about the whole range of world-views available to them, not just one or two. That is what I mean when I talk about passive indoctrination - failing to teach them about the various world-views that exist around the world (something that has happened to the children of several atheist, and theist, families we know) is no less indoctrination than teaching only one.
-
Hope
Do you then, when giving children information about other world religions, tell children that the God [you believe in is true, that the words of the Bible are his direct words, that gods of other religions are not true, etc? I find it very hard to see you giving an impartial opinion! :)
-
Hope
Do you then, when giving children information about other world religions, tell children that the God [you believe in is true, that the words of the Bible are his direct words, that gods of other religions are not true, etc? I find it very hard to see you giving an impartial opinion! :)
As a teacher, Susan, I wouldn't even attempt to make a true/false judgement, simply telling the children the facts about the various faiths that a syllabus covers.
As a youth worker at church, I tell children that X is what Christians believe, that Y is what many of their peers at school are likely to believe and - if the context of the event is right - A, B and C is what Muslims, Hindus or atheists (pick any three belief-systems you want here) believe. I make it very clear that I believe X because my study of the varied materials I have had access to over almost 60 years of life, coupled with the wide variety of experiences I've had, indicate that X fits the reality of life best, but then make it clear that they have got to make their own choice, having studied and investigated for themselves. I also make it very clear that just because their parents/guardians are (or claim to be) Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whatever doesn't mean that they are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whatever. Faith (and I intentionally include atheism within that term and specify this) is not something one 'inherits'.
As a parent, especially living a lot of our children's formative years within a majority Hindu/Buddhist culture in Nepal), my wife and I allowed our children to explore and question not only the physical world around us but also the philosophical world in which they found themselves. I know of a few parents who wouldn't allow their children to play with local kids, but we weren't like that - especially as for half our time there, we lived within spitting distance of a major abattoir (to use Western terminology!! ;) ) the area around which was populated by untouchables and other very low-caste families.
To pick up on something on another thread, I often think those who are poorest are those who don't even attempt to question what parents and teachers teach them.
OK, that may come as quite a shock to you, but it is how I was brought up within an evangelical family setting, which was then combined with a somewhat higher ecclesiastical but academically robust school setting.
-
It is not wise to lie to children, for that will undermine their trust in you.
I would agrre wholeheartedly, Len, which is why children need to be given the opportunity to learn about the whole range of world-views available to them, not just one or two. That is what I mean when I talk about passive indoctrination - failing to teach them about the various world-views that exist around the world (something that has happened to the children of several atheist, and theist, families we know) is no less indoctrination than teaching only one.
But then you say :-
"I make it very clear that I believe X because my study of the varied materials I have had access to over almost 60 years of life, coupled with the wide variety of experiences I've had, indicate that X fits the reality of life best, but then make it clear that they have got to make their own choice, having studied and investigated for themselves."
Would you not agree that in saying the above you are persuading them to believe what you believe, especially those that don't have the facilities or desire to study and investigate for themselves?
-
Would you not agree that in saying the above you are persuading them to believe what you believe, especially those that don't have the facilities or desire to study and investigate for themselves?
No more so than anyone else explaining why they believe something.
-
Would you not agree that in saying the above you are persuading them to believe what you believe, especially those that don't have the facilities or desire to study and investigate for themselves?
No more so than anyone else explaining why they believe something.
But on a question like this, the only true answer is "Don't know".
What caused the universe to exist? Don't know.
Why are the laws of physics as they are? Don't know.
What caused the first life from non life? Don't know.
Is there life on other planets? Don't know.
Not interesting perhaps, but TRUE.
Anything you add to those answers should NOT give the impression you know more than you do, or even mention a god.
-
Would you not agree that in saying the above you are persuading them to believe what you believe, especially those that don't have the facilities or desire to study and investigate for themselves?
No more so than anyone else explaining why they believe something.
So a teacher talking to his students in class has no more influence over them than he has in a discussion on the subject with another adult? I'm sorry, Hope, but that is nonsense.
-
"Lord," does not mean God, as some think. It simply means "master. " In the OT, even David is called "Lord." It basically means that the person you address as Lord has power and authority over you. Do some reading,
But for the love of all that's holy DON'T DO YOUR READING ON BLOODY GOOGLE!
I don't need to do that; especially so with such a basic , simple, question. Nor do I need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time, just for a little spurious attention - your hapless, sad, posts will do that effectively enough.
Iy's not you, is it Shaker, trying to score a cheap point! ;D
Listen to me you hapless, sad little Google-hating jealous of anyone who retains knowledge greater than yours in their heads poster - I have no need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time for any reason - I have just returned to my old BBC R and E moniker!
-
Hope
Do you then, when giving children information about other world religions, tell children that the God [you believe in is true, that the words of the Bible are his direct words, that gods of other religions are not true, etc? I find it very hard to see you giving an impartial opinion! :)
As a teacher, Susan, I wouldn't even attempt to make a true/false judgement, simply telling the children the facts about the various faiths that a syllabus covers.
As a youth worker at church, I tell children that X is what Christians believe, that Y is what many of their peers at school are likely to believe and - if the context of the event is right - A, B and C is what Muslims, Hindus or atheists (pick any three belief-systems you want here) believe. I make it very clear that I believe X because my study of the varied materials I have had access to over almost 60 years of life, coupled with the wide variety of experiences I've had, indicate that X fits the reality of life best, but then make it clear that they have got to make their own choice, having studied and investigated for themselves. I also make it very clear that just because their parents/guardians are (or claim to be) Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whatever doesn't mean that they are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, whatever. Faith (and I intentionally include atheism within that term and specify this) is not something one 'inherits'.
As a parent, especially living a lot of our children's formative years within a majority Hindu/Buddhist culture in Nepal), my wife and I allowed our children to explore and question not only the physical world around us but also the philosophical world in which they found themselves. I know of a few parents who wouldn't allow their children to play with local kids, but we weren't like that - especially as for half our time there, we lived within spitting distance of a major abattoir (to use Western terminology!! ;) ) the area around which was populated by untouchables and other very low-caste families.
To pick up on something on another thread, I often think those who are poorest are those who don't even attempt to question what parents and teachers teach them.
OK, that may come as quite a shock to you, but it is how I was brought up within an evangelical family setting, which was then combined with a somewhat higher ecclesiastical but academically robust school setting.
I think most of what you say sounds eminently reasonable, but there are a couple of flies in the anointment.
The most obvious being the effect of a schooling within a setting which is inherently non neutral. So if you attend a faith school, no matter how neutral the on the ground approach may appear to be there is the (perhaps unspoken) backdrop that as an organisation or community 'we believe this version is right' - that's is a necessary component of a faith ethos. And of course that might be a faith school or a educational group within a church.
And you often see all sorts of subtle, but important language that reinforces the 'but this is we believe as an organisation or community' - the most common being a non neutral approach to christianity in relation to non christian religions and non religious belief. Check out the RE curriculum of many faith schools and you will see material about christianity simply mentioned as christianity, while non christian religions are described as 'other' religions. The emphasis is important.
So the subtle but pervasive view is non neutral - in other words 'sure you can learn about these other religions too, but we know which one we really believe and you are being taught top believe'. And of course if this is reinforce by organised involvement in christian worship then there is further reinforcement.
And that's why I think schooling (well in reality state funded schooling) must be neutral with regard to religion, just as it is required to be with regard to political views. Only through that route can students fully benefit from learning in a neutral manner without subtle bias. And only in that neutral setting are they fully free to question and challenge free from any concern that their view might run counter to the religious ethos of that school.
Outside of the state sector things are somewhat different although I do think that schools (whether state or private) should be required to uphold the same best practice on discrimination was any other organisations. So a faith school would be one which provided education with a particular faith ethos, but not one that prioritises children of that particular faith in its admissions.
-
Thank you for your reply, Hope, but I much prefer LJ's, BR's and ProfD's posts!
-
The most obvious being the effect of a schooling within a setting which is inherently non neutral. So if you attend a faith school, no matter how neutral the on the ground approach may appear to be there is the (perhaps unspoken) backdrop that as an organisation or community 'we believe this version is right' - that's is a necessary component of a faith ethos. And of course that might be a faith school or a educational group within a church.
Well, I have never taught in a faith school, so that fly is somewhat irrelevant. Regarding the second, it applies to any such organisation, not just a church or religious one.
And you often see all sorts of subtle, but important language that reinforces the 'but this is we believe as an organisation or community' - the most common being a non neutral approach to christianity in relation to non christian religions and non religious belief. Check out the RE curriculum of many faith schools and you will see material about christianity simply mentioned as christianity, while non christian religions are described as 'other' religions. The emphasis is important.
So the subtle but pervasive view is non neutral - in other words 'sure you can learn about these other religions too, but we know which one we really believe and you are being taught top believe'. And of course if this is reinforce by organised involvement in christian worship then there is further reinforcement.
You can see the same in most science and social science curricula as well, PD.
And that's why I think schooling (well in reality state funded schooling) must be neutral with regard to religion, just as it is required to be with regard to political views. Only through that route can students fully benefit from learning in a neutral manner without subtle bias. And only in that neutral setting are they fully free to question and challenge free from any concern that their view might run counter to the religious ethos of that school.
It is sometimes neutral in regard to politics, but rarely neutral in regard to belief systems. Take religious issues out of the process and it will be even less neutral.
Outside of the state sector things are somewhat different although I do think that schools (whether state or private) should be required to uphold the same best practice on discrimination was any other organisations. So a faith school would be one which provided education with a particular faith ethos, but not one that prioritises children of that particular faith in its admissions.
Who does the prioritising, the children's parents or the school?
-
Thank you for your reply, Hope, but I much prefer LJ's, BR's and ProfD's posts!
Of course you do. They simply confirm your existing bias.
-
I have said it before and will say it again, what is the point of having a religious faith unless it makes you a better person? The 'born again' dogma often encourages people to be bigoted and emotionally abusive!
-
Thank you for your reply, Hope, but I much prefer LJ's, BR's and ProfD's posts!
Of course you do. They simply confirm your existing bias.
I have only a bias for truth.
I would rather have no answer, than the wrong answer.
You are not like me.
-
The question would be what would happen if, as they say in the OP, people grew up on an island away from all civilised influences, including science and religions?
But if you took a bunch of new born human babies free from any cultural conditioning and put them on a desert island, they'd die!
And this isn't a frivolous point. The point is that new born humans (unlike many other species) have no ability to survive unaided. They are entirely dependent on the input of older members of the species, who necessarily will have been exposed to the cultural and social norms of their group (or society) and will necessarily transfer that cultural, knowledge etc to the new born as they develop. And this is essential to the natural human development. So the notion of trying to determine the 'default' position of a human baby, detached from social and cultural norms is non-sensical because it doesn't actually exist in the real world for strong evolutionary reasons.
I couldn't quite follow your argument Prof untill this post. Nice one. Picking up though on those statistics around how it plays out in the real world is a there a clear distinction made around what is meant by children growing up to become 'religious'?
I'm just wondering how those people figure who don't ascribe to a particular religion but retain some notion of the supernatural at work e.g. an afterlife, or 'higher power'. You know the sort - poorly thought out, unspecific and ill defined ideas - could they be seen as a reversion to that vague predisposition highlighted by the research in the OP? So they would fall into the category of non-religious / non-believer but nevertheless retain ideas about 'god' (whatever that is).
-
You are not like me.
No-one said you are. All I said was that Susan prefers your posts and those of LJ and PD because they confirm her existing bias.
-
You are not like me.
No-one said you are. All I said was that Susan prefers your posts and those of LJ and PD because they confirm her existing bias.
Surely, a bias for truth is a good thing?
-
But it's an opinion backed up by independent, objective evidence, not jjust a subjective bias; nowhere do I have faith in or believe something that has zero objective evidence. As BR said, the answer is 'don't know' if evidence is lacking, although many of these subjects have a lot of testable evidence, if not the complete picture. They are not complete blanks.
By the way, well said, BR.
-
The most obvious being the effect of a schooling within a setting which is inherently non neutral. So if you attend a faith school, no matter how neutral the on the ground approach may appear to be there is the (perhaps unspoken) backdrop that as an organisation or community 'we believe this version is right' - that's is a necessary component of a faith ethos. And of course that might be a faith school or a educational group within a church.
Well, I have never taught in a faith school, so that fly is somewhat irrelevant. Regarding the second, it applies to any such organisation, not just a church or religious one.
I haven't taught in any school, although do in a university, but that does't necessary mean I don't have a level of awareness of what may go on in faith schools. Indeed I have close relatives being schooled in Catholic faith schools who are similar age to my kids and trust me their school is a very, very long way from being neutral with regard to religion. Their schooling is partly about nurturing their 'catholic faith' - the terminology is all about 'our faith', 'our beliefs' with very very occasional lip service paid to 'others' faiths', not even other faiths (note the difference).
I'm not aware of any other type of state school that claims the kind of distinct and partial ethos that exists with faith schools.
And you often see all sorts of subtle, but important language that reinforces the 'but this is we believe as an organisation or community' - the most common being a non neutral approach to christianity in relation to non christian religions and non religious belief. Check out the RE curriculum of many faith schools and you will see material about christianity simply mentioned as christianity, while non christian religions are described as 'other' religions. The emphasis is important.
So the subtle but pervasive view is non neutral - in other words 'sure you can learn about these other religions too, but we know which one we really believe and you are being taught top believe'. And of course if this is reinforce by organised involvement in christian worship then there is further reinforcement.
You can see the same in most science and social science curricula as well, PD.
But the science curriculum is evidence based not opinion based. If you teach that hydrogen burns with a squeaky pop and provide the relevant equation for the combustion then that can be proven to be true. Sure the science is often dumbed down a bit to aid understanding, but it is demonstrably true. That is a world away from an opinion, whether religious or political where there is no demonstration of 'truth'. In that case I feel it is important that children learn about the range of view and probe and challenge the various types of thinking but in a manner that does not presume one opinion to be 'right' or 'our belief' as opposed to 'others' belief' (see above)
And that's why I think schooling (well in reality state funded schooling) must be neutral with regard to religion, just as it is required to be with regard to political views. Only through that route can students fully benefit from learning in a neutral manner without subtle bias. And only in that neutral setting are they fully free to question and challenge free from any concern that their view might run counter to the religious ethos of that school.
It is sometimes neutral in regard to politics, but rarely neutral in regard to belief systems. Take religious issues out of the process and it will be even less neutral.
I don't understand you. Why is schooling not neutral in terms of belief. If children are being taught about a range of religions and what they might believe without a suggestion that one is preferred, correct, ours or right, why is that anything other than neutral. And again I don't understand what you mean about being less balanced if you don't discuss religion in schools. Something can be balanced if you discuss it and include discussions of many opinions and options. It can also be balanced if you discuss none of the opinions.
Outside of the state sector things are somewhat different although I do think that schools (whether state or private) should be required to uphold the same best practice on discrimination was any other organisations. So a faith school would be one which provided education with a particular faith ethos, but not one that prioritises children of that particular faith in its admissions.
Who does the prioritising, the children's parents or the school?
Well I guess this is through classic market forces. A school in the private sector that charges fees does sets out its ethos a parents will pay their money or not on the basis of the type of education that school provides. And if the school is oversubscribed then criteria would need to be developed that don't run counter to standard equalities approach, so race, sexuality or religion for example wouldn't be able to use. A bit like a 'gay club' - it can market itself as providing a service which is particularly attractive to gay people, but it cannot by law refuse entry to people who aren't gay.
-
I haven't taught in any school, although do in a university, but that does't necessary mean I don't have a level of awareness of what may go on in faith schools.
Susan asked me what I did - not what the generality of teachers/youth workers do, PD. Of course I know what goes on in faith schools - but I also know what goes on in state schools - I've had to teach some of the material, even though at times it has conflicted with my opinion and/or worldview. In fact, many teachers have to teach material that conflicts with what they believe in some way or another, be that the sciences of the humanities.
I'm not aware of any other type of state school that claims the kind of distinct and partial ethos that exists with faith schools.
I have yet to teach in any state school that doesn't - through what it offers as extra-curricula topics, its prizes and awards, its general ethos - give the impression that modern scientific thinking is the only way forward for society and the chidren going through it.
But the science curriculum is evidence based not opinion based. If you teach that hydrogen burns with a squeaky pop and provide the relevant equation for the combustion then that can be proven to be true.
But most science and other curricula include subjective ideas that impose specific understandings on the children being taught. For instance, when it comes to teaching evolution, the language required by teachers is that this is the only way to explain our existence. There is no encouragement for students to explore whether the claim is true. To use the term so beloved by ippy, this sounds very much like indoctrination ;). Your example of hydrogen burning is very different from the philosophical nature of human existence, discussion of which rarely occurs at any level of scientific education.
I don't understand you. Why is schooling not neutral in terms of belief. If children are being taught about a range of religions and what they might believe without a suggestion that one is preferred, correct, ours or right, why is that anything other than neutral.
If, being the pertinent word. As pointed out in the previous paragraph, modern education is largely about instilling ideas and 'truths' without encouraging students to challenge them when it comes to scientific thinking.
It can also be balanced if you discuss none of the opinions.
but which schools ever teach none of the options? See above again.
A school in the private sector that charges fees does sets out its ethos a parents will pay their money or not on the basis of the type of education that school provides. And if the school is oversubscribed then criteria would need to be developed that don't run counter to standard equalities approach, so race, sexuality or religion for example wouldn't be able to use.
I attended an independent secondary school in Oxford which was an Anglican foundation. I didn't know every parent, obviously, but I knew many of the parents of the lads in my house. I would say that 1 student in 15 came from a family that would have regarded itself as a practising Christian family. Nominal, yes; practising, no. As an Anglican foundation, one of the standard events was the confirmation service in chapel at the end of one's first year. As the son of an Anglican clergyman, I was asked to do one of the readings at 'my' service. Both the chaplain and the headmaster were 'shocked' when I not only refused to do the reading, but said that I woudn't be attending the service because I didn't feel that I was ready to 'confirm' any faith position.
Interestingly, when my elder brother and I asked Dad, when we had both left school) why he'd chosen to send us to that particular school (and the prep. school we'd both attended until we were 12/13), the things he listed were the academic and the sporting records of the schools. The fact that both schools were considerably 'higher' - in ecclesiastical/theological terms - than we were as a family was irrelevant, as was the religious element.
-
Of course I know what goes on in faith schools - but I also know what goes on in state schools
You do understand that most faith schools (certainly the ones I was focussing on) are state schools.
I have yet to teach in any state school that doesn't - through what it offers as extra-curricula topics, its prizes and awards, its general ethos - give the impression that modern scientific thinking is the only way forward for society and the chidren going through it.
Yet the scientific profession is regularly concerned about the lack of positivity towards science in the school classroom and the effect that has on students studying science later on. Rather than an ethos of 'science is right and the future' I think the ethos (sadly) in too many schools is that science is hard, and also predominantly for boys.
But on a broader point there are plenty of officially faith ethos state schools, can you point me to a state school that officially espouses a 'science ethos' (and I don't mean a science specialism - that's different).
Your example of hydrogen burning is very different from the philosophical nature of human existence, discussion of which rarely occurs at any level of scientific education.
Well of course it in unlikely there will be much space for philosophy in a science curriculum, just as there isn't much organic chemistry in a history curriculum. But perhaps you'd like to come along to my ethics course which is compulsory for a number of our postgraduate programmes. We discuss (albeit with rather limited time) issues relating to personhood and the moral status of the early human embryo as part of the curriculum pertaining to embryonic stem cell research.
I attended an independent secondary school in Oxford which was an Anglican foundation. I didn't know every parent, obviously, but I knew many of the parents of the lads in my house. I would say that 1 student in 15 came from a family that would have regarded itself as a practising Christian family. Nominal, yes; practising, no. As an Anglican foundation, one of the standard events was the confirmation service in chapel at the end of one's first year. As the son of an Anglican clergyman, I was asked to do one of the readings at 'my' service. Both the chaplain and the headmaster were 'shocked' when I not only refused to do the reading, but said that I woudn't be attending the service because I didn't feel that I was ready to 'confirm' any faith position.
Interestingly, when my elder brother and I asked Dad, when we had both left school) why he'd chosen to send us to that particular school (and the prep. school we'd both attended until we were 12/13), the things he listed were the academic and the sporting records of the schools. The fact that both schools were considerably 'higher' - in ecclesiastical/theological terms - than we were as a family was irrelevant, as was the religious element.
Interesting and not uncommon. I've seen plenty of parents be prepared to disregard the ethos of a school (and justify it in all sorts of ways) if it has a good academic reputation. And it cuts both ways, of course. Round my way the non faith state secondary schools have the better academic reputations and you get a lot of very committed churchgoers who felt it really important to have a faith school at primary school suddenly go cold on the idea at secondary school when they understand that the local CofE school and mixed RC school aren't rated highly.
-
Rather than an ethos of 'science is right and the future' I think the ethos (sadly) in too many schools is that science is hard
That's not wrong though, is it? Science is hard. That's why so many people have such trouble with it.
Unfortunately, all too often it's the same people who try to invoke it and make such a bog of it. (Creationists/IDers, for example).
-
Dear Prof,
Me again, yer auld pal Gonnagle, well I have had a good trawl of the internet ( not that the internet is the be all and end all ) but apart from your good self I can't find anyone arguing against the findings of the research, in fact it seems to me that on the back of the book ( Science and Childhood Religion ) written because of the research a lot of scientific research has built on it.
Gonnagle.
-
That's not wrong though, is it? Science is hard. That's why so many people have such trouble with it.
It depends on the person. There are plenty of people who find English hard, or a foreign language but find science pretty straightforward. Yet I don't think there tends to be a similar view out there that French is hard or history, yet there may be just as many kids who find that difficult in comparison to science as vice versa.
-
Dear Prof,
Me again, yer auld pal Gonnagle, well I have had a good trawl of the internet ( not that the internet is the be all and end all ) but apart from your good self I can't find anyone arguing against the findings of the research, in fact it seems to me that on the back of the book ( Science and Childhood Religion ) written because of the research a lot of scientific research has built on it.
Gonnagle.
Afternoon Gonners.
I am a scientist - it is what I do for a job. And the gold standard for scientific research is the peer reviewed paper, not a book which usually isn't peer reviewed at all. And those peer reviewed papers most regarded by the rest of the community gain recognition by being cited by other people in their work.
From what I can see this guy posits some conclusions based on standard cognitive development experiments that seem far fetched and are much better explained through appeal to basic evolutionary and survival instincts.
There is also the rather thorny problem for the good Dr Barrett who believes that 'young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.'
That thorny problem being that even in our UK society (rather than a desert island) where kids experience an awful lot of religious influence through broad society and a requirement to have some level of teaching at school that the default seems to be away from religion and a belief in god rather than toward it. In that virtually no kids from non religious households end up religious and only 50% of those brought up to believe in a god end up religious.
Sometimes you actually have to look at the evidence.
-
Dear Prof,
Well I am not a scientist but I would argue that science all science is there to be questioned by all.
I don't see the findings as far fetched in fact it sounds like good basic commonsense, when a child first see's it does in fact gaze into a gods face, its biological mother.
And once again I submit that you are not arguing against the research but arguing about what happens to a child in later life.
Gonnagle.
-
The question would be what would happen if, as they say in the OP, people grew up on an island away from all civilised influences, including science and religions?
But if you took a bunch of new born human babies free from any cultural conditioning and put them on a desert island, they'd die!
And this isn't a frivolous point. The point is that new born humans (unlike many other species) have no ability to survive unaided. They are entirely dependent on the input of older members of the species, who necessarily will have been exposed to the cultural and social norms of their group (or society) and will necessarily transfer that cultural, knowledge etc to the new born as they develop. And this is essential to the natural human development. So the notion of trying to determine the 'default' position of a human baby, detached from social and cultural norms is non-sensical because it doesn't actually exist in the real world for strong evolutionary reasons.
One possible way, and long term project, would be to put some people on an island with only the basics so that their struggle would de-programme them of their culture over several generations, as with the Tasmanian peoples found in the 19thC, I think?
Of course this wouldn't be morally correct.
-
Dear Jack,
Once upon a time in a land called religion and ethics there lived a Gonnagle, now this erudite, intelligent and handsome ( bordering on young Greek god ) posted a link to a tribe who had been untouched by western civilisation ( the whole tribe and their cattle had escaped a tsunami ) anyway this tribes religion had similarities to the Christian God, all powerful, all knowing, were they born believing, something written into their DNA perhaps.
Gonnagle.
-
"Lord," does not mean God, as some think. It simply means "master. " In the OT, even David is called "Lord." It basically means that the person you address as Lord has power and authority over you. Do some reading,
But for the love of all that's holy DON'T DO YOUR READING ON BLOODY GOOGLE!
I don't need to do that; especially so with such a basic , simple, question. Nor do I need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time, just for a little spurious attention - your hapless, sad, posts will do that effectively enough.
Iy's not you, is it Shaker, trying to score a cheap point! ;D
Listen to me you hapless, sad little Google-hating jealous of anyone who retains knowledge greater than yours in their heads poster - I have no need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time for any reason - I have just returned to my old BBC R and E moniker!
And it's the "moniker" of a sad old man who is under the impression that he is saying something of worth, when he is simply an idiot with a stupid and pretentious attitude.
-
I don't see the findings as far fetched in fact it sounds like good basic commonsense, when a child first see's it does in fact gaze into a gods face, its biological mother.
When a new born baby first gazes into his or her mother's face, he or she does just that - see someone incredibly important to him or her, their biological mother, not god, but their mother.
Do you really think that the baby is thinking, oo - look, there's god!?!
You really do seem to be clutching at straws here Gonners.
-
Maybe it's his inner poet talking.
Maybe that's what religion is all about ;)
-
"Lord," does not mean God, as some think. It simply means "master. " In the OT, even David is called "Lord." It basically means that the person you address as Lord has power and authority over you. Do some reading,
But for the love of all that's holy DON'T DO YOUR READING ON BLOODY GOOGLE!
I don't need to do that; especially so with such a basic , simple, question. Nor do I need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time, just for a little spurious attention - your hapless, sad, posts will do that effectively enough.
Iy's not you, is it Shaker, trying to score a cheap point! ;D
Listen to me you hapless, sad little Google-hating jealous of anyone who retains knowledge greater than yours in their heads poster - I have no need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time for any reason - I have just returned to my old BBC R and E moniker!
And it's the "moniker" of a sad old man who is under the impression that he is saying something of worth, when he is simply an idiot with a stupid and pretentious attitude.
Ye Gods - you really are up yourself aren't you! In fact, if you were any further up yourself you would look pregnant.
You, as far as I am concerned, have repeatedly shown yourself to add nothing but insults, to call me pretentious is a major case of the pot calling the kettle black and as to worth, you are not worth the waste of time it takes to respond to your malignancy and I shall do so no longer.
Your are the most pathetic of creatures whose entire world collapses if you are in any way criticised or your opinions in any way questioned and should anyone dare to have the temerity to do so, you throw insults around like the pathetic infant that you are throwing your toys out of your pram!
-
Your are the most pathetic of creatures whose entire world collapses if you are in any way criticised or your opinions in any way questioned and should anyone dare to have the temerity to do so, you throw insults around like the pathetic infant that you are throwing your toys out of your pram!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank you for that spot-on description of BA.
-
That poster appears to get off on the pathetic insults they chuck around almost every post. :o I suppose one has to feel very sorry for them, as this is how they get their kicks. It is best to try to ignore them, but I know how hard that can be!
-
I don't see the findings as far fetched in fact it sounds like good basic commonsense, when a child first see's it does in fact gaze into a gods face, its biological mother.
When a new born baby first gazes into his or her mother's face, he or she does just that - see someone incredibly important to him or her, their biological mother, not god, but their mother.
Do you really think that the baby is thinking, oo - look, there's god!?!
You really do seem to be clutching at straws here Gonners.
I think that illustrates that humans invent gods to explain things they don't otherwise understand - so spot on Gonnagle!
-
It's dubious to suppose that when a new born first senses light reflected from its mothers face that it is able to distinguish the mother from aspects of itself.
-
"Lord," does not mean God, as some think. It simply means "master. " In the OT, even David is called "Lord." It basically means that the person you address as Lord has power and authority over you. Do some reading,
But for the love of all that's holy DON'T DO YOUR READING ON BLOODY GOOGLE!
I don't need to do that; especially so with such a basic , simple, question. Nor do I need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time, just for a little spurious attention - your hapless, sad, posts will do that effectively enough.
Iy's not you, is it Shaker, trying to score a cheap point! ;D
Listen to me you hapless, sad little Google-hating jealous of anyone who retains knowledge greater than yours in their heads poster - I have no need to boost my ego by thinking up tatty and puerile new names all the time for any reason - I have just returned to my old BBC R and E moniker!
And it's the "moniker" of a sad old man who is under the impression that he is saying something of worth, when he is simply an idiot with a stupid and pretentious attitude.
Ye Gods - you really are up yourself aren't you! In fact, if you were any further up yourself you would look pregnant.
You, as far as I am concerned, have repeatedly shown yourself to add nothing but insults, to call me pretentious is a major case of the pot calling the kettle black and as to worth, you are not worth the waste of time it takes to respond to your malignancy and I shall do so no longer.
Your are the most pathetic of creatures whose entire world collapses if you are in any way criticised or your opinions in any way questioned and should anyone dare to have the temerity to do so, you throw insults around like the pathetic infant that you are throwing your toys out of your pram!
Hi there, CMG x AB + KCMG - Y - GCMG to the power of 4, or whatever daft name you're calling yourself! Hope you are well.
-
Your are the most pathetic of creatures whose entire world collapses if you are in any way criticised or your opinions in any way questioned and should anyone dare to have the temerity to do so, you throw insults around like the pathetic infant that you are throwing your toys out of your pram!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank you for that spot-on description of BA.
Belated happy birthday, Leonard! :)
-
I know I am being thick but who is CMG etc?
-
That poster appears to get off on the pathetic insults they chuck around almost every post. :o I suppose one has to feel very sorry for them, as this is how they get their kicks. It is best to try to ignore them, but I know how hard that can be!
I have taken far too long to actually 'harden my heart' and grab my emotions by the throat to stop myself rising to the bait that WUM's cast upon the waters of this Forum and it still rather like being a recovering alcoholic having a drink placed in front of them with the unspoken challenge - 'go on, it's only one!'
-
That poster appears to get off on the pathetic insults they chuck around almost every post. :o I suppose one has to feel very sorry for them, as this is how they get their kicks. It is best to try to ignore them, but I know how hard that can be!
I have taken far too long to actually 'harden my heart' and grab my emotions by the throat to stop myself rising to the bait that WUM's cast upon the waters of this Forum and it still rather like being a recovering alcoholic having a drink placed in front of them with the unspoken challenge - 'go on, it's only one!'
You are good! Who are you, by the way
-
I know I am being thick but who is CMG etc?
I started as Matthew Hopkins, moved to Nathaniel J Scrote and have now gone back to my final BBC moniker of CMG KCMG GCMG.
This started as a joke between myself and six other posters on that forum who were, are, ex-military.
The CMG is awarded to men and women of high office, or who render extraordinary or important non-military service in a foreign country, and stands for Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George; KCMG is Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George; GCMG is Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George.
Among some members of the military it it referred to as CMG = Call Me God; KCMG = Kindly Call Me God; and GCMG = God Calls Me God.
James Bond was, according to one of Ian Flwmming's stories, a CMG and was offered a KCMG for some exploit but turned it down.
-
I know I am being thick but who is CMG etc?
I started as Matthew Hopkins, moved to Nathaniel J Scrote and have now gone back to my final BBC moniker of CMG KCMG GCMG.
This started as a joke between myself and six other posters on that forum who were, are, ex-military.
The CMG is awarded to men and women of high office, or who render extraordinary or important non-military service in a foreign country, and stands for Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George; KCMG is Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George; GCMG is Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George.
Among some members of the military it it referred to as CMG = Call Me God; KCMG = Kindly Call Me God; and GCMG = God Calls Me God.
James Bond was, according to one of Ian Flwmming's stories, a CMG and was offered a KCMG for some exploit but turned it down.
Fair enough.
-
I know I am being thick but who is CMG etc?
I started as Matthew Hopkins, moved to Nathaniel J Scrote and have now gone back to my final BBC moniker of CMG KCMG GCMG.
This started as a joke between myself and six other posters on that forum who were, are, ex-military.
The CMG is awarded to men and women of high office, or who render extraordinary or important non-military service in a foreign country, and stands for Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George; KCMG is Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George; GCMG is Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George.
Among some members of the military it it referred to as CMG = Call Me God; KCMG = Kindly Call Me God; and GCMG = God Calls Me God.
James Bond was, according to one of Ian Flwmming's stories, a CMG and was offered a KCMG for some exploit but turned it down.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
-
I know I am being thick but who is CMG etc?
I started as Matthew Hopkins, moved to Nathaniel J Scrote and have now gone back to my final BBC moniker of CMG KCMG GCMG.
This started as a joke between myself and six other posters on that forum who were, are, ex-military.
The CMG is awarded to men and women of high office, or who render extraordinary or important non-military service in a foreign country, and stands for Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George; KCMG is Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George; GCMG is Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George.
Among some members of the military it it referred to as CMG = Call Me God; KCMG = Kindly Call Me God; and GCMG = God Calls Me God.
James Bond was, according to one of Ian Flwmming's stories, a CMG and was offered a KCMG for some exploit but turned it down.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
I don't know if you were on the Beeb or, if so, who as, but for most of my time there I was Owlswing until my run-in with a hiacker called the Recondite Revenant.
-
Dear Prof,
Me clutching at straws, I will leave you to ponder just who is doing the clutching.
And have you finally realised that you are not arguing against the OP but some other argument that happens to kids in later life.
Gonnagle.
-
Your are the most pathetic of creatures whose entire world collapses if you are in any way criticised or your opinions in any way questioned and should anyone dare to have the temerity to do so, you throw insults around like the pathetic infant that you are throwing your toys out of your pram!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank you for that spot-on description of BA.
But should we not be grateful for the sanctimonious sermonising of the Tartuffe* in question? I'm sure we've all learned how to improve our moral outlook immensely from such words of wisdom as the following:
It is not only unpleasant to cast aspersions on a person's intelligence, it is also demeaning to the person who makes the allegation - and of course, it never occurred to you the light it casts you in:
demeaning:
causing someone to lose their dignity and the respect of others.
That was delivered to Shaker #216 on the "There is no health in us" thread.
I know it is difficult not to rise to the bait, but in this instance there are some words of wisdom in the Bible, especially in Proverbs chapter 26.
*He'll probably have to google that - I doubt very much whether he's read the play :)
-
Dear Jack,
Once upon a time in a land called religion and ethics there lived a Gonnagle, now this erudite, intelligent and handsome ( bordering on young Greek god ) posted a link to a tribe who had been untouched by western civilisation ( the whole tribe and their cattle had escaped a tsunami ) anyway this tribes religion had similarities to the Christian God, all powerful, all knowing, were they born believing, something written into their DNA perhaps.
Gonnagle.
Our intuitive awareness of the collective Unconscious, Gonny.
-
Dear Prof,
Me clutching at straws, I will leave you to ponder just who is doing the clutching.
And have you finally realised that you are not arguing against the OP but some other argument that happens to kids in later life.
Gonnagle.
I don't think so Gonners.
What this academic seems to be suggesting is that without intervention to the contrary the default is that children will come to believe in god. And by default this is what will happen not just might happen. Further he seems to be suggesting the reason being that children will see something they don't understand around them (the world) and their default explanation will be that some supernatural entity (i.e. god) created is and therefore will believe in god. And they will do so on a desert island so even if no-one has ever given them the inkling of god as a concept.
Now I think that is simply flat out non-sense. And let me give an analogous example.
Think of father christmas - children go through phases, typically first being too young to have any concept of santa, then to believe in santa and finally to be told he doesn't exist (which they may well have already worked out). So it is the middle phase that we are interested (when they believe) which could be seen as analogous to children believing in god. But would this happen as a default explanation by children to an unexplained occurrence (presents appearing in their room on 25th Dec).
So lets try a little 'thought' experiment, again analogous to the desert island one that this chap seems to think will result in default to belief in god.
So imagine a child who grows up in a household and a society where the notion that there might be a father christmas is never ever mentioned. The child's parents creep into the child's room every dec 24th totally unnoticed and leave presents. They leave no note nor do they ever offer any opinion as to where the presents come from. They do this year after year.
So what will be the developmental process the child goes through.
Well in the early years the child will simply ignore it - they have no concept that this is in any way unusual, they may of course like what's in the presents.
Then the child will get to the point of perhaps being excited that perhaps they'll get presents this 24th dec as the always do. They may also be curious as to where they come from - such an unexplained thing.
In Barrett's world their default (even thought this has never ever been mentioned) is that they will default to a view that a supernatural being (we'll call him father christmas did it). I think that is a bizarre view. Surely they are far more likely to conclude that it is their mum and dad or someone else. Perhaps simply magic (just happens) etc etc. I think the notion that it was a supernatural being that did it would be just about the last thing they would default to.
Except of course if they have already been primed by overt or covert suggestion that the supernatural being explanation is a possibility or more likely you'd need to suggest it is the explanation. Sure if their society allows them, or even encourages them to think that the supernatural entity is the explanation then they will likely think that. But that isn't what Barrett is suggesting in his desert island thought experiment which is rather analogous to my thought experiment.
-
So Matty, I recall a certain fella a while back having some critical comments about posters changing their names. What happened to him? You have now changed your name as many times as me. It was silly for that fella to wag his finger at those that change their names wasn't it?
-
Dear Prof,
Not come to believe, born believing, why are you reading into this something that is not there, I am and nor is the research talking about any divine intervention.
The mind at a early age is set up that there must be a reason for everything, bloody hell!! The tired old atheist argument about early man blaming the volcano god backs this up.
I agree with you that as the child grows it then starts to question.
The tribe I mentioned to Jack knave, untouched by civilisation, where did their idea of god come from.
Gonnagle.
-
Your are the most pathetic of creatures whose entire world collapses if you are in any way criticised or your opinions in any way questioned and should anyone dare to have the temerity to do so, you throw insults around like the pathetic infant that you are throwing your toys out of your pram!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thank you for that spot-on description of BA.
But should we not be grateful for the sanctimonious sermonising of the Tartuffe* in question? I'm sure we've all learned how to improve our moral outlook immensely from such words of wisdom as the following:
It is not only unpleasant to cast aspersions on a person's intelligence, it is also demeaning to the person who makes the allegation - and of course, it never occurred to you the light it casts you in:
demeaning:
causing someone to lose their dignity and the respect of others.
That was delivered to Shaker #216 on the "There is no health in us" thread.
I know it is difficult not to rise to the bait, but in this instance there are some words of wisdom in the Bible, especially in Proverbs chapter 26.
*He'll probably have to google that - I doubt very much whether he's read the play :)
It's so flattering when people spend so much time trawling to try and score cheap points - shows I got to you!! :D :D
"Tartuffe." Trawling, and googling, eh! You would never know that, being so ill-read!
-
Oh wonderful, yet another thread with the resident witch having another fit. Have a cookie matty.
-
The tribe I mentioned to Jack knave, untouched by civilisation, where did their idea of god come from.
Gonnagle.
Morning Gonners,
From the same place as all gods (and all fiction) come from ... the human imagination.
I suppose there is a remote possibility that some power exists that is not of our natural universe, but until we see evidence for such a thing, we should not be so daft as to pretend to know anything about it.
-
Dear Prof,
Not come to believe, born believing, why are you reading into this something that is not there, I am and nor is the research talking about any divine intervention.
Nope - The researcher in the OP posits that children will by default come to believe in god, he does not think that a new born baby believes in god. That suggestion is absolute non-sense as a new born baby simply doesn't have the level of cognitive development to believe in anything of that nature. He or she no more believes in god than in father christmas or the tooth fairy or keynsian monetarism.
Hence he 'argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God'.
-
The tribe I mentioned to Jack knave, untouched by civilisation, where did their idea of god come from.
Gonnagle.
Morning Gonners,
From the same place as all gods (and all fiction) come from ... the human imagination.
I suppose there is a remote possibility that some power exists that is not of our natural universe, but until we see evidence for such a thing, we should not be so daft as to pretend to know anything about it.
The human imagination is more powerful than any deity, imo!
-
Hence he 'argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God'.
But those raised alone on a desert island will never have had contact with language. Children who have not been exposed to language before about 18 months of age will never develop language.
In order "to come to believe" the child will need to be able to consider, adopt and adapt abstract conceptions. Without language the ability to do this will be minimal. The child's knowledge of its environment will be limited to its innate capabilities and the learning it will accomplish in its intereactions with its environment.
There is no nature in God, only nurture.
-
Dear Prof,
Believe in anything of what nature, is this atheism's problem, from a early age we are taught, big guy, long beard, wears a toga, lives in the sky, actually the OP says that the research affects our theist and atheist ways of thinking.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Believe in anything of what nature, is this atheism's problem, from a early age we are taught, big guy, long beard, wears a toga, lives in the sky, actually the OP says that the research affects our theist and atheist ways of thinking.
Gonnagle.
Which rather confirms my point - that new born babies do not have the necessary cognitive development to believe in anything really, but as they grow they become influenced by their surroundings (parents, other societal and cultural influences - overt teaching, subconscious suggestion etc) and their beliefs become influenced by those environmental factors.
By the way Gonners you seem to have completely evaded my father christmas thought experiment.
So do you think that the default for those children in my thought experiment will believe that the presents were left by some supernatural being (whether or not this is considered to be father christmas). Without any suggestion that this is a possibility I find it very hard to believe that all these children will believe that. Rather I think they will default to believing that their parents' provided the presents (just as their parents provide so much else to them).
-
God has given all a sense of His self. Even atheists know in their hearts that God exists.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE;" Romans 1:20
-
God has given all a sense of His self. Even atheists know in their hearts that God exists.
Where's your evidence for this shit?
Oh, I forgot - you don't have any.
-
Even atheists know in their hearts that God exists.
Nope.
-
Dear Prof,
Stop with the father Christmas already!! That is taught, a child of one or two years of age does not give a fig about who or why, in fact the child of one or two is quite happy with a empty box.
Now a rhetorical question, where did the idea of god come from, any god.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Stop with the father Christmas already!! That is taught, a child of one or two years of age does not give a fig about who or why, in fact the child of one or two is quite happy with a empty box.
Now a rhetorical question, where did the idea of god come from, any god.
Gonnagle.
It comes from humans being pattern seeking.
We think every action has a cause, and we see patterns that are not real.
Is that the wind moving the grass, or is it a deadly predator.
We like patterns, we are very very good at patterns, and the usually serve us well.
But not all the time. Religion being a case in point.
-
I guess you're referring to agency detection BR or even hyperactive agency detection.
-
Indeed.
Gonnagle needs the agent for the universe, and cannot accept "Don't know"
-
Dear Prof,
Stop with the father Christmas already!! That is taught, a child of one or two years of age does not give a fig about who or why, in fact the child of one or two is quite happy with a empty box.
Now a rhetorical question, where did the idea of god come from, any god.
Gonnagle.
You answer my question first please - as I asked it first and that's only polite.
You seem to be squirming over the father christmas thought experiment. I guess because you recognise if there is never any suggestion that the presents might have come from a supernatural being that it is very unlikely that the children would come to that conclusion. Certainly not the default view.
And sure a kid give a fig about where or why for presents - because they are curious. They are just as likely to give a fig about where or why for mysterious presents that appear on 24th dec than where or why the world around that appeared. Perhaps more so as it has more direct relevance to them.
So come on them, please explain why a kid who receives presents every dec24th, but has never been taught that father christmas exists nor has there ever been any mention that the explanation for presents mysterious appearance might be a supernatural being would ever come up with that as an explanation, let alone the default explanation.
-
God has given all a sense of His self. Even atheists know in their hearts that God exists.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE;" Romans 1:20
Yea, one of Paul's more ludicrous rants (in other respects I don't think he was quite such a bad guy as some do).
As for your first sentence, it is certainly untrue as regards my own experience. As a child aged six or seven, I was packed off to sunday school as an excuse for my parents to get rid of me at least for the sunday morning. I remember arguing with the lay-preachers about whether God created the universe even then - my youthful self seems to have been initially atheist in inclination. My adult life has been more varied in its outlook, but I don't think I've ever thought that the necessity for belief in God was so damned obvious that no one had any excuse if they didn't believe. Only those in whom the critical faculty is under-developed seem to me to take this naive view.
-
I'm sure you have convinced yourself to a certain extent but deep down you struggle with His existence Mr. Dicky.
-
I'm sure you have convinced yourself to a certain extent but deep down you struggle with His existence Mr. Dicky.
Evidence, boat man?
-
I'm sure you have convinced yourself to a certain extent but deep down you struggle with His existence Mr. Dicky.
No, I gave up struggling back in the late 1980s, more or less. It was a great relief to let go.
-
And some of us never even struggled or had anything to give up in the first place ;)
-
Ah the rather tedious 'you all really believe' which is either a piece of pabulum for some empty vessel theists to trot out when they have no arguments or thoughts, or a harmless piece of childish wummery. Not even really worthy of a biscuit.
-
Not even really worthy of a biscuit.
Oh, thank goodness; the proper word at last.
-
Dear Sane,
Oh really, then why is the Prof and Berational agreeing with me, read their posts before you start with your biscuits.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
We think every action has a cause.
Prof are you reading this, hello!!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Oh really, then why is the Prof and Berational agreeing with me, read their posts before you start with your biscuits.
Gonnagle.
I was picking up Mr Canoe' s point that we are believers in his god but are lying about it. Take it up with him. Or are you saying you agree that Dicky, Shaker and I are all lying?
The biscuits were a clue.
-
Dear Sane,
Oopps, sorry, I owe you a pint!! Damn I already owe you a pint, wonder if Mr Babbitty takes cheques :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Oopps, sorry, I owe you a pint!! Damn I already owe you a pint, wonder if Mr Babbitty takes cheques :P
Gonnagle.
You owe me only your company and friendship, as I owe you. Mr Babbity' s is just where we cash those debts
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
But religion, alas, does exist. I wish I could say otherwise but I can't.
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
Nope, you and your lying were. Why are you lyimg?
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
But religion, alas, does exist. I wish I could say otherwise but I can't.
Take comfort in the fact that it is losing its grip.
There will always be credulous people to succumb to it, so we must never stop fighting to minimise its darker effects on the weak-minded.
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
But religion, alas, does exist. I wish I could say otherwise but I can't.
Take comfort in the fact that it is losing its grip.
There will always be credulous people to succumb to it, so we must never stop fighting to minimise its darker effects on the weak-minded.
....Or is it people losing their grip?....yep, lots of evidence for that.
You though have to have faith in sentimental secular humanist cobblers.
-
....Or is it people losing their grip?....yep, lots of evidence for that.
Indeed, spurred on by religious rubbish there seems to be no bounds to what they will stoop to for their "God".
You though have to have faith in sentimental secular humanist cobblers.
That's all there is! "Gods" seem powerless to stop them.
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
But religion, alas, does exist. I wish I could say otherwise but I can't.
Take comfort in the fact that it is losing its grip.
There will always be credulous people to succumb to it, so we must never stop fighting to minimise its darker effects on the weak-minded.
Sanctimonious clap-trap!
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
I think about lots of things that don't exist outside of human mind. Yesterday I thought about house price inflation. Today I am going to be working on a data visualisation problem. Much of our headspace is given over to concepts that have no independent existence or meaning outside of human mind and culture. God seems to me to sit fairly and squarely in that category of stuff.
-
Coming ridiculously late to the discussion, but I can remember having an understanding of something when very small, and then people told me what that something was, so I made it fit that something, even though I knew it wasn't really right. Over time it became right - Len's brainwashing I suppose - and more and more right til the whole thing imploded and I was left again wondering, 'so what is that?' once more.
-
Coming ridiculously late to the discussion, but I can remember having an understanding of something when very small, and then people told me what that something was, so I made it fit that something, even though I knew it wasn't really right. Over time it became right - Len's brainwashing I suppose - and more and more right til the whole thing imploded and I was left again wondering, 'so what is that?' once more.
Brainwashing?
ippy
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
I think about lots of things that don't exist outside of human mind. Yesterday I thought about house price inflation. Today I am going to be working on a data visualisation problem. Much of our headspace is given over to concepts that have no independent existence or meaning outside of human mind and culture. God seems to me to sit fairly and squarely in that category of stuff.
Given that God is posited as the creator of the universe and the one of platonic philosophy that is an arseclenchingly worrying exposure of utter ignorance.
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
I think about lots of things that don't exist outside of human mind. Yesterday I thought about house price inflation. Today I am going to be working on a data visualisation problem. Much of our headspace is given over to concepts that have no independent existence or meaning outside of human mind and culture. God seems to me to sit fairly and squarely in that category of stuff.
Given that God is posited as the creator of the universe and the one of platonic philosophy that is an arseclenchingly worrying exposure of utter ignorance.
Do you lie awake in bed at night wondering what daft forum name you are going to favour us with the following day? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
I think about lots of things that don't exist outside of human mind. Yesterday I thought about house price inflation. Today I am going to be working on a data visualisation problem. Much of our headspace is given over to concepts that have no independent existence or meaning outside of human mind and culture. God seems to me to sit fairly and squarely in that category of stuff.
Given that God is posited as the creator of the universe and the one of platonic philosophy that is an arseclenchingly worrying exposure of utter ignorance.
Do you lie awake in bed at night wondering what daft forum name you are going to favour us with the following day? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, but I get to catch up on sleep when I read your posts.
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
I think about lots of things that don't exist outside of human mind. Yesterday I thought about house price inflation. Today I am going to be working on a data visualisation problem. Much of our headspace is given over to concepts that have no independent existence or meaning outside of human mind and culture. God seems to me to sit fairly and squarely in that category of stuff.
Given that God is posited as the creator of the universe and the one of platonic philosophy that is an arseclenchingly worrying exposure of utter ignorance.
Do you lie awake in bed at night wondering what daft forum name you are going to favour us with the following day? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, but I get to catch up on sleep when I read your posts.
WOW I could patent them as a sleeping draft! ;D ;D ;D
-
Well Nearly, God was on your mind yesterday, He's on your mind today and I betcha you will be thinking about God everyday. If something doesn't exist I find myself not thinking about it.
I think about lots of things that don't exist outside of human mind. Yesterday I thought about house price inflation. Today I am going to be working on a data visualisation problem. Much of our headspace is given over to concepts that have no independent existence or meaning outside of human mind and culture. God seems to me to sit fairly and squarely in that category of stuff.
Given that God is posited as the creator of the universe and the one of platonic philosophy that is an arseclenchingly worrying exposure of utter ignorance.
Do you lie awake in bed at night wondering what daft forum name you are going to favour us with the following day? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, but I get to catch up on sleep when I read your posts.
WOW I could patent them as a sleeping draft! ;D ;D ;D
You shouldn't sleep in a draft it gives you a stiff neck.
-
Shaker, God is not religion. Duh, try and get an education.
Nearly, I don't believe you for a second. I know you've been thinking about God today. Not is a positive way but you have Him on your mind. He's not done with you.
-
Jc lying for Jebus
-
Jc lying for Jebus
Surely the term Jebus was introduced to show how illiterate and ignorant Homer Simpson was.
-
Jc lying for Jebus
Surely the term Jebus was introduced to show how illiterate and ignorant Homer Simpson was.
exactly
-
You are thinking about God today Nearly. Who you pointing a finger at? He's on your mind and will be on Sunday. Own it, it's true. I just betcha you will mention God a lot around here. Too funny you. Oh, and your nose is growing. Mine isn't.
-
And Jc lies again
-
No I'm not. Be honest with yourself. Even they famous atheists of the days of yore were always thinking and writing about a God they told us didn't exist. Today, Dick head Dawkins makes a lot of money thinking and writing about a God he tells us does not exist. What makes you the special atheist, the different one, Mr. Nearly? Too funny you.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Post 238, just the way kids look at the world, only reason they don't like the research is it bites at one of their tired old arguments.
Gonnagle.
-
And JC lies again
-
Dick head Dawkins
We have come to expect childish name calling from the Christians. Go Johnny!
-
Dick head Dawkins
We have come to expect childish name calling from the Christians. Go Johnny!
Not to mention the foul-mouthed name-calling from atheists.
-
jeremy,
For you, of course I'll go. And a here we go!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlPVoMHRtyg
-
No I'm not. Be honest with yourself. Even they famous atheists of the days of yore were always thinking and writing about a God they told us didn't exist. Today, Dick head Dawkins makes a lot of money thinking and writing about a God he tells us does not exist. What makes you the special atheist, the different one, Mr. Nearly? Too funny you.
Johnny most people are interested in what is true and what is not. It really doesn't follow that people who are motivated enough to join in the debate somehow believe the opposite of what they believe. I find your line of reasoning unfathomable.
-
No I'm not. Be honest with yourself. Even they famous atheists of the days of yore were always thinking and writing about a God they told us didn't exist. Today, Dick head Dawkins makes a lot of money thinking and writing about a God he tells us does not exist. What makes you the special atheist, the different one, Mr. Nearly? Too funny you.
Johnny most people are interested in what is true and what is not. It really doesn't follow that people who are motivated enough to join in the debate somehow believe the opposite of what they believe. I find your line of reasoning unfathomable.
I don't think there is much "reasoning" involved in JC's line of thinking.
-
Dick head Dawkins
We have come to expect childish name calling from the Christians. Go Johnny!
You can talk. You called me Lazy Chuck.
-
Well I know you think about God a lot Leo.
-
Well I know you think about God a lot Leo.
If you say so, JC! ;)
-
Johnny most people are interested in what is true and what is not. It really doesn't follow that people who are motivated enough to join in the debate somehow believe the opposite of what they believe. I find your line of reasoning unfathomable.
What do you mean by the term 'true', torridon? Is it only that which fits a scientific understanding of the universe or does it include aspects of life that science doesn't even attempt to deal with?
-
Johnny most people are interested in what is true and what is not. It really doesn't follow that people who are motivated enough to join in the debate somehow believe the opposite of what they believe. I find your line of reasoning unfathomable.
What do you mean by the term 'true', torridon? Is it only that which fits a scientific understanding of the universe or does it include aspects of life that science doesn't even attempt to deal with?
You are dealing with two different forms of 'truth' here.
One - 'true' because it has been scientifiically proven to be the truth.
Two - 'true' because one or more people believe it to be true (from them) regardless of any possibility of scientific proof ever being available.
The two are totally incompatible and cannot be compared one to the other.