Children - religion the default position ?

[Bubbles]

.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[Shaker]

Sounds very sensible and likely to me

Thought it might.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Leonard James]

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".

[Shaker]

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?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

You slay me old chum

It's evidence, scientific evidence, but because it flies in the face of a old atheist argument it is rubbish evidence.

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Owlswing]

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".

[Owlswing]

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!

[Shaker]

Dear Shaker,

You slay me old chum

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.

[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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

Dear Shaker,

You slay me old chum

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.

[Gonnagle]

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

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

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

Gonnagle.

I would suggest you read it again without your Christian vest on.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

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.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

Can't, I'am indoctrinated, or am I

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Fair enough, but the article does state, preponderance of scientific evidence.

Gonnagle.

[Hope]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Hope]

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'?