Children - religion the default position ?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Jack Knave]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

"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!   

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[torridon]

Maybe it's his inner poet talking.

Maybe that's what religion is all about 

[Owlswing]

"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!   

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!

[Leonard James]

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!

 

Thank you for that spot-on description of BA.

[floo]

That poster appears to get off on the pathetic insults they chuck around almost every post. 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!

[Maeght]

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!

[Udayana]

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.
 

[BashfulAnthony]

"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!   

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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!

 

Thank you for that spot-on description of BA.

Belated happy birthday, Leonard!   

[floo]

I know I am being thick but who is CMG etc?

[Owlswing]

That poster appears to get off on the pathetic insults they chuck around almost every post. 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!'

[BashfulAnthony]

That poster appears to get off on the pathetic insults they chuck around almost every post. 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

[Owlswing]

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.

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Owlswing]

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.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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!

 

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 
 

[Jack Knave]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.