# Study: Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction



## Explorer (Jul 25, 2014)

Two journals, both Cognitive Science and the appropriately named Duh!, have published a study entitled, "Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds."

From this news story:




> The researchers worked with 66 kids from the Cambridge, Mass., area, all of whom were 5 or 6 years old. The children were exposed to three different types of stories: realistic stories where heroes were saved by human ingenuity, religious stories that featured Gods divine intervention and fantastical stories that included magic or fairy tales. The children were then asked to decide whether the characters were real or imaginary.
> 
> Heres an example of the type of stories these children were told:
> 
> ...




Here's the full paper, for those who are interested.


And yes, I was kidding about Duh!


I've read some angry comments, all from religious folks, that kids can't distinguish between fantasy and reality at that age anyway, completely forgetting that the non-religious kids could enjoy fantasy without having to think it's real.


I find this to be an interesting study, especially in the context of religious fundamentalists who want to restrict children's access to the Internet because it will cause them to doubt the truth of their religion's miracle stories. It's sounding more and more (based on comments I've been reading) like good science and accurate information are being made the enemy of US fundamentalist Christians. Scary, no?


Anyone here have any comments or insights?


----------



## Necris (Jul 25, 2014)

If you've been taught by the authority figures in your life that all the stories in the bible (or any other religious text) are historical fact with absolutely no exaggerations in them it really leaves the door wide open for any story to be true, provided you believe them. I'd say this is an age where many kids would just take the word of their parents or other authority figures at face value.

Religious texts do tend to fall squarely into the "fantastical" category. I'd be interested if the children could even differentiate between original fantastical stories and religious stories.

I'd also be interested in seeing this study repeated as the children grow older, do the religious children at some point become more able to differentiate between realistic and fantastical stories? It would also be interesting to see how many of the children believe in the supernatural (ghosts, aliens, magic, telepathy etc) and how that changes as they age.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 25, 2014)

Thats why religious people love to swoop in and chickenhawk children into believing their bullshit because kids are too young to know its bullshit.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 25, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I find this to be an interesting study, especially in the context of religious fundamentalists who want to restrict children's access to the Internet because it will cause them to doubt the truth of their religion's miracle stories. It's sounding more and more (based on comments I've been reading) like good science and accurate information are being made the enemy of US fundamentalist Christians. Scary, no?


I think this is the thing to focus on. I was raised with religion since childhood and I am not delusional. But of course, you have no reason to believe that because I say so.

Like you say, this is probably true for religious FUNDAMENTALISTS who purposely shield their children from ideas that conflict with their own. Most people who raise their children with religion are NOT fundamentalists.


----------



## SD83 (Jul 25, 2014)

Necris said:


> Religious texts do tend to fall squarely into the "fantastical" category. I'd be interested if the children could even differentiate between original fantastical stories and religious stories.



Protip: There is none.  At least in some cases. Others may have been realistic stories that turned into legends. Or were clearly meant as a parable. As is clearly stated in a bunch of cases in the new testament. The "keep in mind, this is just a parable" introduction might just have been lost for a lot of old testament stories over the centuries. 
Sadly, the bible clearly states that "God" is against understanding the world. It's kinda logical for fundamental lunatics to hate science. New testament is a different story, but judging from their behaviour, believes and actions, most of the fundamental "christians" have never heard of Jesus.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 25, 2014)

I don't think the word "exposed" in the thread title is very accurate.
"Dominated" would be a better choice.

You can expose your children to it without brainwashing them with it.
In other words, exposing can simply be explaining the viewpoint of those that are christian, muslim, budhist, ect..

Not debating the general point, just the wording.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 25, 2014)

ilyti said:


> I think this is the thing to focus on. I was raised with religion since childhood and I am not delusional. But of course, you have no reason to believe that because I say so.
> 
> Like you say, this is probably true for religious FUNDAMENTALISTS who purposely shield their children from ideas that conflict with their own. Most people who raise their children with religion are NOT fundamentalists.



You many not be delusional at all. The study said kids were more likely, not guarenteed to be.
And if you read the article, the first few lines actually, nothing those kids were exposed to anything even sounding like fundamentalists teachings.

Religious people are way way too quick to defend themselves instead of listening. If the same journal put out a study helping to prove global warming was infact true, not many people would question it. But since its dealing with religion, all the sudden the study is just BS to many religious people.

I find that many religious people are very selective with science. No religious person argues the fact that televisions work. I mean, its science that made that possible, but if science decrys their beliefs in the least, suddenly science is evil and scientists are there to trick you!!!



And I'm not specifically refering to you Ilyti, just saying my thoughts.


----------



## viesczy (Jul 25, 2014)

Of course they would, religions are filled with all the fantastical elements of all other works of fiction. You believe in burning bushes that talk, virgin birth, carpenter zombies, 14 armed elephants, flying heads of lettuce... yeah you're going to have on terrible time realizing the Transformers movies are not news.

Derek


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 25, 2014)

viesczy said:


> Of course they would, religions are filled with all the fantastical elements of all other works of fiction. You believe in burning bushes that talk, virgin birth, carpenter zombies, 14 armed elephants, flying heads of lettuce... yeah you're going to have on terrible time realizing the Transformers movies are not news.
> 
> Derek



Not to mention dinosaurs partying with humans at the same time


----------



## Augmatted (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm sorry but I'm calling bullshit. Perhaps some kids that grow up in religious households can't see past all of the hilariously unrealistic lies that are thrown at them but in the end the deciding factor is intelligence, not where you grew up. I was brought up in a highly religious household and by age 12 I came to the conclusion that none of the bible even remotely followed the rules of physics and logic, so I simply chose not to believe anything told to me in church (however I never told my parents and never will haha). I'm 16 now and it's actually slightly amusing to hear my family members discuss religion and I kind of just roll with it and pretend to agree with them haha.

EDIT: Just saw it said children 5 or 6 haha. Woopsies I'm retarded....


----------



## Explorer (Jul 26, 2014)

SD83 said:


> Sadly, the bible clearly states that "God" is against understanding the world. It's kinda logical for fundamental lunatics to hate science.



Again, to show how little actual faith some have while defending that faith: Why have so many extremist Christians in the US, when opposing abortion, used guns and dynamite to stop those abortion doctors and clinics, instead of prayer? 

In other words, they didn't believe in the power of God to answer prayers to stop that activity.


----------



## Watty (Jul 26, 2014)

There was an interesting debate about children's need for religious instruction on "The Big Questions" (a BBC production) that can be found on youtube if anyone's interested.

The mind boggling positions abound.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jul 29, 2014)

Geez.... I'm a Catholic with a Master's Degree from an Ivy League school. You'd think they would have figured out that I couldn't grasp the difference between fact and fiction long before awarding me that degree. Ha.  You can be a Christian and still believe in science, guys. There is a big difference between your average Irish Catholic and a fire-breathing Fundamentalist.

Of course, I might just be an _Outlier_ in this study.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 29, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Again, to show how little actual faith some have while defending that faith: Why have so many extremist Christians in the US, when opposing abortion, used guns and dynamite to stop those abortion doctors and clinics, instead of prayer?
> 
> In other words, they didn't believe in the power of God to answer prayers to stop that activity.



Because god helps those who help themselves? 
There's plenty of nuts in all walks, but maybe a bit higher % in fundamentalist.
Not just christian fundamentalist either, just look at the muslim extremist.

Or, maybe they just know how busy god is trying to help the Clintons from day to day .


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 29, 2014)

Augmatted said:


> I'm sorry but I'm calling bullshit.



Yea, cuz science is bullshit if it doesnt agree with what you think.


To the religious guys that are exceptions to the rule? It says more likely, not positively. BIG difference. Read. Its good for you.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 29, 2014)

I like the extrapolation from studying 5- and 6-year-olds to how this might affect college graduates. 

I'm assuming that the person read that fact, instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction without reading the actual article or the quote....


----------



## ArtDecade (Jul 30, 2014)

Come on, guys - we are all mates here. So lets not go off the deep end and start attacking each other. And I did read that it said more likely, but not positively. Ha. We can have a discussion without claiming that people are not reading or that any response is a knee jerk response, yeah?

I am sure that children raised to believe the Bible as a literal fact can become damaged adults, but its far from indicative of people as a whole. The problem here is not faith, but parenting. Extreme fundamentalism in all its forms is dangerous. Most parents do not raise their children like this - not if they want to succeed in the world. As a Christian, I challenge my faith. And I don't believe that the Church is always the best steward of right and wrong. In this study, we have examples of poor parents no matter what their background. I don't care if its the Bible or the LOTR or the collective works of Hugh Hefner... Ha. You raise kids to think critically. 

I have no issues with anyone that is an atheist. Its your choice. But you are lumping all Christians in the same boat and that's not fair. Its like taking taking someone that sends a check to PETA and determining that they must be an environmental terrorist that is hell bent on blowing up labs. Or maybe, just maybe, someone really just loves animals. You have to judge the person by their merit and that means not stereotyping. The parents that raised their kids to accept everything without constructive criticism are the ones at fault. Not religious parents as a whole. That's why I cited the example of me. I think my parents did a good job.


----------



## asher (Jul 30, 2014)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Yea, cuz science is bullshit if it doesnt agree with what you think.
> 
> 
> To the religious guys that are exceptions to the rule? It says more likely, not positively. BIG difference. Read. Its good for you.



It doesn't even mean it comes out as being very likely at all, only a statistically significant increase from otherwise. Also, "have difficulty" distinguishing, not "can't". And doesn't track them as they age.


----------



## Augmatted (Jul 30, 2014)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Yea, cuz science is bullshit if it doesnt agree with what you think.
> 
> 
> To the religious guys that are exceptions to the rule? It says more likely, not positively. BIG difference. Read. Its good for you.



Sorry, I missed the part where it said 5 or 6 year olds. I was thinking like 10 year olds, which would make zero sense in the context of this article, which was why I was very skeptical. You didn't need to be such a smartass though to make your point haha.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jul 30, 2014)

I hear ya. Didnt mean to be a dick guys. I live on the bible belt basically and am just used to dealing with holier than thou assholes in my day to day that have their ears and minds closed. To me personally, religion is the biggest, longest running scam in history and I get pretty heated when I discuss it.

I apologize. We ARE all buds here. My bad.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jul 30, 2014)

Makes sense.... They are being brain washed after all.


----------



## Shimme (Jul 30, 2014)

^It probably has more to do with the fact that the kids are being taught that something can be real even if you can't see, touch, or hear it. That something can be "real" even if there is no empirical data on it. No wonder that some of them decide to extend the justifications for their families' belief system to imaginary friends or events.

Follow-up studies would be absolutely amazing...


----------



## ArtDecade (Jul 30, 2014)

Shimme said:


> ^It probably has more to do with the fact that the kids are being taught that something can be real even if you can't see, touch, or hear it. That something can be "real" even if there is no empirical data on it. No wonder that some of them decide to extend the justifications for their families' belief system to imaginary friends or events.
> 
> Follow-up studies would be absolutely amazing...



Geez, you guys are rough! Ha. 

There is no empirical data for a lot of things... like loyalty, trust, love, respect, etc. Does that mean that these things can't exist? My dog is loyal, I trust my father and mother, I love my wife, and I respect my elders. These things can't be measured - neither can faith. Yet, these values shaped the person that I have become and most people would probably say that I am a stand-up guy. 

I'm not asking anyone to question faith, God, or anything else on this forum. I just don't think it is proper to cast aspersions on every person of faith because of a few loose screws. You will miss out on building relationships with a lot of good people if you let the actions of nutters regulate all people that you encounter. Not every Muslim is a terrorist. Not ever postal worker goes postal. Not every Irish Catholic is in the IRA. Those that are remain the exceptions to the rule.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 30, 2014)

If you can define those terms then they can be measured by actions, no? You know your dog is loyal because he behaves in a loyal manner. You know someone is respecting you because they are doing just that. Those things are quite measurable. Empirical data is info gathered through observation and those things can be easily observed. Anyhow, you can continue.


----------



## Augmatted (Jul 30, 2014)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> I hear ya. Didnt mean to be a dick guys. I live on the bible belt basically and am just used to dealing with holier than thou assholes in my day to day that have their ears and minds closed. To me personally, religion is the biggest, longest running scam in history and I get pretty heated when I discuss it.
> 
> I apologize. We ARE all buds here. My bad.



I agree. Religion sucks big fat donkey penis.


----------



## Ricky Roro (Jul 30, 2014)

I am a Christian. I could be described as a fundamentalist in the sense of the narrow definitions presented here. 
However, I am against anti-intellectualism, which is a problem often demonstrated in what is more broadly known as 'Fundamentalism.' As a part of my Christian worldview, since I start with belief in God, that means I have more places to exercise critical thinking, not less. If the world was created intelligently (but is now in a partially corrupted state), I should be able to expect that there is some intelligible reason behind things in natural order, such as the changes in seasons and tides, etc. rather than just some mystical force.

As a further extension of this, when I one day have children of my own, I intend to teach them to think more, not less, and to be exposed to more popular views on things (such as origins, morality, etc.) as a means of showing why I believe, emphasize, and teach that the Bible is true. 

My point is not that all of you should like or even approve of anything I believe, but rather that responsible Christian teaching emphasizes learning to think--to think with respect to the Bible--rather than merely thinking to learn.


----------



## Shimme (Jul 30, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> My point is not that all of you should like or even approve of anything I believe, but rather that responsible Christian teaching emphasizes learning to think--to think with respect to the Bible--rather than merely thinking to learn.



No, I highly approve of what you think and believe in this case. Religion isn't a problem, fanaticism and the propagation of ignorance are, and it sounds like you don't approve, and intend to fight both. Good on you.


----------



## Shimme (Jul 30, 2014)

ArtDecade said:


> Geez, you guys are rough! Ha.
> 
> There is no empirical data for a lot of things... like loyalty, trust, love, respect, etc. Does that mean that these things can't exist?



You might be working on a faulty definition, but those things are very much empirical data. I can personally observe my emotional attitudes toward something therefore it is empirical, and I give it the name "loyalty" or "love". I can also observe behavior or actions in others that would fit into my concept of loyalty or love, and those would also be empirical.

I'm not throwing out a potential relationship because someone believes in a god or a creator (I know way to many cool people that believe for that sort of nonsense  ), I don't want other people to do that, and I truly don't mean for my post to be offensive. Just saying that there's probably a correlation between believing in a god and believing in other unprovable things.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 30, 2014)

I'm not trying to cherry pick from your post, but wanted to respond to a few points. It's not my intention to take things out of context.



ArtDecade said:


> ...You raise kids to think critically.
> 
> I have no issues with anyone that is an atheist. Its your choice. But you are lumping all Christians in the same boat and that's not fair.
> 
> ....The parents that raised their kids to accept everything without constructive criticism are the ones at fault. Not religious parents as a whole. That's why I cited the example of me. I think my parents did a good job.



I do agree that one would have to raise children to think critically. For some however, they do teach children to be critical... but of science. That's at the heart of a lot of issues in American life, like science education (and the dislike of some parties towards anything which they feel contradicts Scripture, including evolution and modern astronomy and geology).

Is not believing in something a choice? I don't think someone could convince themselves that a brick wouldn't hit them in the face if it was dropped over them while they lay on their back. You can't decide to have conviction in either believing something to be true or false, like the existence of gods. 

It could well be that all kinds of parents don't teach their children to think critically. I had a coworker who was non-religious, but who was a fervent anti-vaxxer. However, the study was about kids who were exposed to religious teachings versus those who weren't. Also, the results were not absolute, but that groups tended to go one way or another, in a statistically significant way. (I can't find a non-pay site for those interested in the study, and I apologize for not being able to easily post the actual numbers.)

Something which is interesting is that the study asked about church/not-church and parochial-school/not-parochial-school. I wonder if one could construct a study which groups kids further, because I know a few fervent New Age parents. It would be interesting to know where the kids lay culturally who were in the non-church/non-parochial who felt the fantastical stories were true. 

----

BTW, for some reason as I was reading your response, and while writing this up, I remembered all the parents (all adults, as far as I'm aware) who sought to have Harry Potter taken out of school libraries because it had witchcraft in it. (I agreed and added the Bible to the list, and the issue went nowhere after that, because the religious anti-witchcraft parents couldn't figure out how to make it about something other than their religious objections to only certain books containing witchcraft.) The point is, they believed in witchcraft as adults, the same way you can turn on a televangelist and hear talk about the end times and the Antichrist. 

----



Ricky Roro said:


> I am a Christian. I could be described as *a fundamentalist in the sense of the narrow definitions presented here*.



Here's that definition, so no one has to go looking. 



> a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that *stresses the infallibility of the Bible* not only in matters of faith and morals but also *as a literal historical record*....



Okay. I'll take you at your word that you view the Bible as an infallible, literal historical record, based on you choosing that definition. Moving on....



Ricky Roro said:


> *However, I am against anti-intellectualism*, which is a problem often demonstrated in what is more broadly known as 'Fundamentalism.' As a part of my Christian worldview, since I start with belief in God, that means I have more places to exercise critical thinking, not less. If the world was created intelligently (but is now in a partially corrupted state), I should be able to expect that there is some intelligible reason behind things in natural order, such as the changes in seasons and tides, etc. rather than just some mystical force.
> 
> As a further extension of this, when I one day have children of my own, I intend to teach them to think more, not less, and to be exposed to more popular views on things (such as origins, morality, etc.) as a means of showing why I believe, emphasize, and teach that the Bible is true.
> 
> My point is not that all of you should like or even approve of anything I believe, but rather that *responsible Christian teaching emphasizes learning to think--to think with respect to the Bible--rather than merely thinking to learn.*



Okay, so you're okay with learning to think... but must that learning and thinking first have the Bible as an infallible source? 

Because that *is* anti-intellectualism, and anti-science as well. Good science follows the evidence wherever it leads. That means that if science, or even logic, rules out a part of the Bible, then science and/or logic must give way, not the Bible. 

So, if one of your future children asks, "Why does the Gospel of Matthew say that Jesus was born when Herod the Great, King of Judea, was alive, and then the Gospel of Luke say Jesus was born during the reign of Herod Antipas, Tetrarch, after the death of Herod the Great? They can't both be true. Did one of the writers get it wrong? How do you know that's the only mistake?"

Now, if it is a true pursuit of knowledge, then you'd discard the mistakes along the way. If it's dogma and faith, then you have to fight against the things which claim that the dogma and faith are mistaken or self-contradictory, even if a child can see the problem.

All this, of course, only applies to those who are fundamentalists as per the definition you provided. If someone doesn't believe literally in the two different and contradictory Scriptural Nativity stories, then that would be counter to that provided definition. 

----

One last thing: I swear, I don't just have these kinds of discussions with Christians. i spent part of today talking with a friend who believes that his faith isn't a dualist faith where you reject evil, but you have to reject illusion because it's less desirable... and suddenly, dualism! My question was, why do you have to reject certain things, and he couldn't say that those things were bad without reversing his (and his faith's) position that it's not a dualist religion, even if it is in practice and philosophy. His solution? To abandon his attempts to convince me and suddenly decide he didn't want to talk about it. 

I said I was open to talking about it, and I'd take his attempts to talk to me about hos his is better and more consistent as an invitation to talk about the dualism stuff he was denying. Hopefully that will dissuade him for a while....


----------



## Ricky Roro (Jul 31, 2014)

Also included in a more broad definition is "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles" which would in this case include the dogmas of the Christian religion.


Explorer said:


> Okay, so you're okay with learning to think... but must that learning and thinking first have the Bible as an infallible source?
> 
> Because that *is* anti-intellectualism, and anti-science as well. Good science follows the evidence wherever it leads.



Evidence supports and contradicts, but generally it does not directly build or point to the ideas which it is supporting or contradicting. We can infer (rightly) many important things from evidence, but at some point we have to have an idea to test against the evidence. As such, a religious person and a non-religious person can have two very different interpretations of the same collections of evidences.



Explorer said:


> So, if one of your future children asks, "Why does the Gospel of Matthew say that Jesus was born when Herod the Great, King of Judea, was alive, and then the Gospel of Luke say Jesus was born during the reign of Herod Antipas, Tetrarch, after the death of Herod the Great? They can't both be true. Did one of the writers get it wrong? How do you know that's the only mistake?"



You do raise an important point. I do not have all of the answers to those things. There might be some explanations of which I am not aware, or sometimes the solution will always elude me. However, I would rather have a few uncertainties within an otherwise rich and reliable foundation than to presume to critique every page. 



Explorer said:


> Now, if it is a true pursuit of knowledge, then you'd discard the mistakes along the way. If it's dogma and faith, then you have to fight against the things which claim that the dogma and faith are mistaken or self-contradictory, even if a child can see the problem.
> 
> All this, of course, only applies to those who are fundamentalists as per the definition you provided. If someone doesn't believe literally in the two different and contradictory Scriptural Nativity stories, then that would be counter to that provided definition.



I see what you mean; you are correct in the sense that faith and religion are not only a pursuit of knowledge. There are some places where believing in something might seem absurd or contradictory, and I understand why some would criticize this aspect of it. A fundamentalist mindset--at least in my case--is derived firstly from the core dogmas of the religion. 

If I really do believe in the resurrection, the Trinity, and the second coming, then I have a motivation to learn what it is that Jesus said and taught, what His disciples wrote of Him, and how God directly interacted with people from the beginning. If I really do believe in substitutionary atonement--the core, definitive dogma of the Christian religion--then I have no other authority but the Bible to direct my life with certainty. I would rather not understand some things about what I can trust than to understand everything by my own reasoning, which is untrustworthy.

If not for beginning with belief in the gospel message--that Christ died for sinners in order to save them and rose from the dead--then I would have no particular reason to believe what the Bible says. It would just be a big book full of things that are hard to understand, or which appear to be contradictory. If that message is true, however, then it is the Word of God. I do not want to put myself into the hypocritical position of believing in a god over whom I sit in judgment.
In short: if God is real, I want to know what He has to say.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> You do raise an important point. I do not have all of the answers to those things. There might be some explanations of which I am not aware, or sometimes the solution will always elude me. However, I would rather have a few uncertainties within an otherwise rich and reliable foundation than to presume to critique every page.



I've read a lot of apologetics for the two Nativity stories, but none of them have ever managed to reconcile that the writers of Scripture absolutely knew that Herod the Great (dad) and Herod Antipas were two different men and yet still said that Jesus was born at two points separated in time by at least eight years. 

But there's the thing... what proof is there that any part of Scripture is reliable if it couldn't even get that one thing right?

And, regarding that last sentence... what is presumptuous about looking at Scripture critically? 

That's a serious question, and it relates directly to the idea of anti-intellectualism. Are there things people shouldn't be able to examine critically? Why would it be the Bible? Why not the Koran? Or any other faith's texts? 

Science allows examination. It's an exercising of the mind. Dogma don't want that kind of questioning.

It's fine if you personally don't want Scripture examined. But that raises the context of my question: How do you answer your kids if they ever notice that huge contradiction?

If they don't bring it up, do you hide the knowledge of that contradiction from them for their own good? 

For their own spiritual good (as you define it), do you deliberately handicap them with regards to critical thinking?

Could others decide that school systems should deliberately handicap children for their spiritual good? 

----

This study has huge implications, not just for the children of parents who feel strongly about their own children, but for those who feel strongly about doing what's best for *all* children. For some, that "best" is about the children learning critical thinking. For others, it's about stopping critical thinking to protect spirituality.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

BTW, I do believe that schools should offer classes on comparative religion, along with and including discussion of science, natural selection and evolution if the fundamentalists need that to happen. (Such folks often try to expand what natural selection and evolution study and explain, and try to call them all "origins," but that's a completely misunderstanding of what they think they have to defend against.) I've had many friends who have learned a lot when they saw their own faiths, their own beliefs, placed in a historical and cultural context. 

"You mean Jesus wasn't the only, or even the first, religious virgin birth in that part of the world?" 

Kids can be amazing at developing critical thinking when adults don't deliberately try to derail them.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jul 31, 2014)

Explorer said:


> For some, that "best" is about the children learning critical thinking. For others, it's about stopping critical thinking to protect spirituality.



This is exactly what I said in my other post... I support the study, but not the implication that all religious parents raise fundamentalist lemmings. 



ArtDecade said:


> I am sure that children raised to believe the Bible as a literal fact can become damaged adults, but its far from indicative of people as a whole. The problem here is not faith, but parenting. Extreme fundamentalism in all its forms is dangerous. Most parents do not raise their children like this - not if they want to succeed in the world. As a Christian, I challenge my faith. And I don't believe that the Church is always the best steward of right and wrong. In this study, we have examples of poor parents no matter what their background. I don't care if its the Bible or the LOTR or the collective works of Hugh Hefner... Ha. *You raise kids to think critically.*
> 
> I have no issues with anyone that is an atheist. Its your choice. But you are lumping all Christians in the same boat and that's not fair. Its like taking taking someone that sends a check to PETA and determining that they must be an environmental terrorist that is hell bent on blowing up labs. Or maybe, just maybe, someone really just loves animals. You have to judge the person by their merit and that means not stereotyping. *The parents that raised their kids to accept everything without constructive criticism are the ones at fault. Not religious parents as a whole. *That's why I cited the example of me. I think my parents did a good job.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 31, 2014)

ArtDecade said:


> This is exactly what I said in my other post... I support the study, but not the implication that all religious parents raise fundamentalist lemmings.



I have to agree with this. I've known Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu scientists and engineers over the years, and maybe a Buddhist or two thrown in the mix, so I've seen first hand that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. There are definitely discrepancies, but how a given individual reconciles (or chooses to ignore) those discrepancies is up to that individual.


----------



## Ricky Roro (Jul 31, 2014)

Explorer said:


> But there's the thing... what proof is there that any part of Scripture is reliable if it couldn't even get that one thing right?
> 
> And, regarding that last sentence... what is presumptuous about looking at Scripture critically?



"I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written [largely] by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine, not human in origin. And oh, by the way--I tried it. Changed my life."

It is not presumptuous to look at Scripture critically. It is presumptuous to claim to submit to the authority of a god whom you define on your own terms based solely on your own observations. My God is bigger than me, and He wrote a book.



> That's a serious question, and it relates directly to the idea of anti-intellectualism. Are there things people shouldn't be able to examine critically? Why would it be the Bible? Why not the Koran? Or any other faith's texts?
> 
> Science allows examination. It's an exercising of the mind. Dogma don't want that kind of questioning.



Examine it critically. Test it. Ask questions. Critical thinking can be done without a red pen. Critical thinking is that evaluation. The hypocrisy is in claiming to believe in the Jesus of the Bible but not the Creator in whom Jesus believed.



> It's fine if you personally don't want Scripture examined. But that raises the context of my question: How do you answer your kids if they ever notice that huge contradiction?
> 
> If they don't bring it up, do you hide the knowledge of that contradiction from them for their own good?



If I do not know something I will be honest about not knowing. I may offer to look into it more, or to help them look for an answer, but faith is based on more than knowing a collection of unique facts.



> Could others decide that school systems should deliberately handicap children for their spiritual good?



Naturalism is taught as dogma, especially in universities. Make of that what you will.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2014)

Universities put observable, provable facts first for a reason, they have veracity. Which flavor of religion would you find as an acceptable addition to University? There are quite a few and many are quite different from each other. Religious studies are actually in most schools, they just put it where it belongs (categorically speaking). Most private schools are religiously affiliated as well. As an example, Baylor requires every student, even if not religious, to participate in so many hours of Christian related studies.

Dogma is only possible in religion because, like you claim it to be, religion is incontrovertibly true. Science courses treat naturalism as the most probable theory, not as incontrovertibly true. All it asks for to change its mind is actual proof/fact, not hearsay and faith.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 31, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> If I do not know something I will be honest about not knowing.



This is a statement I'd have trouble believing, spoken from either side of the discussion. If we really knew any of these things "for a fact" then there would be no argument in the first place.

As a sort of side-note, the argument usually tends to be "Religion vs Science", but I think it's worth pointing out that it doesn't have to be a binary decision- It's very much an option to think that both of them are wrong.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 31, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Science courses treat naturalism as the most probable theory, not as incontrovertibly true. All it asks for to change its mind is actual proof/fact, not hearsay and faith.



This is something often overlooked in religion vs. science debates. Science doesn't claim to have 100% true facts that can never change. What science puts forth as fact today is based on the best information we have available to us at this point in time. But if the information changes at a later date, science is free to change with it. And many scientific theories and laws have been overturned in the past, so there is absolutely no reason to believe that many more won't be overturned in the future. It's all based on the information available to us.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 31, 2014)

Augmatted said:


> I'm sorry but I'm calling bullshit. Perhaps some kids that grow up in religious households can't see past all of the hilariously unrealistic lies that are thrown at them but in the end the deciding factor is intelligence, not where you grew up. ...


The sad thing is that this is actually true in adults also. I know otherwise intelligent adults that believe Noah's flood happened, Evolution is false, etc.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 31, 2014)

Not just that Noah's flood happened either, but that it happened EXACTLY the way it was written.  Rainbows causing a flood, EVERY animal on a single boat, creatures somehow from completely different continents making it on this boat, the boat being large enough to store and sustain that many creatures, etc. I know loads of fully grown, educated adults as well who think the Earth is rather young, that animals and dinosaurs lived together, that ice cores and fossils were put here to 'trick' them, etc. Sounds all pretty fantastical to me. Frankly, if the 'devil' were going to 'trick' people it'd be loads easier to make a book and trick all of them into following it, if you get what I'm saying. 

This is rather off topic, but this would also imply that we are all the same race and ethnicity since Noah's family would be the new beginning, so to speak, which is also quite ludicrous. The only way to believe any of this is to deny carbon dating, archaeological dating, paleontology, written records of cultures all over the world, etc. You'd even have to somehow reconcile how a large variety of plant life all over the world managed to make it through it all just fine (most plants can't survive I imagine submerged in salt water for such a long duration) or where the hell the water went when all was said and done if the entire world were in fact covered in water. We can easily explain localized flooding, but to explain a global flood is quite impossible. Of course, we already know the answer a religious person gives for this conundrum (or ANY conundrum for that matter), god did it.  It's that answer that in fact allows religious people to believe in such fantastical nonsense too (note that I said allowed, not that all religious people in fact do).


----------



## ElRay (Jul 31, 2014)

TedEH said:


> ... If we really knew any of these things "for a fact" then there would be no argument in the first place. ... It's very much an option to think that both of them are wrong.


Wrong, very wrong. When it comes to religion, you're dealing with BELEIFS -- reality, facts and logic are irrelevant. Evolution is a fact. The theory of Evolution via natural selection is the best explanation of that fact that fits reality. You still have theists arguing from ignorance claiming that Evolution is false and then falsely claim the the only other option is Biblical Creationism. 

It may be an option to think both science and religion are wrong, but it's illogical. Any theory, conjecture, hypothesis, proposal, etc. That fits the data will be part of the continuum of scientific explanations. The religious explanations have no regard for observed data, etc. and may or may not match reality. If they do, it's pure coincidence. And when they disagree with reality, unlike science, religious BELEIFS don't change.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

Regarding the religion versus science idea, I'll say that the struggle *is* between them, but regarding their processes. Religion relies on dogma, science relies on explaining the evidence available. 

Fundamentalist religion insists on dogma when evidence contradicts that dogma.

Science insists on discarding what has come before if the weight of evidence contradicts it. 

So yes, you can say those two approaches can easily be summed up as religion versus science. 

If the current science is proven to be wrong, then it corrects itself. If you have a book which you feel is completely inerrant, then you just won't correct that book, and you'll even doubt your lying eyes.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Jul 31, 2014)

ElRay said:


> And when they disagree with reality, unlike science, religious BELEIFS don't change.



Wrong, very wrong. 

If you meant that to mean, "a person's religious beliefs don't change when confronted with enough evidence" people change their religion or abandon religion quite frequently, so yes, on an individual basis, religious beliefs do change.

If you meant that to mean, "religions and their teachings do not change when confronted with evidence" religions themselves change quite frequently. There used to be a time when Pope's would insist the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe. People would also use the bible to justify slavery. Neither of those things happen anymore (or at least on a very, very small scale.) Religions tend to be a reflection of the people that follow them, so yes, religions do change over time.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 31, 2014)

Do you mean that religions evolve in order to attract and retain believers? 

It is definitely true that Scripture has been used to support both slavery and the abolition of slavery. But that took quite a while.

Similarly, it took a long time before heliocentrism replaced good old Biblical geocentrism... and they didn't change the book, they just said they read that book wrong. 

It's interesting to think of how religions change using the framework of evolution, mutation and natural selection. Religions which don't attract and retain believers are selected against and die off, those which change (mutation) to be more attractive are selected by believers and continue on. 

And yet that idea is also one which some religious folks object to, on the basis of their beliefs. Do you think they'll change over time?

It's clear that as more evidence piles up that homosexuality isn't a "choice" but just as natural as someone being straight, that religions will have to change in that way as well. Some will mutate and reinterpret their book, some will be edged out and will die off. It will be just like how the Christian view of slavery changed....


----------



## ElRay (Jul 31, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> I am a Christian. I could be described as a fundamentalist in the sense of the narrow definitions presented here.
> However, I am against anti-intellectualism, ...



Which is not possible unless you suspend logic and reality. The bible is loaded with contradictions: Historical, factual, internally, etc. etc. etc.: BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized Add to that the fact that religious dogma, based on the supposedly inerrant and unchanging bible has changed through time.

There is NO WAY that you can be a fundamentalist without suspending your own intellectualism. I guess you can hold fundamentalist beliefs and not actively suppresses intellectualism in general, but if try to convince anybody that your reality-defying mythology is correct, then you are ipso-facto anti-intellectual.

Ray


----------



## TedEH (Aug 1, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Wrong, very wrong.



Maybe I worded it wrong: what I was saying is that being an atheist doesn't automatically mean that you "believe in" science. You can believe that there is no God but that the scientific method is flawed (or that some "scientific facts" are not true at all), at the same time- I mean, the point is made very often that "scientific proof" is not a guarantee of fact, and it's already been stated in this thread that things that are considered to be true via science get overturned or re-evaluated reasonably frequently. 

I don't mean that as a criticism of science either- you can't fault it because by definition it's doing the best we can to understand what we can observe. I just think it's important to know the difference between "our best understanding so far" and fact.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 1, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I mean, the point is made very often that "scientific proof" is not a guarantee of fact, and it's already been stated in this thread that things that are considered to be true via science get overturned or re-evaluated reasonably frequently.
> 
> I don't mean that as a criticism of science either



I would say that the fact that the scientific community is able to reevaluate its position in light of new information is actually one of the greatest strengths of the scientific method. And certainly not something to be criticized.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 1, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Maybe I worded it wrong: what I was saying is that being an atheist doesn't automatically mean that you "believe in" science. You can believe that there is no God but that the scientific method is flawed (or that some "scientific facts" are not true at all), at the same time- I mean, the point is made very often that "scientific proof" is not a guarantee of fact, and it's already been stated in this thread that things that are considered to be true via science get overturned or re-evaluated reasonably frequently.
> 
> I don't mean that as a criticism of science either- you can't fault it because by definition it's doing the best we can to understand what we can observe. I just think it's important to know the difference between "our best understanding so far" and fact.



While that isn't an incorrect way of looking at science you make it sound far more up in the air than it actually is. As an example, gravity and the way it works is a fact despite being just a theory. At this point in time the only thing that would change regarding it is maybe the how or why, not that gravity exists in the first place. Even if we did find out something new regarding gravity the numbers we have in place to determine the acceleration due to gravity are 100% accurately proven by our ability to navigate in space, fly planes, accurately measure free fall, measure projectiles, etc. A theory is something with proof and hard facts and is usually tested and repeatable. While something can come along and dethrone a current theory that doesn't make it inaccurate either.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 1, 2014)

flint757 said:


> you make it sound far more up in the air than it actually is.



With an example like gravity, sure. *Some* science I'm sure is pretty spot on, but those are elements of science that even someone who is religious will fully get behind. Nobody is going to argue that because they're a Christian, that gravity no longer exists. Some science is certainly not "up in the air", but there are things accepted as solid science that I think are very much "up in the air".

I'm talking about when it comes to things that aren't really understood very well (which is the point of science isn't it?)- or more relevant to the conversation- things like the origins of the observable universe, what happens when you die, what exactly a "soul" is, how consciousness works, etc. I mean, how many people reaaaaaally know what a "boson" is? How many people would accept that there's a fair chance that "the big bang" didn't actually happen? What if "spacetime" is not a thing?

There's always the chance of some small oversight that would throw a wrench in everything we think we know. In my opinion, there's enough of a chance of that happening that I have to look at science as "our best guess but probably wrong" instead of "our best guess but probably right". I admit that's an oversimplification of the subject, but then I'm also not a scientist.

To bring it back around to the original topic, how many children (and adults?) would accept a scientific explanation for something just because "a scientist said so"? I mean, the non-religious kids in the example might question a religious story in part because they have been given some reason to question something that sounds miraculous (whether this was because they were raised to do so, or picked up on those cues elsewhere). But those same kids might blindly accept a similar un-truth if it wasn't fantastical sounding and you told them the source of the information was a scientist- there's no similar cue to make us question something scientific.



> the numbers we have in place to determine the acceleration due to gravity are 100% accurately proven by our ability to navigate in space, fly planes, accurately measure free fall, measure projectiles, etc.



I know this is probably a bad analogy, but as a software guy (and a young one at that), I know very well that it's possible for something to work as expected even if it's riddled with mistakes. I'm not saying that our understanding of physics is wrong per se, but I also wouldn't discount the possibility of there being errors in our understanding of those situations.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 1, 2014)

TedEH said:


> With an example like gravity, sure. *Some* science I'm sure is pretty spot on, but those are elements of science that even someone who is religious will fully get behind. Nobody is going to argue that because they're a Christian, that gravity no longer exists. Some science is certainly not "up in the air", but there are things accepted as solid science that I think are very much "up in the air".
> 
> I'm talking about when it comes to things that aren't really understood very well (which is the point of science isn't it?)- or more relevant to the conversation- things like the origins of the observable universe, what happens when you die, what exactly a "soul" is, how consciousness works, etc. I mean, how many people reaaaaaally know what a "boson" is? How many people would accept that there's a fair chance that "the big bang" didn't actually happen? What if "spacetime" is not a thing?
> 
> ...



Am I likely to believe a scientist in the field of the topic being discussed? Yes, because they are likely to know more about it than me or anyone else who hasn't actually delved deeply into the subject. If you have doubt you research. That is the nature of science, seeking truth where it can be found. If you don't and choose to blindly follow something without even a half-assed effort to figure out if something has ground to stand on then yes I would say that is naive. If there is a consensus among the group of those who have spent decades studying/researching a subject it is safe to assume they know what they are talking about though. I leave it on your shoulders if you believe that subjects considered to be 'solid science' may not be so certain though. They have the data to back it up, whereas you simply have doubt. Then again, I don't know which subjects you are referring to exactly.

Nearly every field that has been deemed reputable and has tested theories (not hypothesis) to back them up has mountains of data to support them. It's alright to speculate that maybe there are other options, but it'd be incorrect to assume they are wrong without proper evidence and testing. For things that are rigorously tested the wiggle room for something being wrong is a lot smaller than say quantum mechanics, string theory, etc. Obviously things of that nature can only really be estimated and make use of math to support ones theory. There really is no doubting classical physics at all though. It is indeed simply correct.



TedEH said:


> I know this is probably a bad analogy, but as a software guy (and a young one at that), I know very well that it's possible for something to work as expected even if it's riddled with mistakes. I'm not saying that our understanding of physics is wrong per se, but I also wouldn't discount the possibility of there being errors in our understanding of those situations.



You're right, it is a bad analogy. The nature of that particular branch of physics is rigorously tested across many fields and methods. Those particular formulas and numbers are not wrong. We would have noticed by now I assure you if they were. 

We as individuals not understanding something and the world as a whole not understanding something are two fundamentally different things. Scientist all over the world have a solid understanding of those subjects even if we as individuals don't. That's not to say that some fields aren't indeed up in the air, but the bulk of most science really isn't.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 1, 2014)

flint757 said:


> it'd be incorrect to assume they are wrong without proper evidence and testing.



I don't mean to say we should assume that scientific findings are wrong, but just that we shouldn't automatically assume they're absolutely correct either.



> There really is no doubting classical physics at all though. It is indeed simply correct.



I disagree with the idea that any branch of science should be considered absolutely correct, closed and unable to be challenged. And it's kind of an example of what I'm talking about- you've accepted something as an absolute truth. If I google "classical physics", the first result (wikipedia) had this to say: "Beginning at the atomic level, the laws of classical physics break down and generally do not provide a correct description of nature." 



> Those particular formulas and numbers are not wrong. We would have noticed by now I assure you if they weren't.



This is a good line too: "A physical system can be considered in the classical limit when they satisfy conditions such that the laws of classical physics are _approximately valid_" If I read that correctly, it means classical physics are just an approximation, and therefore not "simply correct". Even at that, people have different interpretations of what the term even means. If people who have delved deeper into the subject than I are not certain that what they know is any more than an approximation, then I can't accept it as absolute truth.


----------



## flint757 (Aug 1, 2014)

That is where quantum mechanics begins. I'm pretty sure you new what I was talking about; I was referring to Newtons laws, IE Newtonian mechanics (when in a Newton framework). People do tend to use averages within their calculations for things like friction and the acceleration of gravity, but using the same methods we used to get those averages we can in fact get the specific numbers for any place or material. Classical physics was probably to broad a term to use, but in doing so I was referring to Newtons laws (I'll be more specific next time, that's my bad). They don't apply to every scenario to fail within those scenarios, but that does raise an interesting point for sure. Valid point is valid. I didn't say it couldn't be challenged, but that nothing would likely come of it. F=Ma has yet to be proven inaccurate in the framework it was intended for as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to raise though. The only reason I stated anything at all in regards to your initial post was merely because your initial position sounded like you think science just straight up shouldn't be trusted and as such that justifies those who choose to ignore scientific findings and/or not believe in their accuracy (those individuals tend to not believe scientific finding based on zero insight on the subject and usually because of rhetoric or a 'feeling' as well). My position that thinking a particular finding is absolute doesn't reach in to dogma though. If significant findings proved otherwise I'd change my position in a heartbeat. 

Also, you're reading way too much into my posts (I as well perhaps). I am by no means an expert and classical physics is entry level stuff. To make the assumption that all scientists in all fields are merely making approximations from what I said is reaching.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 1, 2014)

TedEH said:


> Maybe I worded it wrong: what I was saying is that being an atheist doesn't automatically mean that *you "believe in" science. You can believe that there is no God but that the scientific method is flawed* (or that some "scientific facts" are not true at all), at the same time- I mean, the point is made very often that "scientific proof" is not a guarantee of fact, and it's already been stated in this thread that things that are considered to be true via science get overturned or re-evaluated reasonably frequently.



Two thoguhts:

An atheist doesn't necessarily believe in "no gods(s)," but instead might believe that there isn't evidence for one. If, like some Christians claim, Yahweh grants all sincere prayers, it would only take one documented amputee to grow new legs to give that evidence. As it is, all those Christians are making a case for is that there haven't been any amputees who have sincerely prayed for that, as opposed to concluding that Yahweh won't answer a sincere prayer. (That's based on the idea of their Scripture being inerrant, including the parts about how prayer works, so if you don't believe that, you don't have to defend that stuff from being wrong.) 

Secondly, humans can be flawed, but the scientific method is a system which gets the human-introduced error out of the results. People can make all kinds of flawed judgments, but when it comes to the repeatability part of the game show, that's when you see cold fusion, the effect of prayer on healing, and other things fall to the ground. 

When you have evidence, you propose a hypothesis as which explains that evidence. When the hypothesis is wrong, you alter it or come up with something entirely new. You make predictions and then try to disprove that hypothesis. Geological sedimentation and fossil distribution have older creatures in older strata, newer species in newer strata, all across the globe. A failed hypothesis in this case would be that all those fossils came about in one big flood, because if that were true, all those fossils would be all mixed together. The fact that their hypothesis fails when compared to the evidence doesn't stop them from embracing it... and that's where science is self-correcting, while religious dogma is not.


TedEH said:


> With an example like gravity, sure. *Some* science I'm sure is pretty spot on, but those are elements of science that even someone who is religious will fully get behind. Nobody is going to argue that because they're a Christian, that gravity no longer exists. Some science is certainly not "up in the air", but there are things accepted as solid science that I think are very much "up in the air".
> 
> I'm talking about when it comes to things that aren't really understood very well (which is the point of science isn't it?)- or more relevant to the conversation- things like the origins of the observable universe, what happens when you die, what exactly a "soul" is, how consciousness works, etc. I mean, how many people reaaaaaally know what a "boson" is? How many people would accept that there's a fair chance that "the big bang" didn't actually happen? What if "spacetime" is not a thing?



You seem to be making the case that *you* don't understand that stuff, anymore than you really understand the nuts and bolts of how your computer chips were made. There *are* people who study and specialize, and who *do* understand very well. Just because someone might be ignorant of something, there's no reason to assume that everyone is. That's like saying that you don't understand all the interconnected systems of the body, and so your family's pediatrician is just as unqualified to diagnose and treat your sick kid. 

Your list is interesting. I recommend you watch a movie called Particle Dreams (I think it's on Netflix Streaming) to see some scientists who have made various predictions about the cosmos, and those various predictions are not compatible. The experiments in the film show how they winnow out the wrong predictions. 

For years, people have tried to duplicate a unique quality possessed by Stradivarius instruments. Recently, someone asked a different question: Do those instrument really have a unique quality? There have now been a few studies finding that experts cannot distinguish the sound of a Stradivarius from a modern instrument. 

In the same way, you're asking, "What is the soul?" as opposed to, "Is there any proof of the soul?"

Consciousness is being explored, and there's lots of interesting research piling up. I think it's interesting and terrifying that everything about our personalities rely on that mass of meat in our heads, and that a brain injury can actually change that personality. The fact that you can alter personality by changing the structure or chemistry of the meat gives a solid basis for that personality actually being the result of the processes in that meat, as opposed to some mystical, unattached spirit. That's pretty terrifying for a lot of religionists. 



TedEH said:


> There's always the chance of some small oversight that would throw a wrench in everything we think we know.



Well... not exactly. Science says, oh, we were wrong, and then seeks to explain the new data. Sometimes it's just a refinement. Sometimes it's the amazing insight that everything in the universe is relative to time. 

You're falling into a trap which many religionists fall into. They assume that because anything which proves even the tiniest part of their supposed inerrant writing is, in fact, in error, then the whole claim of inerrancy falls apart. And then they assume that science is the same faith-based, inerrant enterprise. In science, if observation disproves a theory or hypothesis, you refine or come up with something new. Again, watch Particle Dreams for a entertaining, better understanding of how science works. 


In my opinion, there's enough of a chance of that happening that I have to look at science as "our best guess but probably wrong" instead of "our best guess but probably right". I admit that's an oversimplification of the subject, but then I'm also not a scientist.



TedEH said:


> To bring it back around to the original topic, how many children (and adults?) *would accept a scientific explanation for something just because "a scientist said so"? *I mean, the non-religious kids in the example might question a religious story in part because they have been given some reason to question something that sounds miraculous (whether this was because they were raised to do so, or picked up on those cues elsewhere). But those same kids might blindly accept a similar un-truth if it wasn't fantastical sounding and you told them the source of the information was a scientist- there's no similar cue to make us question something scientific.



I've gotta say, the only place I've run into that authoritarian argument in school was on matters of religion. Science is more about being authoritative, where you can read just about anything you want. Even in these current topics, there have been numerous assertions on the part of religionists that there are some things you just shouldn't question. 

So, to turn it around, why do religionists not want kids or adults to question? Why do so many Christians in the US lament on forums, Christian and otherwise, that the freedom of information available through the internet is making it hard to teach their children blind faith? It seems to be a problem only on the religion side.


TedEH said:


> I don't mean to say we should assume that scientific findings are wrong, but just that we shouldn't automatically assume they're absolutely correct either.



There have been topics on SS.org where people have asserted a conspiracy to prevent better cancer treatments. In other words, all doctors and drug companies are in lockstep in order to prevent any such treatment from making it to patients.

There is not a single pediatric oncologist who would save the children if they had the ability, according to them. Those pediatric oncologists are only in it for the money, and none have any empathy, right?

That's not believable to normal people, of course. It would take only one doctor to break the code of silence because she cared, or because that doctor wanted to win the Nobel Prize for being the Doctor Who Cured Cancer. 

All it takes is someone who sees a way to make a name for themselves in science, and the self-correcting nature of science allows that person to make their case, even if their goal is self-aggrandizement. 

And no, things might not be 100% correct, but they keep getting closer and closer... and they're still far more correct than any extrapolation from dogma which doesn't correct for errors, right? You're on much firmer ground with everyone looking for mistakes than by saying, these two Nativity stories completely contradict each other, but I'm going to ignore that and go after the enterprise which actually *does* correct itself!


----------



## Explorer (Aug 1, 2014)

*Short version of this topic:*

*Study finds that 5- and 6-year-olds exposed to religion have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction.

Adults who were exposed to religion when children spend topic arguing how science can't be relied on, while ignoring the magical thinking they're engaging in.

Hypothesis: The magical thinking doesn't end when those grow up, and they will continue to be unable to distinguish between fantasty and reality, evidenced in part by an anti-intellectual stance towards science and reality. 

----

It's kind of obvious to everyone else what you guys are doing. You're giving examples of why the exposure from the study can be problematic. Do you see what the rest of us see so easily?
*


----------



## vansinn (Aug 2, 2014)

To comment, a brief comment on my own programming or lack thereof 
My mom claims to be Christian (though I never witnesses her praying or the like), while my dad was an absolute opponent of any religion.
School taught religion, but it appeared to me as anything other than interesting fiction - though I've always been very interested in various religions.
As such, I was never raised or programmed into any religious beliefs, nor atheism either.

Now, it's come to my attention that some who are into religion were almost programmed into strong, almost doctrine beliefs, while others were brought into a certain set of beliefs, but without looking at it as doctrine.

I mentioned my interests in religions.. I find it very interesting that almost all religions share a lot of common text, explaining virtually the same, just in different ways.
As such, and especially considering my explanations on the so-so lax view vs rigid programming, I think it's too strong to say that kids being exposed to religion almost per definition will have problems distinguishing between fact and fiction.

Actually, I sortof prefer discussing philosophy with people having a certain interest in religion - but still having an open enough mindset to be able to see things in various lights, so to speak..
I often find that many of those who are almost die-hard opponents of any such concepts, tends to do the Jedi hand-move, saying they know it all - while not even wanting to consider any possibilities outside of their own sphere.
And somewhat disturbing to me is seeing how many these days blindly buys into New Age philosophies - some even pays big bucks for training courses teaching them a Better Way, which is often about speaking to Ego (what's good for me), avoiding anything negative (will affect my life negatively), and make-believe it's purely about about the positive. As such, simply learning to not look at reality.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 4, 2014)

TedEH said:


> ... I don't mean that as a criticism of science either- you can't fault it because by definition it's doing the best we can to understand what we can observe. I just think it's important to know the difference between "our best understanding so far" and fact.



This is just solipsist/deconstructionist nonsense. "Our best understanding so far" are facts and not using "our best understanding so far" to make decisions is plain foolish.

Granted, there are times where the "percent error" is higher, but that's all part of "our best understanding so far", the solipsism/deconstructionism nonsense is treating everything like the percent error, or range is so huge that you can't make any decision.

Specifically, to the religious mythology, there is ZERO evidence to support it. And there are plenty of counter examples to disprove what's preached. Does that change the mind of the BELIEVERS? No. Add in the fact, that the mythology contradicts itself, is internally conflicting, and impossible to logically reconcile, does that change the mind of the BELIEVERS? No. Then, as the coup de grace, the BELIEVERS misinterpret portions to suit their biases and ignore parts that are inconvenient and cherry-pick/quote-mine to support their BELIEFS. When that's pointed out, does that change the mind of the BELIEVERS? No.

You can't use the fact that not everything in science is as absolute as 1+1=2 to support ignoring huge bodies of evidence just so you can continue to BELIEVE your indoctrinated or (rarely) chosen mythological nonsense.

AND YOU DEFINITELY CAN'T USE IT TO JUSTIFY USING THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE YOUR *BELIEFS* ON OTHERS.

Ray


----------



## tedtan (Aug 4, 2014)

Anonymous Pussy said:


> tedtan said:
> 
> 
> > I have to agree with this. I've known Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu scientists and engineers over the years, and maybe a Buddhist or two thrown in the mix, so I've seen first hand that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. There are definitely discrepancies, but how a given individual reconciles (or chooses to ignore) those discrepancies is up to that individual.
> ...



Are you suggesting that the manner in which a child is exposed to religion is irrelevant to their ability to identify fact from fiction? If so, I say bullshit.

It is pretty well known at this point that a child's personality and thought processes are determined by roughly 50% genetics and 50% early childhood experiences (what they are exposed to at an early age). So in this context, who the child's parents are and how they approach their own religious vs. scientific beliefs has a _*dramatic*_ affect on how their children will approach the very same issues, even when those children are at a young age (as in the linked article).

By way of illustration, I have relatives that are extremely fundamentalist Christians. So much so that they raise their children in a vacuum. They home school their children in order to prevent them from being exposed to non-Christian ideas. And their children are very smart and learned (at least in those areas their parents allow them to be exposed to). But they are so sheltered and socially inept that they can't communicate with anyone outside their church and immediate family. And they can't hold a rational conversation based on logic - they always revert to their beliefs being right "because they are" or "because the Bible says so" kind of circular bullshit.

I have other family who are religious, too. By way of contrast with the above example, one of my cousins is Muslim (his father is atheist and his mother is Muslim). He was allowed to expose himself to any area of science or philosophy he chose alongside his mother's religion. And he is a normal, rational person capable of carrying on rational thoughts and conversations, even if they differ from or contradict his religious beliefs.

So while I understand that you may not have first hand experience (however anecdotal) in this area, I can assure you that my above commentary is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand. (And I can also warn you that here on SSO conversations are likely to drift much further from the topic than this, so you'll need to adapt or go elsewhere).

Lastly, I once overheard my manager chastising a salesperson that had opened his mouth and inserted his foot, causing my company to lose the sale. He said "Mike (not his real name), when you don't know what you are talking about, it's better to keep to keep your mouth closed and let people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and prove them right." You'd do well to take that advice to heart, Anonymous. It will serve you much better than banging your head against a wall. After all, you don't seem to have any excess brain cells to lose based on that response.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 4, 2014)

Ricky Roro said:


> "I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written [largely] by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine, not human in origin. And oh, by the way--I tried it. Changed my life."




Anybody who BELIEVES this is not looking looking that the bible critically, logically or accurately. 

The Old Testament is a collection of ancient oral tales that were eventually written down in Aramaic, translated into Hebrew and/or Greek, translated into Greek and/or Latin, edited from multiple source documents in the 4th century into the "official" Christian version, translated into English, and then re-written in to one of the over 200+ "official" bibles out there. There are clear historical and scientific errors. There are clear internal inconsistencies and contradictions. There are huge chunks that are consistently ignored by its believers.

The New Testament is just as bad, if not worse. NOTHING in it was written by any eye-witnesses. The earliest books: Romans and Corinthians, are just collections of letters written decades after the supposed events by somebody who had just heard tales, not an eye witness. The Gospels were written independently, decades later and decades between them, by people who had just heard tales. These six book, along with multiple versions of multiple other books, were translated from Greek and other local languages into Latin, edited from multiple source documents in the 4th century into the "official" Christian version, translated into English, and then re-written in to one of the over 200+ "official" bibles out there. There are clear historical and scientific errors. There are clear internal inconsistencies and contradictions. There are huge chunks that are consistently ignored by its believers.

There is no way that any educated, rational, adult could possibly claim that the bible is historically accurate, written by eye-witnesses, inerrant, immutable, consistent, logical or even remotely suitable as justification for laws, persecution, harassment, social conventions, restrictions, etc.

Ray


----------



## TedEH (Aug 4, 2014)

ElRay said:


> You can't use the fact that not everything in science is as absolute as 1+1=2 to support ignoring huge bodies of evidence just so you can continue to BELIEVE your indoctrinated or (rarely) chosen mythological nonsense.



Holy crap, nobody understood any of what I said. I'm not defending any religious argument, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't base decisions on current scientific finding- I'll take science over religion any day, but lets not kid ourselves and pretend that it's a perfect system either. It's certainly not devoid of human error. All I'm saying is that you should be critical of EVERYTHING, even if it "came from science", because science is done by people, and people are not perfect.

Sure, it may be "self correcting", but up until the point where such a correction is made (and made common/public/accepted knowledge), the previously-incorrect "facts" tend to be wielded as the end-all in conversations everywhere, even if they're wrong. The earth being flat was a scientific fact for a long time. And yeah, I get that I picked an obvious "low hanging fruit" example, but it happens.

If you're not a scientist, and have not researched the thing you're talking about, you're doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING as someone believing the word of their priest or holy text etc- *you're taking the word of someone you believe to know better than yourself.*

The majority of things people are saying in this thread are true regarding science and I wasn't contesting that. But most people are not scientists and have to "have faith" in the people that are feeding them with currently accepted scientific views. While that may be well placed faith the majority of the time, I just think it's counterproductive to assume that science is *always right*- even if it's right most of the time.


----------



## Explorer (Aug 5, 2014)

You know, there's simple example of where correction could happen, but doesn't. I wonder if you have any thoughts on it.

Revelations and other parts of the Old and New Testaments had no problem expressing things which were outside the understanding of the believers. 

Jesus states that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.

Observation proves that to be wrong.


 Does one accept that Jesus mis-stated things because he didn't think the listeners would understand?
 If so, does that mean that Jesus wouldn't speak the literal truth because he had to talk in a way that would carry his meaning?
 If so, how would any reader know when any part of the Bible was meant literally or not?
 Do you correct the text so it's literally true?
Again, it's completely not a problem if one doesn't think that the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God. However, to say that any book has absolutely no error is an extreme claim, and one which can be completely broken through just one error. 

In fact, that's the core of science versus religion debates. Science is always ready to examine things to prove its hypotheses wrong, because then better ones can be made. Fundamentalist religion (including the anti-intellectual principle of inerrancy) instead is always ready to fight and dismiss those things which might disprove any part of it. Inerrancy must be defended at all costs, because if you take away inerrancy, you put the Bible at the same level of credibility as other religious texts which get the same core message across, but might have gotten other things wrong. 

----

Fascinating that, in the actual language used by Yeshua and his followers, the Aramaic word _gamla_ means camel, rope or beam, depending on context. 

There have been attempts to exmplain that a camel couldn't pass through some narrow gate which was supposedly called the "Eye of the Needle." There is no historical evidence of such a name for those gates. I think the only historical name I've heard for such gates is the "plum." 

In the Koran, where the term "eye of the needle" also shows up, it definitely revers to a physical needle for sewing. 

What's interesting about a rope is that eventually you could strip away a lot of it, and pass one strand through a needle, no? By shedding all that excess, it could be achieved.

Anyway, you have Greek translators who don't know the three meanings of Aramaic, and then "rope" gets made into a "camel." in the KJV. Do you change it to reflect the language Yeshua was speaking? Or do you assert that you know exactly was was said, even inventing some "gate" explanantion to protect inerrancy again?

(Do you guys have any idea how much time I spent on this stuff, trying to make it all fit, before I finally asked the question, "If it's really perfect, and if my mind is made in the marvelous image of God's, able to think rationally... is it really reality which is wrong, or men in making the inerrancy claim?"

And that's when I started really noticing how scary that inerrancy mindset is. 

----

*Again, please note that this discussion is reinforcing the conclusions of the study, but just showing it a few years down the road.*


----------



## ElRay (Aug 5, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *Short version of this topic:*
> 
> *Study finds that 5- and 6-year-olds exposed to religion have difficulty distinguishing fact from fiction.
> 
> ...





Explorer said:


> ... *Again, please note that this discussion is reinforcing the conclusions of the study, but just showing it a few years down the road.*



QFT x 2

This thread really is telling. The study shows that the religious group of kids have problems distinguishing realistic stories from fantastic stories. That's it.

ITT, adults argue that they were raised religious but have no problems distinguishing fact from fiction. Right there's one problem, because they're arguing something that wasn't even stated. Then they proceed to demonstrate their own ignorance about science and their own mythology. They've clearly illustrated what they're trying to defend, yet was never stated in the first place.

If you have issues with the study, then point out flaws in the methods/conclusions and/or cite studies that show something different. Anecdotal stories of adults don't mean diddly squat.

As an aside, for those that believe the bible is the inerrant, immutable, literal word of god:
Explain the over 600 cataloged errors and contradictions in the book. See: http://www.bibviz.com/
Explaion which of the approximately 200 different English versions of the bible is the one true version
Explain how the unchanging bible first supported slavery and anti-miscegenation laws, and then didn't. Also explain how the bible initially didn't condem contraception, but now does?
For those that believe the bible is subjective, explain:
How we know what parts are subjective, and what parts are literal
Out of the hundreds of sects of christianity, which one is correct
How a cherry-picked, error laden, subjectively interpreted, mistranslated and heavily edited through the centuries, tome is any basis for your own life, not to mention to be viewed as an absolute that should be forced on others.
How your cherry-picked, error laden, subjectively interpreted, mistranslated and heavily edited through the centuries, tome is any more correct than any other (e.g. Ancient Greek/Roman/Norse/Egyptian/etc., Islam (3 major sects, man minor), Hinduism, Chinese traditional religion, Buddhism, primal-indigenous, African Traditional & Diasporic, Sikhism, Juche, Judaism, Baha'i, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zoroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo-Paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism, Scientology, etc.) mythological tome


----------



## chris9 (Aug 10, 2014)

Augmatted said:


> I agree. Religion sucks big fat donkey penis.



ha ha totally agree i just can,t understand people who base they whole lives on silly story books.
The world would be so much better without all that crap and way less wars for one.


----------

