The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

[back to earth]

.

All the anthropological and sociological evidence is that if you bring childen up in a god free environment they will simply create personal individualised god beliefs from observation and logic as they struggle to make sense of their environment without experience or knowledge. .

Rubbish! (ummm dude ! ,,, did you forget you said this was NOT in the field of anthropological and sociological evidence

Edited January 6, 2016 by back to earth

[back to earth]

Speaking as someone who has studied anthropology and myth and ritual (which is what you are really talking about here) for many years in an academic setting, this is complete horse lshit.

Oh no ... Walker will be able to quote the relevant research ... then re-interpret it with his special brand of logic ... thus proving you wrong, and him superior .... again

[Mr Walker]

So what's with quoting and waving the Koran around? Fundamentalists say if you do not follow the Hadith, you are not a true Muslim. So how do you explain them praying to their God telling him they will happily cut of our infidel heads and fingers for him?

That is the Hadith where that hate comes from, the lost individuals quoting it are just repeating what is says. How do you explain that as Non-violent? The rewards of Virgins for Killing us westerners, all that insane rubbish, that is from their Holy Book.

Not according to their book, they get 72 virgins and God praises them if they were to murder you or I tomorrow. These women are described as virgins with "full grown", "swelling" or "pears-shaped" breasts.

That is God speaking, not some dirty old man is it?

You know, somehow I cannot believe you here, I doubt any sane person would.

According to your understanding of your Bible, that is incorrect, they are probably saying the exact same thing about you right now. He said she said, that is ALL religious nonsense is.

So now PA has it wrong as well hey?

You are starting to sound like a false prophet!!

Even Christianity cannot get this crap straight, it has caused arguments across time, and forced mankind apart.

I'd like to see you discuss that with PA rather than I, as I feel neither of you are actually "following the evidence" and working with "what works for you"

Like all aspects of relgion, that too is a personal belief constructed in your own head. We can follow evidence now, we have no longer any need for belief.

IMO you are trying t make a very complex issue too simple and also starting a the wrong end A book doesn't make people hate. People hate from inner fears anger loneliness etc learned as children. From the bible or from the koran you can learn or get love OR hate just as you can take and develop either from the world and people around you

Every individual by nature of our mental isolation and processing HAS to become themselves via how they internally process information from outside be it books or other influences

It doesnt surprise or worry me tha t PA and i have different interpretations. He is a good man in the classic sense with good ethics moralities and principles who would try to to good He doesnt read the old testament and say

" kill the unbelievers" and he wouldn't read the Koran and see that message in it.

his interpretation of god has come from his own learned knowledge and his own learned moralities and ethics.

Its not the bible or the koran which is the problem it is "simply" that every individual inherently MUST come to any book or any situation with a personal and individual inner world view which shapes how they will respond and react .

I live by the bible without hurting anyone, without breaking any laws and earning love and respect form those around me ( And this is apart from the very positive effect such a life has on me and others) I could live by the koran in exactly the same manner .

My interpretation of god has come form my experiences with god. I chose my lifestyle from internal ethics moralities and principles. to bring strength and empowerment to myself and others. So, i think, does PA

I have to say that from the evidences of my life , god is a god of great love, justice, and mercy. These are also qualities any human being can choose for themselves, to live by. Sometimes humans find those too strong and uncompromising to live by and with in their pure form, and want to play around with the balance to say, have more mercy and less justice, or more justice and less mercy or only love SOME fellow human beings as themselves.

So any one who preaches against love justice and mercy for ALL, and every individual human being, in MY mind, is not preaching the word of god (nor the best of mankind) but the word of god's opposite (and the worst of man kind's traits)

[back to earth]

I will acept your first two replies as acceptable opinion with which i disagree

The last two are simply wrong

it has been shown across many cultures and by experts in several fields that, while the TYPE of belief may be influenced by parents or other adults, humans from birth are programmed to develop belief because of several factors in our minds/thought processes.

Left totally alone a child will HAVE to develop a belief system in order to explain his world . I did miss your example of your son I would be interested, but unless he has actually been a part of one of the many studies into this i dont think you can say how or why he evolved his beliefs or lack of them

Most humans begin this process virtually from birth and certainly before language development or cognitive self awareness is developed. They observe and they try to explain thier observations.

They observe visible agents effecting change in their environment and so, when changes occur which they have not observed they attribute an agent that change. NOw it is soon obvious that all agents of change have direction and purpose, so the child develops a belief in "invisible " agents with direction and purpose, altering his environment Ask a very young child, how his toy got into a drawer and he will reply something put it there That something can just as easily be a "magic being" in the mind of a child as a real one because they have no data, experience, or knowledge,with which to discriminate

If presents appear under a tree and parents deny putting them there The child WILL attribute some magical agency for their appearance without being introduced to the idea of Father Christmas. They have to, or their world is chaotic and incomprehensible and thus terrifying. So just as they will create a being who puts presents under a tree, the y will create other beings who perform change. As we grow into adults this method of thinking is so engrained in our cognitive processes that it must be deliberately removed to be lost This occurs as a human learns to think in other ways, gains more knowledge and experience, and is influenced by older more sceptical humans.

This is all established scientific knowledge and you can access dozens of journals articles and experts who write about it. Studies have shown that children of atheist parents are no less likely to develop their own god constructs a t a very early age than those of theists. This is because it comes from within and is not learned from others. It develops before a child can even understand the words its parents are speaking, let alone complex ones, like god .

Mankind really does have a God-shaped hole waiting to be filled, according to the lead story in the March 17 New Scientist.

From the moment of birth, babies show predilections in what they pay attention to writes Justin L Barrett in the New Scientist. “One of the most important of these is to recognise the difference between ordinary physical objects and ‘agents’—things that can act on their surroundings”, writes Barrett. This reasoning about agencies works if no human or animal is present, which sets children up to think about invisible gods.

“A natural propensity to look for agents in the world around us is part of the building blocks for beliefs in gods. Once coupled with some other cognitive tendencies, such as the search for purpose, they make children highly susceptible to religion.”

Barrett cites studies that show that “purpose-based explanations of natural objects” are attractive in childhood and beyond.

Children under ten embrace creationist explanations – even if their parents and teachers are evolutionists. One study shows that this view is not outgrown but “must be forcibly tamped down through formal education”.

Children have natural tendencies towards religion, writes Barrett (who runs a research institution at Fuller Theological Seminary (a major Christian institution in California), but not towards any one particular religion. “Instead the way our minds solve problems generates a god-shaped conceptual space waiting to be filled by the details of the culture into which they are born.”

- See more at: http://www.biblesoci...h.qydC1Ave.dpuf

Unfortunately this reproduction is from a source you might not trust, but the original is now inaccessible without paying money for a subscription to the New Scientist .

The issue is the British edition 17/3/2012

There are number of excellent articles about HOW children develop a god construct and pieces fromm a number of experts who have worked with children form many cultures and backgrounds to establish this.

a god shaped hole waiting to be filled !

Ohhhhhh .... I see ; 'research' ,,,, from the bible society ??

[back to earth]

I would suggest children are predisposed to easily believing anything the parent says,( I agree they beleive anything and everything when they are really young) but it is in part what they pick up in their enviornment and it is reinforced by the culture and parents so they pick up all kinds of things, typically what ever the parents, siblings, relatives, and culture support/ teach, my three kids when little raised without God did not just naturally come up with God on their own, the first Ideas of God and Jesus and other belief systems, came from their little friends who they played with.

The most commonly asked question as a parent to their kid is where did you hear that from and the kid will say Timmy told me or I heard Christopher's dad say that etc etc etc. this is parenting 101.

Mummy , I know where babies come from .

And where did you learn that from ?

One of the big girls at school told me.

I see ... and what did she say ? You better run it past me first, as sometimes these things get a bit mixed up .

Well, she said ....

<rest of joke censored >

[back to earth]

You, as usual, have simple no idea what you are talking about. You have this high and mighty attitude and spout things as absolute fact, which they are not.

The truth is that you are wrong. I'm sure you have no understand as to what that means, but you are. And I'm not going to take the time to explain to you how and my myth and ritual are different than religious belief and how what you are talking about is, again, horse ****.

No ... you cant best Walker ... he is always the winner ... no matter what (its just that all the rest of us cannot see the 'facts' ... like he can

[back to earth]

You can disagree with the first two, that is your prerogative, but I doubt too many would agree with you, especially authority figures.

You are going back even one step further than I was speaking of, My son was given both options, relgion and secular, relgion did not stand a chance as understanding grew.

What your studies refer to are even more basic, what people think without ANY knowledge, a blank slate, they cannot understand a process, so they dumb it down to something they are happy with and leave it at that.

Religion has been doing exactly that for 2,000 years, and suppressing knowledge so that people found it difficult to move past relgion, and indoctrination has kept that fairy tale in place.

That is what your study is telling me, the most basic of understandings will start with grasping at relgion and work up from there. And that is why I state that relgion is redundant today. And it is, and this study seems to reinforce that notion.

Are you sure this is going where you want it too? It is not seeming to favour your argument, rather the opposite.

Yes, it does seem to support that religion is a childish stage that many never evolve up from .

[Mr Walker]

Provide links.

Been there done that in multiple arguments in the past. Start with the issue of "the new scientist" i mentioned and do your own research I am not stupid enough to argue something as fact, if it could not be multiple referenced by many studies from reputable experts. If you chose to disbelieve me without checking, then the consequences of your disbelief (ie being mistaken) fall back on you.

You will be looking for how and why very young children construct belief as a product of the evolved way i which they internally process external information available to them even before they can speak . Not how older children learn specific socialised beliefs from others.

The difference here is that a very young child will make an observation and construct a belief as a logical way to explain that observation such as presents appearing under a tree

it will evolve its own explanation without a word form any external source. LATER it will then be open to learning other explanations such as the figure of santa clause This is WHY both children and adults are open to belief in specific gods because we use the construction of belief as part of our thinking almost from birth and have no conscious awareness of the process, nor natural resistance to it. .

[back to earth]

So what's with quoting and waving the Koran around? Fundamentalists say if you do not follow the Hadith, you are not a true Muslim. So how do you explain them praying to their God telling him they will happily cut of our infidel heads and fingers for him?

That is the Hadith where that hate comes from, the lost individuals quoting it are just repeating what is says. How do you explain that as Non-violent? The rewards of Virgins for Killing us westerners, all that insane rubbish, that is from their Holy Book.

Not according to their book, they get 72 virgins and God praises them if they were to murder you or I tomorrow. These women are described as virgins with "full grown", "swelling" or "pears-shaped" breasts.

How many ?

(We could be onto something here )

Edited January 6, 2016 by back to earth

[back to earth]

. No other animals share this understanding of a common internal belief, and thus remain separated by evolved biological drivers into small groups.

[back to earth]

Where are your links?

Why bother ? You know what he will do ... put up some link then interpret it wrong and claim it proves what he says ... same old.

[back to earth]

The difference here is that a very young child will make an observation and construct a belief as a logical way to explain that observation such as presents appearing under a tree

Wow , you chose a great example of how children make up such beliefs on their own . Yep, kids make up Santa stories all by themselves .

... a 'logical way to explain'

[psyche101]

I have no horse in the race. i want people to understand how and why humans construct beliefs. It is NOT about indoctrination from without, that merely SHAPES belief, and yes a person can be taught to disbelieve also via "indoctrination' or teaching.

I do not believe that you have no agenda for one second, you have been pushing relgion and beliefs for several threads now.

Yes it is about indoctrination, without that, people move on, we are forced to dumb ourselves down so relgion may persist.

You are getting close to an important realisation Humans are literally "born to believe" because of the way we think and learn AND as young children the original pattern of learning is burned into our neurons and synapses (Even if our parents are atheists) So as we become adults we can consciously decondition ourselves, but most people never do. For most adult humans the default cognitive process is one to believe. And hence approx 90% of modern adult humans still do.

I do not believe it is the default or we would not have Einsteins, Darwins of Hawkings. We move past our childhood wonders as we develop and move that to understanding.

Because of this internalised nature of belief it has huge health and other benefits to a self awre being Belief literally has the power to heal, to stop non clinical depression, to ease pain, to reduce cardio vasular diseases, to reduce the incidence and severity of cancer All because it is so interwoven in who and what we are as self aware beings. And so whether a god or god exists or not is irrelevant BELIEVING is an evolved survival trait and gives humans distinct physical and emotional advantages which are measured and assessed by medical science.

I do not believe that either, huge health benefits come from many aspects of life that are pleasurable, I had a particularly bad year last year, and my doctor told me Gym was the only thing that kept me out of hospital last year, it did not only keep me out, it gave me the motivation and strength to accomplish more than I normally would. The placebo effect is largely a mystery, I have little doubt that chemical reactions based on one's state of being have as much to do with perceived health benefits as does anything.

Many cultural anthologists and psychologists argue that this commonality of belief in all humans allowed humans to live together in large groups not clan related, and to develop the first major examples of civic buildings because it was a psychological glue which mended the individualised internal perceptions of every human being Ie " you are not me but i can trust you because you THINK/ BELIEVE like me. No other animals share this understanding of a common internal belief, and thus remain separated by evolved biological drivers into small groups.

That sounds a heck of a lot like what I have said in the past - relgion helped man create communities, law, and lead to science, it is now redundant. That system of trust is also what splintered the species when we started to interpret the wild claims and challenge them. That was natural too, but you do not seem to account for it at all. And that too indicates that relgion is well redundant.

[Mr Walker]

a god shaped hole waiting to be filled !

Ohhhhhh .... I see ; 'research' ,,,, from the bible society ??

You don't read do you. The article originally appeared in the new scientist, along with others It was picked up the bible society because it was of interest to them.

Authors in tha t issue included cognitive specialists in infant development, psychologists, and sociologist/anthropologists. I cant access it online. I have the original magazine somewhere and used to quote the professionals and the journals in which they presented their studies . but i have no need to do this every time i am questioned. That was 4 years ago and more research has confirmed the findings.

it is NOT so much a "god shaped hole," but a learned mode of cognitive thinking in the very young, which adults never really can remove without a lot of effort and reconditioning of their minds. . Even atheists who have conditioned themselves not to believe in god, tend to this pattern of belief- based thought, in non religious things.

BELIEF is a wide part of the human psyche/cognitive processing, of which religious belief is a small, but integral, sub set.

[back to earth]

It's not redundant for Walker as he tries to use it to prove his experiences - since he failed at that with science, reason and logic ... also, not how one cant pin his religion down ( as then one could say the religion he quotes does not support him ) ... its a nebulous king of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism thingo

[back to earth]

You don't read do you. The article originally appeared in the new scientist, along with others It was picked up the bible society because it was of interest to them.

Authors in tha t issue included cognitive specialists in infant development, psychologists, and sociologist/anthropologists. I cant access it online. I have the original magazine somewhere and used to quote the professionals and the journals in which they presented their studies . but i have no need to do this every time i am questioned. That was 4 years ago and more research has confirmed the findings.

it is NOT so much a "god shaped hole," but a learned mode of cognitive thinking in the very young, which adults never really can remove without a lot of effort and reconditioning of their minds. . Even atheists who have conditioned themselves not to believe in god, tend to this pattern of belief- based thought, in non religious things.

BELIEF is a wide part of the human psyche/cognitive processing, of which religious belief is a small, but integral, sub set.

Oh I see ... now it isnt actually a god shaped hole .... and Children make up stories about Santa all by themselves .

Do keep going ....

[+Sherapy]

No ... you cant best Walker ... he is always the winner ... no matter what (its just that all the rest of us cannot see the 'facts' ... like he can

It's not redundant for Walker as he tries to use it to prove his experiences - since he failed at that with science, reason and logic ... also, not how one cant pin his religion down ( as then one could say the religion he quotes does not support him ) ... its a nebulous king of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism thingo

Here's the link BTE,

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-24/edition-4/cognitive-science-religion

I am satisfied that MW has once again misinterpreted the data due to his own biases.

Same ole, same ole.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Sherapy

[back to earth]

Thanks, but I , and I observe a few other posters, dont even bother looking at any evidence Walker puts up ... as it isnt the evidence at all that is revelant, its his 'interpretation' of it ... so there is no point anymore in even reading his supposed proof .

Unfair some say ? - Go ask the 'boy who cried wolf' about it .

But this one must be the classic Walkerlogic of all time ! ;

Child, from year 0, has everything supplied by parents , then presents 'mysteriously' appear under tree at Christmas ... so of course, child goes against all previous conditionings to postulate some 'God' must have done .... hence walkers 'theory' proved.

:su :su :su :su :su

Edited January 6, 2016 by back to earth

[psyche101]

I think you have a point there. Maybe it might just be 'close' to a common experience. I would think, that someone's personal experience, in hindsight is unique, but since it is talked about with a various individuals, it becomes........... kind of common. If that makes sense.

I have to say, that's a good way of putting it. It made me think.

It just seems to me that no two experiences are actually alike, but hold common elements, which many perceive to be alike.

Maybe it is. I would think that's a good way of explaining it, for some. It could be, no amount of physical reaction could be accounted for, so something that's personal is struck deep, and yeah, I think that explodes into identifying that personal connection. ( who knows, maybe something physical or something biological is doing something in a reactionary way to exaggerate it.

Well it seems that what influences a person is where the spiritual experience comes from, a Priest will see a vision, or a statue crying, a Native American might see a spirit world, a surfer feels more than alive in a barrel, this seems to indicate that our most impressive experiences are what call to us, and what we consider some sort of insight, when it seems it is a personal view. Part of being the individual, even birth, most of us feel great joy but I think we experience different emotions due to personal situations. When these are particularly powerful I feel people call these experiences "spiritual" or an "Epiphany" They seem to walk hand in hand.

I don't know. I wouldn't think so. ( I could be wrong *shrugs* ) I think character would be best described within personality traits and behaviors, and thus stuck within the biological or physical. ( I think )

I do believe there are some who have additional 'senses' that partner their other well known senses. I think it's like some have the sixth sense. In which, could be explained as additional senses, brought on by the physical, but could happen to various individuals. Like here in these links ( I didn't know the stuff I got from these sites. )

http://www.cracked.c...knowing-it.html

http://www.todayifou...an-five-senses/

So, I guess, some may have a 'soul sense' so to speak. ( While trying to find a site that I could reference for you, to better explain what I feel, I came across this site. I don't know if it best explains it, but in a sense, ((no pun intended! )) could show how it differs and be personal to some.

http://www.sensesofthesoul.ca/

Wouldn't a "soul sense" have a link with that which we hold dear, and that is what strives us to seek out the activities that we like? Our natural abilities will lead us down these paths, someone who is good at running will love running, and feel a personal connection with the exercise.

The senses described in that link are something I feel are more demarcated, for instance, Thermoception and touch, they seem to be rather similar. It is probably a good idea to do so, in order to gather a greater understanding, but they do not seem to be new, or unusual?

But I seriously doubt that pregnant women can sense gay men. Mannerisms seems more likely to be the tip off there.

Yeah............. I think you're right.

The way I see it, I could be one of those with those 'senses', and I have talked to, read about, and have friends like that. I even had a conversation with two fellow co-workers with the same thing, and it's like we understand each other when we talk of experiences. ( This is not to say, there is a sense of arrogance or a know it all, or self-pride type of thing, just that some people have a gift for something, while others have different other gifts for other things. )

The point I wanted to make is, that since what is more abundant and common in reality, is what is explained. There might be more of the unexplained of certain person's experiences, that will get a variety of people to sit up and take notice, there still isn't enough 'evidence' to show them that they have 'authority'.

I feel I have something, but it's kept within myself, while I understand, participate, and go along with the reasoning of the majority. ( I just hope we all see each other as unique and giving of each other and of ourselves. )

Those who think that they should 'take over' because of their 'senses', are not only fooling the populace, but are fooling themselves because the masses have every right to not take it it as face value.

The problem there is it needs to be assessed by reputable people, and reputable people find nothing leading to a supernatural force to investigate, but fringe seems to remain at that catch 22. You have nothing to prove, so there might be something you cannot comprehend, unfortunately the people making these statements generally do not comprehend science, so we are just taking back steps. That in turn puts of reputable scientists. And I can see why top be honest, so any time wasters, so few results.

Some Supernatural claims have been thoroughly investigated, the US wasted about 20 billion on remote viewing to no avail. These spectacular failures are good reason to dismiss the paranormal, or we have Randi offering a million dollars for proof of the Supernatural. Hated by the same crowd because not one of them can prove their claims on demand, it makes it very, very hard to accept these claims at all.

I feel everything can be explained by science given time. But science needs something to work with, if it is a "feeling" is there a reason to consider it more?

And so you should be.

I find often when I return to one of these Threads the Segway has gone wild and 20-30 pages have passed, and a reply seems lost and pointless.

But I cannot stay away, the posters in these threads are above average IMHO, and you are a star gem. Your hubby did very well for himself.

I would think I do remain to be that. But I often have felt that could be that 'tipping point' or the base in which I coasted into my belief system. I would never deny the existence of logic of things or seeing reality, as point out by those authors you pointed out. But, I find it interesting that you see me as 'asking questions', and I may have and still do. Actually, I wonder if we all ask questions, and we all answer them for ourselves in different levels.

I think, if I try to remember correctly my atheist days in my young adulthood, I think I became one, when I did ask those questions, and what was the norm in religion, didn't answer them.

Here's the kicker for my own path. Certain 'experiences' and things I did, then answered those questions for me in the long run. It also helped me answer them with the logical answers. I don't know if that makes sense to you, ( I would understand if it didn't ) but I guess that is how my 'soul sense' maybe helped me.

That is why I often say, my belief partners with me. It helps me be.............. logical? * looks sheepish *

I find Atheism is all about asking questions, and challenging claims. To be an atheist, I think you have to ask that very controversial question of "why do I believe in God"? I do feel few in the past have had this opportunity, and we blindly follow the paths set before us. The modern world with tolerance for Atheism is just letting the cat out of the bag the way I see it - Religion has no basis in truth and is a manmade construct, physics cannot lie. When I see that, I fail to understand why Religion continues to enjoy so much support.

I cannot fathom what would lead anyone "back" to a Church, perhaps it is because I have only embraced Atheism this decade, but to me it is like the example I used earlier, Phlogiston and Elements. I cannot see why anyone would still subscribe to Phlogiston for the same reasons I do not understand a return to relgion. The flaws are wide open, and well illustrated in a modern world, relgion cannot be the correct answer, it makes no sense with regards to what the Universe is telling us.

I would love to know what brought faith back into your life, to me, that is a complete Unexplained Mystery. I respect your position of course, which is why I ask politely, but would love to be able to understand this move. I understand if you do not wish to share such a personal item, but if anyone wants to chime in, I would love to know why one would go back to that which is shown to be flawed and incorrect. I just genuinely struggle to fathom that.

Oohhhh, I think so. My hubby has a different opinion. He's not entirely entranced with him, like some I know. ( Trump seems to have his 'groupies' because he says it as it is. )

He also got where he got, because of his business techniques, and other ventures. ( maybe why he feels he thinks he can run his mouth )

But, I really hope he doesn't become president. (granted, as I pointed out to some people in the real world, we did get an actor in the white house................ for two terms! ) but I hope ............. and this is me, that rational takes hold soon.

I think you should feel grateful for being in your country and not that ......... exposed ............. to this.

Oy vey!

LOL, I have seen the TV show once or twice - didn't really grab me, and heard his views on Muslims and Refugees too - considering that, I do wonder how he made it as far as he did.

I have to stick with you, I feel lucky I have not had to put up with that level of drama for an election, the campaigns are just crazy compared to what we have here - usually some mud slinging 6 weeks before election right up to voting day.

Then the Sausage SIzzle!!

[psyche101]

Thanks, now I am going to have nightmares.

LOL, some are telling me that having him as a candidate was nightmare enough......

[badeskov]

As I have said many times, atheism is an untenable position. A fallacy.

There a no atheists in foxholes:

http://www.conservapedia.com/There_Are_No_Atheists_In_Foxholes

It's fine to claim that no God exists when all things go well but as soon as some challenges arise, atheism dissolves into thin air.

I normally do not normally comment in this section of UM, but this is beyond the realm of sanity - which TaridD has proven himself very capable of venturing into with no qualms.

Please don't talk like that unless you have actually been under fire.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Mr Walker]

Oh come on you really aren't that unaware, are you? Those are demonstrations of EXACTLY the evolved biological drivers i was speaking of in animals

There is no evidence of cognitive self awareness in other animals beyond that of a human child aged about 2-4 in a few species and individual animals Ie a very few can recognise that a mirror image is an image of themselves and not another animal.. None demonstrate the cognitive self awareness of humans older than that . OR we would see evidences of religious belief in them, such as prayer, ritualised worship, and objects of veneration. So clearly other animals lack some part of the human cognitive process which causes us to develop god constructs.

[Mr Walker]

Oh I see ... now it isnt actually a god shaped hole .... and Children make up stories about Santa all by themselves .

Do keep going ....

I didn't say it was a god shaped hole That was the description of the author ANd yes without any adult intervention young children will construct beliefs about how things happen such as a present appearing under a tree. they will logically thay will impute or deduce that an unknown Agent did this (an agent is a very particular construct of ealry cognitive development when children first realise there are agents and non agents in their world .)

Agents initiate and are responsible for changes in the child's environment. and, without understanding of the world, this agent can be magical rather than real. So fairy or a spirit or god but the child wont attach those words to its construct until it learns them Then when the idea of santa is introduced (or the idea of a particular god ) the response is sort of " Oh yes, well of course,. that explains everything" The child has already created its own construct of a magical agent of change and just attaches an adult's label to it.

i though this was all fairly simple to understand but the i have spent years studying childrens cognitive development so that might be unfair This is all fairly recent work based on studies around the world

[Mr Walker]

Here's the link BTE,

https://thepsycholog...cience-religion

I am satisfied that MW has once again misinterpreted the data due to his own biases.

Same ole, same ole.

That is an excellent link and summarises some of the studies i was thinking of If you read it you will find it is saying EXACTLY what i am saying and explaining it in detail. You are ASSUMING I am misinterpreting due to bias. when my posts are saying precisely what this article says eg the reasoning evolved in childhood persists into adulthood.

More recently, Kelemen and Rosset (2009) provided experimental evidence that, under conditions of high cognitive demand, even science-educated adults show signs of scientifically inappropriate teleological reasoning.

That children at first attribute super knowing or god like abilities to ALL Agents but slowly distinguish between non god like agents and god like agents

and see God as the ‘man in the sky’. This view was largely accepted until a series of studies suggested that not only can children reason about God non-anthropomorphically, but they may do so from as early three years old (Barrett et al., 2001, 2003; Knight et al., 2004). These studies used ‘false belief tasks’ and other methods derived from cognitive developmental research on theory of mind – how we reason about others’ mental states. For instance, children who had been shown that a biscuit packet actually contained stones were asked whether adult human beings and God would know what was in the packet or be fooled by appearances. Three-year-olds easily attributed super-knowing to both God and human beings. Sometime between ages four and five children appear to stop attributing super-knowing abilities to humans; children of this age realised and enjoyed the fact that ‘Mommy can be fooled’ but persisted in the belief that God knows the true contents.

And here is confirmation of my main point, tha t children intuitively develop their own god concepts but then adapt those of others as the ylearn to cmmunicate.

The research reported above represents a growing body of work suggesting that many religious ideas are largely intuitive. One prominent contributor to CSR, Pascal Boyer, has argued that ideas that are mostly intuitive but have just a little tweak or two are the best candidates for transmission

And finally thier summary repersents my own feelings on this issue

Findings and theory from CSR are sometimes used as part of an argument against the truth or justification of religious belief (Dawkins, 2006; Dennett, 2006). We find no reason to draw such eliminativist conclusions (Barrett, 2007a; Schloss & Murray, 2009). Perhaps such evidence could even be used as part of an argument affirming a divinely implanted receptivity to the transcendent. Whether any given religious beliefs are true or false, helpful or harmful, to be realised and successfully transmitted they must enjoy some support by human cognitive systems. Here, we are only concerned with the latest published evidence relevant to just how well supported by cognition key religious ideas are.

Belief is belief These studies make no comment on the validity of beliefs just how and why human beliefs are constructed and exist.

[Mr Walker]

Wow , you chose a great example of how children make up such beliefs on their own . Yep, kids make up Santa stories all by themselves .

... a 'logical way to explain'

yes it is .