Distinguishing fact from fiction

[Zzyzx]

.
A recent study published in Cognitive Science indicates that children from religious environments are less able to distinguish fantasy characters and events from factual than are children from non-religious environments..

Children with exposure to religion " via church attendance, parochial schooling, or both " judged [characters in religious stories] to be real, the authors wrote. By contrast, children with no such exposure judged them to be pretend, just as they had the characters in fairy tales. But children with exposure to religion judged many characters in fantastical, but not explicitly religious stories, to also be real " the equivalent of being incapable of differentiating between Mark Twains character Tom Sawyer and an account of George Washingtons life.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/18/r ... m-fiction/

Questions for debate:

1) What are the implications of this study?

2) Might the same hold true for adults?

[Divine Insight]

Are you telling me Tom Sawyer wasn't real?

Darn it!

Next you'll be telling me that Tom Swift wasn't real either. That's baloney!

[dianaiad]

.
A recent study published in Cognitive Science indicates that children from religious environments are less able to distinguish fantasy characters and events from factual than are children from non-religious environments..

Children with exposure to religion " via church attendance, parochial schooling, or both " judged [characters in religious stories] to be real, the authors wrote. By contrast, children with no such exposure judged them to be pretend, just as they had the characters in fairy tales. But children with exposure to religion judged many characters in fantastical, but not explicitly religious stories, to also be real " the equivalent of being incapable of differentiating between Mark Twains character Tom Sawyer and an account of George Washingtons life.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/18/r ... m-fiction/

Questions for debate:

1) What are the implications of this study?

2) Might the same hold true for adults?

How about that; a researcher already biased against religious 'environments' and teaching has figured out that children who are not taught about their religion are less likely to believe in it than children who are not taught.

He also finds out that...and the article doesn't actually give us anything from the study itself, so this is a biased report of a biased study, imo...

anyway, he also finds out that children who are not taught religion don't have any imagination. No believing in Santa Claus, or Superman, or getting involved with the protagonist of any other story/book.

Y'know, I find that very sad...and whether God actually exists or not, the best evidence ever for teaching children that He does.

Trust me; when children grow up, they aren't going to believe that there's a real Santa at the North Pole...but they will remember the delight of once having believed it.

They won't continue to believe in Superman or that Big Bird is real, but they'll remember when they did, and be able to 'flex' their imagination muscles in their later lives...

Some of them will even learn to make what they were told is impossible...possible. That's what imagination is, after all; the ability to see things that are not, yet, and make them so.

This study may well be accurate, and if it is?

The best evidence ever for the presence of religion and the teaching of it to children.

[Zzyzx]

.

They won't continue to believe in Superman or that Big Bird is real, but they'll remember when they did, and be able to 'flex' their imagination muscles in their later lives...

Many will, however, continue to believe that biblical characters, events and stories are real. Perhaps that results from reinforcement by clerics (and other believers) or from fear of retribution if one expresses (or harbors) doubt concerning the authenticity of bible stories.

Some of them will even learn to make what they were told is impossible...possible. That's what imagination is, after all; the ability to see things that are not, yet, and make them so.

Imagination is very different from gullibility. Imagination does not require that one believe tales of "gods" creating universes, shepherding human battles, performing "miracles", or controlling a proposed "afterlife."

This study may well be accurate, and if it is?

The best evidence ever for the presence of religion and the teaching of it to children.

Whether the study is accurate and representative or not, if one's objective is to teach young people to believe that fanciful / fictional characters are real the study shows that religion may be helpful. Many parents, teachers and preachers prefer that young people believe what they are told. Others (myself included) prefer that young people be taught to use reasoning and judgment plus critical / analytical thinking to determine what to accept as truthful and accurate -- and to question / challenge what they are told. (This attitude did not, by the way, increase my popularity with fellow university faculty members -- but was well received by students).

[Star]

How about that; a researcher already biased against religious 'environments' and teaching has figured out that children who are not taught about their religion are less likely to believe in it than children who are not taught.

He also finds out that...and the article doesn't actually give us anything from the study itself, so this is a biased report of a biased study, imo...

Why do you think both the article and the study are biased against religion, other than you don't like the conclusion? If it's true, then they need not be biased.

anyway, he also finds out that children who are not taught religion don't have any imagination. No believing in Santa Claus, or Superman, or getting involved with the protagonist of any other story/book.

No, it doesn't find non-religious children "don't have any imagination," so how can you say this? I also don't understand how you can equate not knowing about religion with also not knowing about fictional characters like Superman, which are for entertainment purposes.

HY'know, I find that very sad...and whether God actually exists or not, the best evidence ever for teaching children that He does.

Trust me; when children grow up, they aren't going to believe that there's a real Santa at the North Pole...but they will remember the delight of once having believed it.

Trust me; we all used to be children, and we all grew up, so we all know what it's like. Are you saying religious children are going to grow up with the delight of once having believed in scary stories, like those from the Bible? Children are drowned in floods, burned by raining sulfur, taken as slaves, forced into marriage, and even get mauled to death by bears in the Bible. Then their hero Jesus gets brutally tortured to death, and they have to obey or they'll be tortured forever in Hell, an infinity longer than Jesus suffered for. I remember thinking as a child that the whole thing was disgusting and unbelievable.

HThis study may well be accurate, and if it is?

The best evidence ever for the presence of religion and the teaching of it to children.

The best evidence for teaching children religion is that it makes it harder for them to tell fact from fiction? Really?

Maybe only if they grow up to be atheists.

[dianaiad]

.

They won't continue to believe in Superman or that Big Bird is real, but they'll remember when they did, and be able to 'flex' their imagination muscles in their later lives...

Many will, however, continue to believe that biblical characters, events and stories are real. Perhaps that results from reinforcement by clerics (and other believers) or from fear of retribution if one expresses (or harbors) doubt concerning the authenticity of bible stories.

Some of them will even learn to make what they were told is impossible...possible. That's what imagination is, after all; the ability to see things that are not, yet, and make them so.

Imagination is very different from gullibility. Imagination does not require that one believe tales of "gods" creating universes, shepherding human battles, performing "miracles", or controlling a proposed "afterlife."

This study may well be accurate, and if it is?

The best evidence ever for the presence of religion and the teaching of it to children.

Whether the study is accurate and representative or not, if one's objective is to teach young people to believe that fanciful / fictional characters are real the study shows that religion may be helpful. Many parents, teachers and preachers prefer that young people believe what they are told. Others (myself included) prefer that young people be taught to use reasoning and judgment plus critical / analytical thinking to determine what to accept as truthful and accurate -- and to question / challenge what they are told. (This attitude did not, by the way, increase my popularity with fellow university faculty members -- but was well received by students).

I can imagine...I went to college late in life...as in, within the last fifteen years, and had to deal with all the professors who expected their students to take their words as gospel.

Given that almost every single one of them was politically and sociologically somewhat to the left of Lenin, that caused me a few problems. Who knew that one's political opinions would matter if one is taking a biology class?

So thank you for teaching your students to question their professors.

Two comments, here: first, you realize that you are begging the question when you say 'but some of them keep believing in the bible as adults' as if that were a bad thing.

Second comment: before you can learn to question things, you have to learn the things you need to question. You can't start asking about the intricacies of physics if you didn't, at one point, take your teacher's word for it that two plus two equaled four...both the concept and the words that describe the concept.

Finally, as an English, literature and writing teacher and not as a theist, I have to object to any stifling of a child's imagination...of destroying the ability to fantasize and believe. I am convinced that those who are not allowed to do so grow up to be dour and joyless adults.

I just...I dunno...think the world needs a time when a child can really believe, for a while, that one can get to Neverland by following the first star to the right and straight on until morning.

[dianaiad]

How about that; a researcher already biased against religious 'environments' and teaching has figured out that children who are not taught about their religion are less likely to believe in it than children who are not taught.

He also finds out that...and the article doesn't actually give us anything from the study itself, so this is a biased report of a biased study, imo...

Why do you think both the article and the study are biased against religion, other than you don't like the conclusion? If it's true, then they need not be biased.

Because he is equating religion with childhood fantasies in other areas. He makes no allowance at all for the idea that any religious idea might be 'true' in any way.

This is bias. It's begging the question--whether one is a theist or an atheist, it's still obviously biased.

[Star]

How about that; a researcher already biased against religious 'environments' and teaching has figured out that children who are not taught about their religion are less likely to believe in it than children who are not taught.

He also finds out that...and the article doesn't actually give us anything from the study itself, so this is a biased report of a biased study, imo...

Why do you think both the article and the study are biased against religion, other than you don't like the conclusion? If it's true, then they need not be biased.

Because he is equating religion with childhood fantasies in other areas. He makes no allowance at all for the idea that any religious idea might be 'true' in any way.

This is bias. It's begging the question--whether one is a theist or an atheist, it's still obviously biased.

It's not begging the question. The researchers rejected the null and accepted the alternative hypothesis. In this case, the null is all children perform equally, and the alternative is that secular children outperform the religious.

If anything, it would be biased of them to make allowances for any particular religious magical fantasy being true. They only need to show that religious children tend to do poorly compared to secular children at correctly identifying protagonists involved in "ordinarily impossible events" in religious stories, both with and without reference to magic, compared to real-life non magic stories.

Here's the abstract:

In two studies, 5- and 6-year-old children were questioned about the status of the protagonist embedded in three different types of stories. In realistic stories that only included ordinary events, all children, irrespective of family background and schooling, claimed that the protagonist was a real person. In religious stories that included ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention, claims about the status of the protagonist varied sharply with exposure to religion. Children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, judged the protagonist in religious stories to be a real person, whereas secular children with no such exposure to religion judged the protagonist in religious stories to be fictional. Children's upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic (Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children's differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 8/abstract[/quote]

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

1) What are the implications of this study?

2) Might the same hold true for adults?

1) That brainwashing works if done properly
2) Absolutely. People believe in anything they want no matter their age, race, gender or facts or lack of.

[connermt]

How about that; a researcher already biased against religious 'environments' and teaching has figured out that children who are not taught about their religion are less likely to believe in it than children who are not taught.

He also finds out that...and the article doesn't actually give us anything from the study itself, so this is a biased report of a biased study, imo...

Why do you think both the article and the study are biased against religion, other than you don't like the conclusion? If it's true, then they need not be biased.

Because he is equating religion with childhood fantasies in other areas. He makes no allowance at all for the idea that any religious idea might be 'true' in any way.

This is bias. It's begging the question--whether one is a theist or an atheist, it's still obviously biased.

Would it also be considered bias by you if the reverse was true? If he taught religion is true?
I don't know of any believer ever saying that any pro-religious study is biased yet they scream foul foul foul when a study comes out with the opposite POV.
Which is, to say the least, hypocritical.