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

[cwhitey2]

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

 

[Shimme]

^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]

^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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

...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.

----

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....

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).