Is religion good for kids?

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/commentary-is-religion-good-for-kids/2014/07/25/61bb45ec-140c-11e4-ac56-773e54a65906_story.html

By Eliyahu Federman | Religion News Service
July 25 at 11:00 AM

Young children exposed to religion had a more difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction than their less-religious counterparts, according to a study in the July issue of Cognitive Science. This was true even when it came to distinguishing nonreligious fiction vs. true stories such as that of Snow White vs. George Washington.

In essence, exposure to religion makes children more likely to believe in fictional stories. But is this bad?

Some touted this as proof that religion harms children. Widely read atheist blogger, Hemant Mehta, described this study as evidence of how religion is “mental child abuse.” In similar incendiary fashion, last year, professor Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said that teaching religious texts as fact to children is more harmful than sex abuse.

But this study proves a benefit of religion, not a detriment, because research shows how imaginative and fictional thinking, fantasy play, aid in the cognitive development of children. Raising children with fantastical religious tales is not bad after all.

more at link

[merrily]

1. Conversely, is absence of religious teaching bad for kids?

I know many who grew up in religious homes who turned out great and many who turned out, well, not so great. Ditto those who grew up in homes where religion was not taught to observed.

[cbayer]

5. I don't think there is a strong case either way.

There is so much more to consider when looking at what might be good or bad for kids.

This is in response to a recent study where some conclusion were drawn that don't have much validity, imo. This conclusions doesn't have much validity either.

[merrily]

33. Exactly my point: not a strong case either way. I think more turns on

morals and ethics and love and making a kid feel secure enough that he or she doesn't need to scapegoat anyone. As far as imagination and creativity, I think a good deal of that is genetic. Sure, you can nurture it or quash it, but I think there are limits on fostering it where it does not exist in the child.

[cbayer]

38. I agree with you for the most part.

It's so much more complicated than just what stories a kid has read to them.

[Tikki]

2. Disney fits the perimeters of a religion...

Tikki

[cbayer]

14. I have no idea what this means. Do you want to expand on it?

[Tikki]

16. Disney meets all the criteria in the sentence below..

But this study proves a benefit of religion, not a detriment, because research shows how imaginative and fictional thinking, fantasy play, aid in the cognitive development of children. Raising children with fantastical religious tales is not bad after all.


Tikki

[cbayer]

19. Ah, I hear you and I agree. There are many ways for children to engage in

imaginative and fictional thinking and fantasy play.

[edhopper]

25. And do you think

If adults tell them that the fantasy is real, never saying it's pretend is a good th9ng.
Because unlike all other fantasy play, religion saysvit's real.

[cbayer]

28. As there is nothing substantial to either prove nor disprove religious beliefs,

I think it would be unwise to make any absolute claim either way.

So if a parent or community believes it is real, they can talk to a child about beliefs and faith when it is appropriate to do so.

But telling a child that something is not real when you have no hard evidence to support that is equivalent to telling a child that something is real, isn't it?

[Brettongarcia]

58. It is extremely easy to disprove the religious belief in physical miracles, "all" we "ask" for.

Furthermore, even the author - Eliyah Federman of Religious News Service - agree that the article in Cognitive Science assumes that we can distinguish between Snow White and George Washington. And the original author warns that very religious kids couldn't do that. As Eliyah Federman of Religious News Services/Wash. Po. summarized it:

"Young children exposed to religion had a more difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction than their less-religious counterparts, according to a study in the July issue of Cognitive Science. This was true even when it came to distinguishing nonreligious fiction vs. true stories such as that of Snow White vs. George Washington.

In essence, exposure to religion makes children more likely to believe in fictional stories."

The author goes on to insist this is not bad. But believing fiction, after all, is believing things that are not really factually true. And that is a problem.

By the way, the author Federman, goes on to defend even "magical thinking."

This author by the way, is a e-commerce executive; a salesman. Trying to refute an article by a qualified professional Psychologist, in a professional journal.

Incidentally? This review, is in the Washington Post; which was just recently Bought by Jeff Bazos, the libertarian founder of Amazon. An e-commerce company. Perhaps the new editor's? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/06/jeff-bezos-is-buying-the-washington-post-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-sale/

[hrmjustin]

3. In general I say yes except when it is strict and abusive.

I was raised with religion by parents who really didn't believe it but they sent us to Catholic school. It did not harm me.

[cbayer]

6. It's too simplistic a question. Whether it is good or bad for kids depends on

so many other variables.

[hrmjustin]

7. Agreed! The question is not a simpld yes or no.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

15. The style of the religion is very important

Fundamentalist style, believe every word in the Bible was handed to us by God, sounds like it would be pretty detrimental.

I was exposed to a more mainstream version, and although I more or less took it literally for a while, I was always allowed to ask questions and eventually figured out that, although these stories and poetry were deeply imbedded in our culture, they were the work of human imagination. I think being exposed to religion has given me a deeper appreciation of literature and history. And perhaps some of the ideals have influenced me. Pretty much consider myself non-militant atheist now.

Glad I had the religious exposure though.

[cbayer]

18. I'm pretty much on the same page as you.

I was raised with lot of religious stories, but it didn't have an absolutist tone and I was also encouraged to ask questions.

Like you, I am very thankful for my exposure to religion, particularly since I was raised in a left wing activist religious community. I do not think the church was essential for getting the lessons that I got, but it was important for me as an individual.

If the stories are used to frighten or bully or control children that is an entirely different thing than the way you and I were given them.

Welcome to the religion room, IB. I hope you will participate in the future.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. It depends if you think being able to discern fact from fiction is

an important life skill or not.

[edhopper]

8. There are other

And better ways for children to engage in imaginative play and fantasy besides religion.
Most of those involve pretend, and at an early age children distinguish the difference.
But are they ever told that God, or heaven and hell are pretend.
Don't most religions teach that at least some of these fables, myths and stories aren't made up.
Part of the development of imaginative play is learning when things are just pretend.
Religion says these things aren't, hampering the development of cognitive skills.

It seems the author is grasping at this study that is only tangentially about religion and has little bearing on what religious teaching actually does to children.

So I pretty much reject the pretense of the article.

[cbayer]

11. I agree that there are certainly other ways, but I don't think there is necessarily better ways.

It all depends on the platform a parent wishes to use.

Some kids are told that god, heaven and hell are pretend, others are not.

Some kids are told that there is a Mother Earth, others are not. And on and on and on.

The stories that kids are told are very culturally influenced. Some cultures impart stories as truth, others only as fable.

I don't think it makes any difference for very young children, as long as they are in an environment which is loving and with people they can trust.

Child psychiatrists and other professionals are unlikely to try and push kids to be able to distinguish between reality and fantasy until there is a reason to do that. If a kid holds on to an imaginary friend, but it causes no harm, professionals are unlikely to try and take it away from them.

Your conclusion about not being able to distinguish hampering cognitive skills is unfounded, but possibly just based on your own beliefs. Do you have any data about what religious teaching "actually does to children"?

[edhopper]

17. As I said

My problem is that unlike any other imaginary play, religion never says it's all pretend.
In various degrees they say it is all to partially true.
How does a child learn to distinguish fact from fantasy from that.

And I was addressing the specific stance of the author about religion being good because of this one parameter.

The overall good or bad of religion and childrenbis a much larger subject.

[cbayer]

23. Lots of fantasy play never says it is pretend.

It is up to the individual to make that determination when they are ready.

Do you think that children raised with religion have some long-lasting inability to distinguish fact from fantasy? If so, do you have any data to back that up.

I don't agree with this author and I didn't agree with the author that he is countering. Fantasy and fiction are good for children and an important part of cognitive development. Whether religion is a good or bad thing in that realm is very multifactorial and I don't think there is any definitive data either way.

[edhopper]

27. Just look at the polls

About 5the percentages of adult belief in the Supernatural.
And your wrong, at some point as children age, they are told what is pretend, except for religion.

[cbayer]

31. Because the bulk of the world doesn't think it's pretend.

Do you think they should be told that it is pretend just because you and some others think it is, even though you have absolutely nothing to back that up?

[edhopper]

35. I have nothing to back up

The Supernatural isn't real.?
Not talk8ng about God here.
But Ghost, pseudoscience, etc.
No evidence to support me, really?

[cbayer]

39. Sure there are things where there is actual data supporting that some

things are not real.

God isn't one of those things.

[edhopper]

44. I was talking about teaching religion without

ever saying the stories were imaginary leads people to not being able to distinguish fact from fantasy later in their lives. That's not a good thing.

(Leaving now, so I can't post anymore)

[cbayer]

45. You can't say they are imaginary anymore than you can say they are real,

at least not with any authority.

You can say what you believe or don't believe, but either definitive position would be wrong, imo.

Religion does not lead people to being unable to distinguish fact from fantasy later in their lives. You keep saying that, but you have nothing to back it up.

Hope you are leaving to do something fun!

[JNelson6563]

48. You keep making this argument but you can't prove a negative.

I can't prove the Loch Ness monster is a myth, that there are no dragons or there's no such things as ghosts either. I cannot disprove the existence of Zeus or Venus or Bacchus, does all this mean these things may very well exist?

Fairies and Leprechauns, Pixies and Water-sprites...can we prove they don't exist? Not really. Why is that?

This exercise in intellectual dishonesty, played pretty much every time I tune into this group, makes it clear that honest, productive discussion is not the goal here.

In spite if insistence to the contrary.

Julie

[cbayer]

50. So, do you think you have more standing to say that there is no god

than the person that says that there is.

The not being about to prove a negative is a fine argument when it comes to science, but it is totally meaningless when it comes to religion.

Those that compare beliefs in god to beliefs in fairies, leprechauns, pixies and water-spirits look to be desperate fools who really have no argument that would disprove god.

The intellectual dishonesty is in making a definitive statement, in believing that you have the correct answer and everyone else is wrong.

In spite of insistence to the contrary, you are no more right than a true believer.

If you don't like the tune in this group, go somewhere that you find more amenable. It's out there and pats you on the back whenever you ask. If you think that is honest, productive discussion, then you live in a very narrow world.

[GoneFishin]

53. So the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fact. Good.

Also, little elves in trees really do make cookies, although no one has been able to get any pictures.

And, people are totally impervious to bullets provided they are fired from a purple gun by an orangutan name Tike viewed through a mirror while he is finishing knitting the last row of a sweater for an aardvark, while smoking a Camel cigarette. It's true.

[cbayer]

54. Who said it was fact? Where did you get that idea?

I don't understand your post at all, but then if it is just snark, there is probably really nothing there to understand.

[GoneFishin]

55. I did.

[cbayer]

56. Oh, ok. Good for you. Believe whatever you want.

As long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to care for yourself and doesn't present a danger to others or yourself, you can believe whatever you want.

Even if almost everyone on earth knows it is not true.

[GoneFishin]

57. Well, "almost everyone" has no more authority on that point than I do.

At least according to you.

So in the absence of any intrinsic evidence to the contrary, I am right.

[cbayer]

59. Exactly right. They have no more standing than you do.

Maybe be are right and maybe your are not. No one can say definitively either way. If it is your belief and you have faith in that belief, so be it.

[JNelson6563]

66. I've explained this before but you seem to forget.

Ok, say we're sitting down enjoying some tea on a suuny day...and you tell me there is a god who is omnipotent and created everything and all the rest. Then I tell you I don't believe your assertion.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion. In this situation I bear no responsibility to disprove the assertion.

That is how debate works.

I make no claims to having the only correct answer. I simply don't believe the answers put forth by religion.

And to take away the distraction of fairies etc., replace those with Zeus, Thor,Hermes and any other gods no one believes in any more. The point would still stand and you might be better able to see what I was trying to say.

Julie

[cbayer]

67. Well, I am a very forgetful person.

So I don't remember whether I have explained this to you or not.

Saying that one believes in god is not necessarily an assertion. It is often just a statement of belief.

Therefore there is no need to prove anything. You can choose to believe or not.

You have no responsibility to disprove the belief and the person holding it has no responsibility to prove it.

That's because religious beliefs are not debatable. They just are.

Now, if I insist that my beliefs are true and that yours are false, or if you insist that mine are false, then we have entered another arena.

But you have no more standing to insist that they are not true than I would have to insist they were.

You can compare it to whatever you want, my point stands. The problem is not in my inability to understand you, it is in your insistence that some one must provide proof of something that is unprovable.

[trotsky]

81. Quite honestly, one of the reasons I like coming to this forum...

is to see the fits you have whenever someone says something you don't think they should say. LOL!

[Warren Stupidity]

61. wtf? where is the data that ghosts aren't real?

Oh by the way "the bulk" also believe in ghost, angels, demons, etc.

Hint: (not that you don't know this) the issue isn't "evidence that x isn't real" the issue is "evidence that x exists at all". Your argument is specious.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. It's a tool.

Like any other tool, it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. Teaching children moral precepts is useful, as well as providing them with Socratic parables that allow them to explore and consider why things like altruism are beneficial both to the individual and society. But I'd want them to understand as they aged that the magic Santa performs is no more real than the magic performed in other myths.

[edhopper]

10. Which most religions don't do

They are taught it as real.
It is a poor tool for cognitive development.

[cbayer]

13. Again, I would ask you for data that shows any correlation between being taught religious

stories as truth and impaired cognitive development.

When you make statements just based on your beliefs and not facts, you are doing what you so malign religion for doing.

[edhopper]

20. Yes I see all the people who believe biblical stories arevtrue

All the people who believe in angels an Satan.
I see this as harmful.
I could list things from other religions, but this is the gist.

[cbayer]

24. Do you want to give that another shot.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[edhopper]

30. Adult belief in the supernaturasl

Isn't healthy, IMO.

[cbayer]

34. And that is only your opinion. There is no data or studies or

science or even rational thought to back that up.

It's a belief based on faith of some sort.

[cbayer]

12. Comparing belief in god to belief in santa is a lazy and unconvincing argument.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. except of course that you cannot provide a compelling argument for why

they are different.

[edhopper]

22. The author of the article compared them

I would agree the article is lay and unconvincing.

[cbayer]

26. I agree that he is lay and unconvincing.

[edhopper]

29. Good to hear.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. Unconvincing to someone who has been inculcated with

a belief that one is real and the other isn't? Sure.

To people who don't believe in either, there's no need to convince.

At any rate, I wasn't trying to 'deconvert' anyone here, so I didn't know I was expected to put any real effort in my comment into convincing anyone that God doesn't exist.

[cbayer]

36. Of course there is no need to convince those who don't believe.

There is no need to convince those who do believe either. Deconversion is as annoying as conversion, imo. Glad you aren't into it.

[intaglio]

37. Only if they are not going to be sacrifi ... oh, you meant human children!

Sorry, my partner is into mohair at the moment

[cbayer]

40. That's a good one.

What is your partner doing with mohair these days?

[intaglio]

41. A bit of spinning

Oh, and she goes "Squee!" over pygmy goats as well, not that I find them in the least cute and ... awww, look at that one!

Sorry, distracted

[cbayer]

42. Aw, that's sweet. You don't find this cute?? What is wrong with you.

[intaglio]

43. (subsides into a quivering heap) n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

46. I'm agnostic and completely secular but some aspects of religion help kids cope w. anxiety.

Afterlife,as an antidote to fear of death, etc.

"Guardian Angel": what a great idea... psychologically speaking. "And you'll never walk alone." ( See? Even Richard Rodgers knew that!)

The all-knowing, all-seeing .. presumably ONE...god : isn't this a way of teaching via personification that there is an objective right and wrong? How else would an eight year old "get" that concept?

That said.... I think kids should be allowed/encouraged to outgrow that stuff.... hopefully by HS age.

In the interest of developing what the psychs would probably call more mature coping skills.

[cbayer]

47. I agree that kids should be encouraged to make up their own minds at some point.

Some denominations have baptisms at around 13 years old. The Catholics have a confirmation around that time. The Mormons send their kids out on Missions. The Amish send their kids out.

Not that all of these groups really grant true permission for kids to chose another path, but many do. And there is a valid argument for some degree of indoctrination.

[JNelson6563]

49. Actually the guardian angel nonsense caused me to first doubt at age 5 or so.

Such terrible things were done to my brother & I that I couldn't help thinking there was no such thing. Surely no one could see and not help!

Some things are too fantastic for those not living in Utopia to believe.

Julie

[cbayer]

51. That is very sad and very understandable.

I hope that there were real live people in your world that stepped in to help you when you needed it the most.

Some people in desperate situations are comforted by religion, others feel abandoned and find no comfort there.

It's not about living in Utopia. It's just who each of us are as individuals.

[JNelson6563]

68. Actually religion was a comfort to me.

I just didn't buy into the guardian angel business early on.

Some thirty years later I went on an intellectual journey. It took me several years and, by the end of it, I was an atheist. I had forced myself to apply honest, objective & analytical thinking every step of the way, allowing for zero emoting. It was challenging (like I said, it took some years) put I persevered and I am glad I did. It helped to grow in many ways.

Julie

[cbayer]

69. I have read about your history previously. You write about it very well.

Where you landed and how you got there makes a lot of sense, and I am glad that you found your place.

Others have landed in an entirely different place, although they also had significant early experiences and traveled equally challenging paths. They have used honest, objective and analytical thinking and often, like you, tried to eliminate the emotional component.

And then there are those who are theists or atheists out of sheer laziness, but most of them don't really care that much either way.

While fascinated by religion and in particular the intersection of politics and religion, I frankly don't really care if there is a god or not. I also came to this place via a circuitous path that took me through theism and atheism as parts of my identity. I claim neither of them now. I just don't know.

[Brettongarcia]

52. This review topspins the real article; and it was written by an "executive" for an "e-commerce" co.

The original article itself was by an ACTUAL expert; it's in the journal of Cognitive Science. It differs strongly with this review. Which is by an "executive for an e-commerce" company/salesman.

Should you follow a trained, published Psychologist in a professional journal?

Or a salesman, selling you something?

You decide.

By the way? To counter Cognitive Science, this author cites the Wall St. Journal; which at last sight was owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. What the peer reviewed article actually said.

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/enhanced/doi/10.1111/cogs.12138/

The rest is behind a paywall.
Bold section from me.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Last time we had this thread, the phrase 'akin to child abuse' was used.

I stand by that assessment. This article and the referenced study are one piece of evidence supporting that assessment.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. "aid in the cognitive development of children"

Nobody said fantasy/play is bad for kids. Presenting fantasy as TRUTH, so as to develop a child that has difficulty distinguishing between reality and fantasy, is unhealthy.

[cbayer]

64. Really? Do you have any data to back that up, or is that just a belief you have based on faith?

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Again if you think that the ability to discern

fantasy from reality is an important life skill, then things that impair that skill are harmful.

[Brettongarcia]

72. Example: someone who thought "Snow White" was historical reality, might do badly on a History test

And then badly in real life.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. The data is in the study you cited. When I read my son 'The Hobbit' I am clear that none of it is

real. Not the creatures, nor their abilities.

When my son asks me if things like Santa Claus are real, I tell him the truth. I do not lie to my child.

[cbayer]

74. that's not what that study says at all.

It makes an observation about the ability of 5 and 6 year old to distinguish between fantasy and reality. It can conclude nothing about whether that is healthy or unhealthy. That's just your extrapolation based on, well, your own opinion and nothing else.

What you do with your child is your business. I hope it all works out the way you want it. Other parents may do it differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. I think there is, if their kids can't tell the diff between fantasy and reality.

Kind of a survival skill, yanno

[cbayer]

76. It's part of being a kid to not be able to tell the difference.

Over time, the ability to discern develops, but there is no definitive data on exactly when that should happen, and it is certainly not complete at 5 or 6. In addition, use of fantasy can be a survival skill in some circumstances. Having worked with children who are in unimaginably traumatic situations, I can vouch for that.

It is a very bad idea to extrapolate things from data that the data doesn't say, even if you want it to be the case. What you think and what is known are two entirely different things. You wouldn't want to go all faith based on us, would you?

[AtheistCrusader]

82. I view it as a problem.

If you have a study that shows the kids that CAN tell the difference between reality and fantasy at that age, somehow develop abnormally later in life, bring it.

Otherwise, as a parent, I prefer my child know the difference.

[cbayer]

83. So every time you read your child a fairy tell, you tell

them that it's not true? And if you child talks about a fantasy, you correct them?

Of course parents want their children to be able to distinguish reality from fantasy as they grow up, but you certainly don't have that expectation from birth.

At least I hope not.

I don't need to bring on a study. All kids at that age have varying degrees of discernment and there is no evidence that some are more likely to have problems later than others.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. I do not read my child 'traditional fairy tales' that require explicit differentiation from reality.

My child expresses a clear grasp about the difference between fantasy and reality, so no, I never have to 'correct' him.

When he asks me a question, I tell him the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be to me as a parent. He sees the depiction of Santa in the cartoon 'Rise of the Guardians' and the depiction commonly used in north American Christmas, and asks me, 'Is Santa real?' I tell him the truth. Doesn't stop him from having fun, and still fantasizing and playing, but it keeps him grounded in what is real and what is not.

Not exactly rocket science as a parent. For instance, I don't spank my kid. How the hell am I supposed to teach him it's wrong to hit people in any case except self defense, if I hit him for non-self-defense reasons?

I think most parents over-think this shit too much.

[cbayer]

85. That's quite the unusual child you have.

He never believed in Santa or the tooth fairy or had an imaginary friend or stuffed animal that he thinks has a real personality?

I'm not going to say that that is a bad thing, but it is quite unusual.

Telling the truth is fine and many parents do exactly that. Once a child asks, it is generally appropriate to give them the scoop.

I'm sure your child will be fine. I'm sure that kids who grow up in religious households will be equally fine.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. If exposed to an idea, he might run with it, sure.

But he is incredibly inquisitive and very intuitive if people are pulling a snow job on him. He likes santa, as a concept, and we 'play' along with that at Christmas, but under the hood, he knows it's not real. Knows, but still can participate. It's pretty cool. He's a great kid.

He never showed much interest in the stuffed animals, except 'ducky', and he uses it like a character in a puppet show or play, not as a 'real' friend.

I have always attributed that clear boundary between real and fantasy to be the inoculation that keeps him immune to, for instance, unreasonable childhood fears. He doesn't have nightmares. He never worries about the 'boogie man', monsters under the bed or in the closet, or shadows or any of that.

As a parent, I couldn't be happier with his progress.

[cbayer]

87. He sounds like a great kid.

Actually, there are studies that show that fantasy can help some kids feel protected, so in some circumstances they might be less likely to have unreasonable childhood fears.

But then all kids are different. If you are happy with how your child is doing, then that is what counts.

Unless there are problems, no one should tell you how to parent. And, imho, that goes for everyone else as well.

[trotsky]

88. "Unless there are problems, no one should tell you how to parent."

Who decides what's a "problem?" You?

[Brettongarcia]

65. I agree. The comments section of the WashPo review article, has a good comment on "imagination"

By "FYIColumbiaMD"

In effect the comment says that though "imagination" is encouraged by fantasy, rational children learn imagination too; as well as reason.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. I'll take false dichotomies for 2000.

Once again rampant intellectual dishonesty in defense of theism is on display.

[on point]

77. Teaching empathy and morals yes. Religion no, teaches ignorance

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 08:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Blind adherence to delusional thinking and hatred toward others not your kind

Teach science and humanities instead

[cbayer]

80. I agree that teaching hatred toward others not your kind is a bad thing,

and I would include in that teaching that religious people have a "blind adherence to delusional thinking".

[unblock]

78. wow! the logic is astounding!

fantasy play where everyone knows it's fictional is a good thing, therefore religious mythology is a good thing.

ironically, that might justify atheist parents reading biblical tales to their kids, explaining that it's no more true than aesop's fables or harry potter.

but the argument that fantasy play where everyone knows it's fictional in no way justifies teaching religious mythological stories as truth.

most things in life, especially parental decisions, have both good and bad aspects. good parents simply try to make the decisions which, on balance, have the most good and the least bad.

i don't see why a believer can't accept that a childhood delay or even permanent difficulty in distinguishing fiction from fact can result from mythological teaching, but that on balance the benefit of such teaching outweighs the harm.

but to insist that somehow an inability to distinguish fact from fiction is actually a good thing is... beyond belief.

[cbayer]

79. When parents read fairy tales and fables to their young children,

they do not generally begin that by explaining to them that it is not real. Whether those stories are religiously based or not, most parents will not talk about what is fiction and what is not until they feel a child is ready or curious.

In terms of religious stories, since some people believe them, there is not general agreement that they are fiction. If they are good and thoughtful parents, they will explain that much of this may be metaphor, allegory or a rendering of a bigger lesson, just as one does for fables. They may say that they believe in these stories and that their belief is based on faith. As you say, parents will make decisions based on what they feel is good or bad for their child.

There is absolutely no evidence that there is a permanent difficulty in distinguishing fiction from fact, only that this one group of 5 and 6 years old tested differently. Since there is no attempt to establish "normal" in the study, it's not even clear that this is a delay. In fact, it could be the norm.

While I do not think this author makes a good case at all, there is data to support that children benefit from fantasy play and the inability to distinguish fact from fiction is normal and decreases over time.