• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Kids Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction

Neil Peart

Learn to swim
753
Posts
14
Years
  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html

    (The link to the actual study is within the article.)

    Young children who are exposed to religion have a hard time differentiating between fact and fiction, according to a new study published in the July issue of Cognitive Science.
    Researchers presented 5- and 6-year-old children from both public and parochial schools with three different types of stories -- religious, fantastical and realistic –- in an effort to gauge how well they could identify narratives with impossible elements as fictional.
    The study found that, of the 66 participants, children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school were significantly less able than secular children to identify supernatural elements, such as talking animals, as fictional.
    By relating seemingly impossible religious events achieved through divine intervention (e.g., Jesus transforming water into wine) to fictional narratives, religious children would more heavily rely on religion to justify their false categorizations.
    "In both studies, [children exposed to religion] were less likely to judge the characters in the fantastical stories as pretend, and in line with this equivocation, they made more appeals to reality and fewer appeals to impossibility than did secular children," the study concluded.
    Refuting previous hypotheses claiming that children are "born believers," the authors suggest that "religious teaching, especially exposure to miracle stories, leads children to a more generic receptivity toward the impossible, that is, a more wide-ranging acceptance that the impossible can happen in defiance of ordinary causal relations."
    According to 2013-2014 Gallup data, roughly 83 percent of Americans report a religious affiliation, and an even larger group -- 86 percent -- believe in God.
    More than a quarter of Americans, 28 percent, also believe the Bible is the actual word of God and should be taken literally, while another 47 percent say the Bible is the inspired word of God.
    Personally, I'm not surprised by the findings one bit. When you shove a kid's head full of whimsical fairy tales and false miracles from birth, they're going to have a hard time finding their left from their right in regards to the truth.
     

    maccrash

    foggy notion
    3,583
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • how much is "significantly less able" though? there's no actual statistic there. unless I missed it, in which case my bad.

    this looks like more entitled internet atheist ♥♥♥♥ that's just attempting to debunk religion more than it's already been debunked, though. I'm by no means a Devout Christian, but really these studies make me cringe just as much (if not more) than those who emphasize the pros of religion. sorry.
     

    £

    You're gonna have a bad time.
    947
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Noticed the study isn't publicly available, so I figured I'd put some stats in this topic because I'm a monotheist for one thing: mathematics.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...a-hard-time-distinguishing-fact-from-fiction/

    Apologies that the article itself is rather biased in saying "When the kids heard the religious stories, they should have said the character was pretend.", but it does have the stats for the real/pretend stories still.

    We can conclude that kids are young and highly impressionable. I mean, we knew that. And we can assume that non-religious families are less likely to have religious kids in the long run, and vice versa. But what's so bad about that? As long as there is no harm from said religious views, I don't have a problem with it. If a kid wants to believe in magic, miracles and fairytales, let them. The world can be such a miserable place, and I miss being young and impressionable.

    Okay, there's the religious extremist end of it, and that I do oppose firmly, but I certainly don't have a problem with someone having some faith in something if it won't bring harm to anyone else!
     

    Neil Peart

    Learn to swim
    753
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • how much is "significantly less able" though? there's no actual statistic there. unless I missed it, in which case my bad.

    this looks like more entitled internet atheist ♥♥♥♥ that's just attempting to debunk religion more than it's already been debunked, though. I'm by no means a Devout Christian, but really these studies make me cringe just as much (if not more) than those who emphasize the pros of religion. sorry.

    Are people just throwing the word "entitled" around for everything these days? Do you even know what it means? I mean, I'm sure you heard one of your intelligent buddies say it and thought it sounded cool and all, but it's getting ridiculous. iT's like people who misuse "ironic." There's no entitlement in this study at all, and I can guarantee you that no secular person would gather any kind of entitlement from this. If anything, it's the religious groups that have the entitlement.

    These studies that you're so eager to piss all over are actually beneficial. Studies are done to provide more evidence for a claim. You happen to think it's frivolous BS, and thank God (lol) not everyone thinks like you, because this study is another way to show the harm that religion can do, especially to impressionable young minds.
     
    1,405
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • I was born into Christianity, and until i quit i pretty much believed in almost everything. Our mentors told us about the most unbelievable stuff ever, even if it wasn't related with Christianity at all. If you mentioned an inaccuracy in what they said, they just "fix" it. They even told us to pray for meeting talking animals or seeing angels and stuff. I could pray whole days and nights and nothing would happen.

    I think why i quit is pretty obvious. And when i did i immediately realized that what they were telling us was total bs.
     

    maccrash

    foggy notion
    3,583
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Are people just throwing the word "entitled" around for everything these days? Do you even know what it means? I mean, I'm sure you heard one of your intelligent buddies say it and thought it sounded cool and all, but it's getting ridiculous. iT's like people who misuse "ironic." There's no entitlement in this study at all, and I can guarantee you that no secular person would gather any kind of entitlement from this. If anything, it's the religious groups that have the entitlement.

    These studies that you're so eager to piss all over are actually beneficial. Studies are done to provide more evidence for a claim. You happen to think it's frivolous BS, and thank God (lol) not everyone thinks like you, because this study is another way to show the harm that religion can do, especially to impressionable young minds.
    ......................sorry I guess. you seem far too eager to turn this into a flame war so I'm stopping here
     

    £

    You're gonna have a bad time.
    947
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • These studies that you're so eager to piss all over are actually beneficial. Studies are done to provide more evidence for a claim. You happen to think it's frivolous BS, and thank God (lol) not everyone thinks like you, because this study is another way to show the harm that religion can do, especially to impressionable young minds.

    Studies are indeed a way of acquring evidence to back up claims, this is true.
    This study shows that children are impressionable, this is true.
    This study is not, however, evidence that can prove that religion can be harmful, this is false.

    Religion, ideals, ways of life. We often pick these up at a young age and we spend the first years of our lives working towards being the people we are today. Loads of children are imaginative, and tons of kids believe in pretend things at a young age. Be it the tooth fairy, fictional characters in books, or even deities that a certain family believe in.

    I don't personally think parents should influence their children's imaginations to their own devices, but I also do not think a parent should work on grounding their child into a cold hard reality at the age of five. Let children be children, that's what I think. However, I think parents have the right to raise their child how they like as long as:

    1 - the child is healthy, happy and safe from harm.
    2 - the child understands that it is wrong to cause harm to others, and should have a healthy amount of respect for other people.

    Even if I wouldn't raise my child with the same beliefs/ideals, I would respect the parent's right to bring their child up how they believed was right, as long as the two above conditions are met.

    We can of course go over the pros and cons of religion, but let's use the appropriate evidence for that, please. I know I could easily source arguments to the danger that a religion can pose if that's supposed to be the debate? In this case, there is no evidence that these children went on to harm other people, or were harmed themselves.
     

    Tek

    939
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Luck Hax, thank you so much for posting that link to the study. Huge props.

    When I first read the title of this thread, I instantly thought "Oh boy, more anti-religion propaganda." But the more I thought about it - and especially now after having just read the details of the study - the more it made sense. Before I go on, however, I'd like to point out that a single study is not conclusive proof of anything. That said, I'm going to assume henceforth that the results of the study are reliable.

    This topic relates directly to something I've been thinking a lot about for a long time. How is it that people with a sound or even exceptional intellect, who function quite adaquately in society, can take the Biblical story as literal historical truth? Even the history we're taught in school is opinion and conjecture to a greater or lesser degree.

    It seems that when a Christian person walks through the sanctuary doors, they change worlds: they cease to apply the logic and critical thinking that they use elsewhere. And, quite obviously, children learn how to determine truth primarily by imitating their parents. (Note that for some people, truth is predominately determined by authority and not reason. And even intellectual people often just go through the motions of thinking things out, due to time constraints or whatever. Which is all fine, I think.)


    So I'm reasonably certain that the above paragraph is the origin of the phenomenon we're discussing. Of course, there are sociocultural, developmental, and historical contexts that I'm not enumerating, but that's the gist of it. The question then arises: what, if anything, should be done about it?

    My opinion is that it is the responsibility of people generally, but religious people especially, to begin thinking and acting in a way that acknowledges a basic truth: religion evolves. All of the other major institutions - government, education, healthcare - currently operate on rationality and not authority. And all of these went through a magical and superstitious phase, and then an authoritative phase, before reaching rationality. All of these also are moving towards an understanding that facts and reality are contextually determined; we are realizing that the world is not made up of parts and things but of interconnected and infinitely shaded processes.

    Yet religion lags behind. Its great strength, stability, is also its great weakness, stagnance and inflexibility. I don't think it's neccesary to jettison the foundations upon which religion is built, however. We simply need to make room within the institution for the deeper truths of rationality, perspectivism/pluralism, and whatever comes after that.


    (This eBook is available for free at pokecommunity.com.)




    EDIT: One more thing. The title of this thread is totally inaccurate. What the study actually shows is that when children who are being raised and instructed by adults that take the Bible literally, those children will believe that the types of events that occur in the Bible stories can happen in real life.


    What the study does not show is that mere exposure to religion hinders children from distinguishing reality and fantasy. A better title would be "Kids Take After The Important Adults in Their Lives", because that is what's being demonstrated here.
     
    Last edited:
    10,078
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • UK
    • Seen Oct 17, 2023
    Luck Hax, thank you so much for posting that link to the study. Huge props. One more thing. The title of this thread is totally inaccurate. What the study actually shows is that when children who are being raised and instructed by adults that take the Bible literally, those children will believe that the types of events that occur in the Bible stories can happen in real life.


    What the study does not show is that mere exposure to religion hinders children from distinguishing reality and fantasy.

    Perhaps the title should read "real and fictious characters" but the premise is correct. The study does suggest that religious children are less aware that other characters in fiction are not real either. Whilst the religious characters results is to be expected, it is the third part of the barchart that shows this.

    This study would interest me if groups of adults were tested - how their experiences growing up might change their view of the way the world works, and how that might affect the 'religious people identifying religious characters' section.
     

    Tek

    939
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Perhaps the title should read "real and fictious characters" but the premise is correct. The study does suggest that religious children are less aware that other characters in fiction are not real either. Whilst the religious characters results is to be expected, it is the third part of the barchart that shows this.

    This study would interest me if groups of adults were tested - how their experiences growing up might change their view of the way the world works, and how that might affect the 'religious people identifying religious characters' section.

    The inaccuracy comes from the word exposure. It's not exposure to religion that appears to be causing this phenomenon, but being raised and instructed by people who hold the Biblical stories to be literal truth. Hence my suggested title: Children Take After the Important Adults In Therir Lives.

    I would like to see further studies as well. I would not be surprised to see that adults raised in traditional religious environment take longer to stably reach the rational autonomous stage of development. That's the general trend I've observed, but there are too many variables to attribute it solely to traditional upbringing.
     
    10,078
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • UK
    • Seen Oct 17, 2023
    The inaccuracy comes from the word exposure. It's not exposure to religion that appears to be causing this phenomenon, but being raised and instructed by people who hold the Biblical stories to be literal truth. Hence my suggested title: Children Take After the Important Adults In Therir Lives.

    I would like to see further studies as well. I would not be surprised to see that adults raised in traditional religious environment take longer to stably reach the rational autonomous stage of development. That's the general trend I've observed, but there are too many variables to attribute it solely to traditional upbringing.

    But your suggested title implies that these children's parents would also believe fictitious (nonbible) characters to be real, which is where I get confused at your suggestion. (Also so many titles I wasn't sure which you were referring to, exactly XD nevermind)~

    I agree with your prediction, there must be so many variables affecting this. One important variable might be the type of religion - What about comparing these church-going children to children who only experience religion in mosques, etc. and compare it that way. Would be very interesting.

    Yay social sciences.
     
    748
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I was raised a Christian, but I've enough sense to take most events as metaphorically true. I think, organized religion is meant to teach anyone right from wrong for the most part, but fundamentalists take things too literally with an innocent belief.
    I continue to be a Christian, but I'm also going into a science related field and have a healthy dose of doubt and reasoning. I cringe when I hear overzealous Christians denounce evolution and all that other lovely stuff without understanding what it is at first. These are the people that make me wish I wasn't Christian sometimes. But oh well.

    /Edit/ And obviously most healthy adults wouldn't believe in any of the fictional creatures or fairy tales that they were told of long ago. Whether they were raised and still are or not religious.
     
    Last edited:

    Hackenfall Backslash

    The weirdest mofo you'll ever meet . . . seriously
    67
    Posts
    9
    Years
  • Are people just throwing the word "entitled" around for everything these days? Do you even know what it means? I mean, I'm sure you heard one of your intelligent buddies say it and thought it sounded cool and all, but it's getting ridiculous. iT's like people who misuse "ironic." There's no entitlement in this study at all, and I can guarantee you that no secular person would gather any kind of entitlement from this. If anything, it's the religious groups that have the entitlement.

    These studies that you're so eager to piss all over are actually beneficial. Studies are done to provide more evidence for a claim. You happen to think it's frivolous BS, and thank God (lol) not everyone thinks like you, because this study is another way to show the harm that religion can do, especially to impressionable young minds.
    Pretty much. I google'd the definition of "entitled" and here is what came up.

    Entitled
    • give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

    So yes. The misuse of yet another word. Same with ironic. Irony is not coincidental. "How ironic that I ran into him today!" Nope. Back of the line. Anyway, you've earned some points from me because of that post. You kept your cool and make him look . . . well, you know.
     

    Hackenfall Backslash

    The weirdest mofo you'll ever meet . . . seriously
    67
    Posts
    9
    Years
  • Though, I'll admit there is something to be said for child-rearing, and it comes from the Holy Bible, believe it or not. "Set a child in his ways, and he will not depart from them". Yeah, I read the Bible. Wanna fight about it?
     
    458
    Posts
    9
    Years
  • I'm not surprised by the findings of this study. I agree with others that the next step is determining what the impact of early childhood exposure to religion has on individuals into adulthood.

    how much is "significantly less able" though? there's no actual statistic there. unless I missed it, in which case my bad.

    The term "significant" when used statistically in studies has a definition, which is why they don't spell it out.

    The inaccuracy comes from the word exposure. It's not exposure to religion that appears to be causing this phenomenon, but being raised and instructed by people who hold the Biblical stories to be literal truth. Hence my suggested title: Children Take After the Important Adults In Therir Lives.

    I disagree with your assessment of the use of the word "exposure". It is exposure.

    ex·po·sure (k-spzhr)
    n.
    1. The act or an instance of exposing, as:
    a. An act of subjecting or an instance of being subjected to an action or an influence: their first exposure to big city life.

    Or, an alternative definition in this case:

    Experience of something:
    'his exposure to the banking system'

    This is a poor study, because 5-6 year olds are not mature enough to understand what the real world entails.

    If your statement were correct then there would be no significant difference between the responses of those two groups, but your statement is wrong.
     
    4,181
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • If your statement were correct then there would be no significant difference between the responses of those two groups, but your statement is wrong.
    What I'm saying is that 5-6 year olds are not experienced enough in the world to really know what they are talking about.

    Would their answers change in 10 years time? 20? That's probably a more relevant study for me.
     
    Back
    Top