What do you think?
Rate this book
賮胤乇賷丞 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 : 賰賷賮 兀孬亘鬲鬲 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 兀賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷賵賱丿賵賳 賲丐賲賳賷賳 亘丕賱賱賴責
賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丕賲 噩爻鬲賵賳 亘丕乇賷鬲 Justin Barrett 賲賳 賵丕賯毓 鬲禺氐氐賴 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱丿賷賳賷 亘鬲噩賲賷毓 兀卮賴乇 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲 廿噩乇丕丐賴丕 賲賳匕 賯乇丕亘丞 毓卮乇賷賳 爻賳丞 廿賱賶 丕賱賷賵賲 毓賱賶 兀胤賮丕賱 賲賳 毓賲乇 9 卮賴賵乇 廿賱賶 亘囟毓 爻賳賵丕鬲貙 丨賷孬 賷爻鬲毓乇囟 賲毓賳丕 賳鬲丕卅噩賴丕 丕賱賲匕賴賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丐賰丿 毓賱賶 賵賱丕丿丞 賰賱 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 亘丕賱兀丿賵丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賲賰賳賴賲 賲賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘禺丕賱賯 賲鬲賲丕賷夭 毓賳 丕賱亘卮乇 匕賷 賯丿乇丞 毓馗賷賲丞貙 賵賰賷賮 亘鬲丨賱賷賱 胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賳鬲毓乇賮 毓賱賶 胤乇賷賯丞 丕爻鬲賳亘丕胤賴賲 賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱禺丕賱賯 賲賳 兀亘爻胤 丕賱亘丿賴賷丕鬲 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 賲孬賱 毓賱丕賯丞 (丕賱爻亘亘賷丞) 賮賷 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍.
368 pages, Paperback
First published March 20, 2012
25 people are currently reading
928 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
August 16, 2012
I was quite surprised to see how few stars others were rating this book. The sign for me that this book was extraordinarily objective was the fact that I was not sure whether the author himself believed in God until quite late in the book (although I had early suspicions). Perhaps I am a bit prejudiced: the author takes quite a few shots at Dawkins and the the new atheists, and I myself dislike them quite a bit even thought I don't believe in God myself. Perhaps this explains the relatively low ratings of what to me seems like an unusually well written and researched book.
March 13, 2022
賰鬲丕亘 毓噩賷亘 丨賯丕貙 賵賱丕 兀毓乇賮 丨鬲賶 丕賱丌賳 賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳 鬲氐賳賷賮 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳 賮賴賲 丿賵丕賮毓 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賵睾丕賷丕鬲賴貙 賱賰賳 丕賱匕賷 兀毓乇賮賴 噩賷丿丕 兀賳 兀丿賱丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賳鬲丕卅噩賴 賰丕賳鬲 賲丿賴卮丞 賵睾賷乇 賲鬲賵賯毓丞 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 賵賲毓夭夭丞 賱賲毓乇賮鬲賳丕 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 賵賲丿毓賵賲丞 亘賴丕 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 兀禺乇賶
廿賳 丕賱兀胤乇賵丨丞 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷噩丕丿賱 毓賳賴丕 噩爻鬲賵賳 亘丕乇賷鬲 賴賷 兀賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷賵賱丿賵賳 亘賲賷賱 賳丨賵 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賱賴 賵兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賷賱 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 鬲亘乇賷乇賴 亘丕賱鬲賱賯賷 兀賵 丕賱鬲賯賱賷丿 兀賵 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲貙 亘賱 賴賵 賲鬲乇爻禺 賮賷 胤乇賷賯丞 賮賴賲賴賲 賱賱毓丕賱賲 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 賲賳 丨賵賱賴賲 賵賲鬲噩匕乇 賮賷 賮胤乇鬲賴賲
賷賳賯爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 噩夭兀賷賳: 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賵賴賵 丕賱兀丿賱丞 賵賷鬲囟賲賳 禺賲爻丞 賮氐賵賱 毓賳 賯丿乇丞 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱賮丕毓賱丞貙 賵毓賳 亘丨孬賴賲 毓賳 丕賱睾丕賷丞 賵乇丕亍 賰賱 賮毓賱貙 賵毓賳 賯丿乇鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵鬲氐賵乇賴賲 賱兀賮毓丕賱賴 賵氐賮丕鬲賴貙 賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賮氐賵賱 賲丿毓賲丞 亘丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩乇賶 毓賱賶 兀胤賮丕賱 賲賳 兀毓賲丕乇 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵亘胤乇賯 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賱廿孬亘丕鬲 兀賮賰丕乇賴丕貙 賰丕賳 賲丿賴卮丕 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 丕賱匕賷 馗賴乇 毓賱賶 廿賷賲丕賳 賲毓馗賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 亘賵噩賵丿 廿賱賴 禺丕賱賯 賯丕丿乇 毓賱賷賲 亘丕賱乇睾賲 丨鬲賶 賲賳 賳卮兀鬲賴賲 賮賷 亘賷卅丞 睾賷乇 賲鬲丿賷賳丞 亘賱 賵丿丕毓賷丞 賱賱廿賱丨丕丿貙 賱胤丕賱賲丕 丌賲賳鬲 亘賯丿乇丞 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賵丕賱卮毓賵乇 丕賱氐丕丿賯 賱賰賳賷 鬲賮丕噩兀鬲 亘賲毓乇賮丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賯丿乇 賲賳賴賲丕 賵丕賳鬲賮毓鬲 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞
丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賴賵 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賷賳丕賯卮 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 丕賱賲鬲乇鬲亘丞 毓賱賶 賲丕 賯乇乇賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮賷 兀胤乇賵丨鬲賴 賵賷噩丕丿賱 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賵賷賮賳丿 賳馗乇賷丕鬲賴賲 丨賵賱 丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳貙 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賴賳丕 賲丿賴卮丞 賱賱睾丕賷丞 賵乇亘賲丕 兀毓噩亘 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲噩丿賴 兀賳 賲丐賱賮丕 睾賷乇 賲鬲丿賷賳 兀氐賱丕 賷氐乇丨 兀賳 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 睾賷乇 胤亘賷毓賷 賵睾賷乇 賲賳胤賯賷 賵兀賳 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賯賱丞 賵賱賷爻 賰賲丕 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱鬲乇賵賷噩 賱賴 賲賳 賰孬乇鬲賴賲 賵賯賵鬲賴賲貙 賵賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 賮氐賱丕賳 賲賲鬲毓丕賳 賱賱睾丕賷丞 毓賳 鬲毓乇賷賮 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賱賴 賵鬲卮噩賷毓 丕賱賳賲賵 丕賱丿賷賳賷 毓賳丿賴賲貙 賱賵 鬲鬲亘毓賳丕 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓賳 鬲卮噩賷毓 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲丿賷賳 爻賳噩丿 兀賳 賱賰賱 賲賳賴丕 兀氐賱丕 賮賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賵賴匕丕 兀賰孬乇 賲丕 兀丿賴卮賳賷 賵兀毓噩亘賳賷貙 兀賳氐丨 丕賱丌亘丕亍 賵丕賱兀賲賴丕鬲 賵丕賱賲毓賱賲賷賳 亘丕賱丕胤賱丕毓 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賮丕丿丞 賲賳賴 賮賷 鬲毓夭賷夭 鬲賳卮卅丞 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱鬲賲爻賰 亘丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱丕賱鬲夭丕賲 亘卮乇丕卅毓賴
賴賳丕賰 爻賱亘賷丕鬲 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳賴丕 匕賱賰 丕賱禺賱胤 賲賳 丕賱賲丐賱賮 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱丿賷賳 賵廿賯乇丕乇賴 亘丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵乇賮囟賴 賱賱丿賷賳貙 兀賷囟丕 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲賮乇賯丞 亘賷賳 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賳 丕賱廿賱賴 賵丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賰賱賴丕 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴貙 賱賰賳 毓賲賵賲丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 賵賳丕賮毓 賵賲丿賴卮
廿賳 丕賱兀胤乇賵丨丞 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷噩丕丿賱 毓賳賴丕 噩爻鬲賵賳 亘丕乇賷鬲 賴賷 兀賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷賵賱丿賵賳 亘賲賷賱 賳丨賵 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賱賴 賵兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賷賱 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 鬲亘乇賷乇賴 亘丕賱鬲賱賯賷 兀賵 丕賱鬲賯賱賷丿 兀賵 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲貙 亘賱 賴賵 賲鬲乇爻禺 賮賷 胤乇賷賯丞 賮賴賲賴賲 賱賱毓丕賱賲 賵丕賱丨賷丕丞 賲賳 丨賵賱賴賲 賵賲鬲噩匕乇 賮賷 賮胤乇鬲賴賲
賷賳賯爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 噩夭兀賷賳: 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賵賴賵 丕賱兀丿賱丞 賵賷鬲囟賲賳 禺賲爻丞 賮氐賵賱 毓賳 賯丿乇丞 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 廿丿乇丕賰 丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱賮丕毓賱丞貙 賵毓賳 亘丨孬賴賲 毓賳 丕賱睾丕賷丞 賵乇丕亍 賰賱 賮毓賱貙 賵毓賳 賯丿乇鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵鬲氐賵乇賴賲 賱兀賮毓丕賱賴 賵氐賮丕鬲賴貙 賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賮氐賵賱 賲丿毓賲丞 亘丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲噩乇賶 毓賱賶 兀胤賮丕賱 賲賳 兀毓賲丕乇 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵亘胤乇賯 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賱廿孬亘丕鬲 兀賮賰丕乇賴丕貙 賰丕賳 賲丿賴卮丕 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 丕賱匕賷 馗賴乇 毓賱賶 廿賷賲丕賳 賲毓馗賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 亘賵噩賵丿 廿賱賴 禺丕賱賯 賯丕丿乇 毓賱賷賲 亘丕賱乇睾賲 丨鬲賶 賲賳 賳卮兀鬲賴賲 賮賷 亘賷卅丞 睾賷乇 賲鬲丿賷賳丞 亘賱 賵丿丕毓賷丞 賱賱廿賱丨丕丿貙 賱胤丕賱賲丕 丌賲賳鬲 亘賯丿乇丞 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱爻賱賷賲 賵丕賱卮毓賵乇 丕賱氐丕丿賯 賱賰賳賷 鬲賮丕噩兀鬲 亘賲毓乇賮丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賯丿乇 賲賳賴賲丕 賵丕賳鬲賮毓鬲 亘賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞
丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賴賵 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賷賳丕賯卮 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 丕賱賲鬲乇鬲亘丞 毓賱賶 賲丕 賯乇乇賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮賷 兀胤乇賵丨鬲賴 賵賷噩丕丿賱 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賵賷賮賳丿 賳馗乇賷丕鬲賴賲 丨賵賱 丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱廿賷賲丕賳貙 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 賴賳丕 賲丿賴卮丞 賱賱睾丕賷丞 賵乇亘賲丕 兀毓噩亘 賲丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲噩丿賴 兀賳 賲丐賱賮丕 睾賷乇 賲鬲丿賷賳 兀氐賱丕 賷氐乇丨 兀賳 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 睾賷乇 胤亘賷毓賷 賵睾賷乇 賲賳胤賯賷 賵兀賳 丕賱賲賱丨丿賷賳 賯賱丞 賵賱賷爻 賰賲丕 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱鬲乇賵賷噩 賱賴 賲賳 賰孬乇鬲賴賲 賵賯賵鬲賴賲貙 賵賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 賴匕丕 丕賱噩夭亍 賮氐賱丕賳 賲賲鬲毓丕賳 賱賱睾丕賷丞 毓賳 鬲毓乇賷賮 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賱賴 賵鬲卮噩賷毓 丕賱賳賲賵 丕賱丿賷賳賷 毓賳丿賴賲貙 賱賵 鬲鬲亘毓賳丕 兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賲丐賱賮 毓賳 鬲卮噩賷毓 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲丿賷賳 爻賳噩丿 兀賳 賱賰賱 賲賳賴丕 兀氐賱丕 賮賷 丕賱丿賷賳 賵賴匕丕 兀賰孬乇 賲丕 兀丿賴卮賳賷 賵兀毓噩亘賳賷貙 兀賳氐丨 丕賱丌亘丕亍 賵丕賱兀賲賴丕鬲 賵丕賱賲毓賱賲賷賳 亘丕賱丕胤賱丕毓 毓賱賶 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵丕賱丕爻鬲賮丕丿丞 賲賳賴 賮賷 鬲毓夭賷夭 鬲賳卮卅丞 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱鬲賲爻賰 亘丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱丕賱鬲夭丕賲 亘卮乇丕卅毓賴
賴賳丕賰 爻賱亘賷丕鬲 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賳賴丕 匕賱賰 丕賱禺賱胤 賲賳 丕賱賲丐賱賮 亘賷賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵丕賱丿賷賳 賵廿賯乇丕乇賴 亘丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 賵乇賮囟賴 賱賱丿賷賳貙 兀賷囟丕 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲賮乇賯丞 亘賷賳 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲 丕賱賳丕爻 毓賳 丕賱廿賱賴 賵丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賰賱賴丕 賮賷 賳賮爻 丕賱丕鬲噩丕賴貙 賱賰賳 毓賲賵賲丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賴賲 賵賳丕賮毓 賵賲丿賴卮
January 7, 2021
How can this get such a low score. Too many atheists with 'male brainedness' who just don't want to admit any of it I guess.
Anyone interested slightly why people have a multitude of faiths and gods around the world should read and how faith in the unseen develops (especially if atheism is supposed to be out predisposition, like we are taught) . A very informative, concise and entertaining peice of work. 5/5
Anyone interested slightly why people have a multitude of faiths and gods around the world should read and how faith in the unseen develops (especially if atheism is supposed to be out predisposition, like we are taught) . A very informative, concise and entertaining peice of work. 5/5
December 1, 2013
While there was an interesting summary of research on cognitive development in children, overall, I was shocked by the simplistic nature of the author's arguments, and by his obvious biases. To give one especially striking example -- he argues that those who profess to be atheists appear to be disproportionately "male-brained" -- i.e., have difficulty understanding or empathizing with the feelings of others, and have difficulty "attributing agency" to others. At an extreme, he mentions, this is the difficulty that is thought to characterize autism.
I found this problematic for several reasons -- to work backwards -- there is increasing evidence (perhaps not available at the time of publication) that autistics are in fact hyper-sensitive to the feelings of others -- that withdrawing is a defense mechanism, not a failure of perception. Second, I hardly think we can call it a "lack" if people have difficulty attributing agency to non-human phenomena. In my view, it should be possible to believe in God, if one does, without having to attribute thunder storms or fortuitous events as the work of an unseen agent. Understanding that there are agentless causes (or that there can be) is the basis of science -- and part of what freed us from belief in witchcraft.
Here was another example of his visible bias and ignorance about religious thought, which made me question is whole research agenda: "the sort of religious beliefs children naturally acquire without any explicit input from adults will deviate from the worked-out systems of theology of the world's religious traditions. Left to their own devices, they will likely become religious in some sense but probably in a sense more like what you would call superstition than a thoughtful, sophisticated belief and behavior system. They may be drawn to worshiping Mother Earth, astrology, or an unhealthy preoccupation with ghosts, among other suspect beliefs and practices such as wearing their underwear inside out to produce snow or carrying amulets for success on school exams." (239).
It's hard to know where to even begin critiquing this paragraph from a religious studies point of view. As far as I can tell, the implicit argument is: people who can't bring themselves to attribute agency to natural phenomena (such as thunderstorms) are psychologically deficient in some way, which in its extreme form can be labelled autism. Not being able to believe in "worked out systems of theology" places a person on the tail end of a curve of "normal" human development/belief in Gods/religion. But worshiping nature (animism in any form) or ghosts (voodoo etc.) is a "suspect" religious practice?? I find it hard to take seriously anything the author says, given that extremely crude understanding of and overt disdain for a significant part of his field (i.e., religious studies).
Furthermore, there's another significant lack from a religious studies/ethical perspective: he never explains why the _is_ of children's belief in God (which he does present ample evidence exists) leads to an _ought_ in terms of adult belief. Children go through a number of perfectly "normal" developmental stages (lack of belief in object permanence, belief that they are the center of the universe) which no one would argue should be retained into adulthood if a person is to have any sort of healthy psychological relationship with the world. (I'm not arguing here that belief in God must also be "outgrown" for a healthy psychology, only that saying children *do* believe something doesn't mean they (or we) *should*.
I found this problematic for several reasons -- to work backwards -- there is increasing evidence (perhaps not available at the time of publication) that autistics are in fact hyper-sensitive to the feelings of others -- that withdrawing is a defense mechanism, not a failure of perception. Second, I hardly think we can call it a "lack" if people have difficulty attributing agency to non-human phenomena. In my view, it should be possible to believe in God, if one does, without having to attribute thunder storms or fortuitous events as the work of an unseen agent. Understanding that there are agentless causes (or that there can be) is the basis of science -- and part of what freed us from belief in witchcraft.
Here was another example of his visible bias and ignorance about religious thought, which made me question is whole research agenda: "the sort of religious beliefs children naturally acquire without any explicit input from adults will deviate from the worked-out systems of theology of the world's religious traditions. Left to their own devices, they will likely become religious in some sense but probably in a sense more like what you would call superstition than a thoughtful, sophisticated belief and behavior system. They may be drawn to worshiping Mother Earth, astrology, or an unhealthy preoccupation with ghosts, among other suspect beliefs and practices such as wearing their underwear inside out to produce snow or carrying amulets for success on school exams." (239).
It's hard to know where to even begin critiquing this paragraph from a religious studies point of view. As far as I can tell, the implicit argument is: people who can't bring themselves to attribute agency to natural phenomena (such as thunderstorms) are psychologically deficient in some way, which in its extreme form can be labelled autism. Not being able to believe in "worked out systems of theology" places a person on the tail end of a curve of "normal" human development/belief in Gods/religion. But worshiping nature (animism in any form) or ghosts (voodoo etc.) is a "suspect" religious practice?? I find it hard to take seriously anything the author says, given that extremely crude understanding of and overt disdain for a significant part of his field (i.e., religious studies).
Furthermore, there's another significant lack from a religious studies/ethical perspective: he never explains why the _is_ of children's belief in God (which he does present ample evidence exists) leads to an _ought_ in terms of adult belief. Children go through a number of perfectly "normal" developmental stages (lack of belief in object permanence, belief that they are the center of the universe) which no one would argue should be retained into adulthood if a person is to have any sort of healthy psychological relationship with the world. (I'm not arguing here that belief in God must also be "outgrown" for a healthy psychology, only that saying children *do* believe something doesn't mean they (or we) *should*.
October 13, 2021
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩丕亍 賲氐丿丕賯丕 賱丨丿賷孬 丕賱賳亘賷 氐賱賶 丕賱賱賴 毓賱賷賴 賵 爻賱賲
賷賵賱丿 丕賱賲賵賱賵丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賮胤乇丞貙 賮兀亘賵丕賴 賷賴賵丿丕賳賴 兀賵 賷賳氐乇丕賳賴 兀賵 賷賲噩爻丕賳賴
乇丕亘胤 賲乇丕噩毓丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 賷賵鬲賷賵亘
賱丕 鬲亘禺賱賵丕 毓賱賷賳丕 亘廿賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲賰賲 賵 賳氐丕卅丨賰賲 賵 氐丕賱丨 丿毓丕卅賰賲
________________________________________
丕孬亘鬲鬲 丕賱丕亘丨丕孬 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 丕賳 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 賱丿賷賴賲 賲賷賱 胤亘賷毓賷 賱賱丕賷賲丕賳 亘賵噩賵丿 禺丕賱賯 賰丕賲賱 丕賱賯丿乇丞 賵丕賱毓賱賲 賰賲丕 丕賳 賱丿賷賴賲 丕賷賲丕賳 賮胤乇賷 亘丕賱睾丕卅賷丞 賵賲亘丿兀 丕賱爻亘亘賷丞 賵賱賷爻 賱匕賱賰 毓賱丕賯丞 亘丕賱鬲賱賯賷賳 丨賷孬 賷賯賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賳賴 賱賵 賱賲 鬲賯丿賲 賱賱丕胤賮丕賱 丕賮賰丕乇 毓賳 丕賱丕賱賴丞 爻賷賰鬲卮賮賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴丞 亘丕賳賮爻賴賲
丕賲丕 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賱睾丕卅賷丞 賮丕賳 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 丿丕卅賲賷 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱 毓賳 丕賱丨賰賲丞 賲賳 賵乇丕亍 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍 賵賱賷爻 毓賳 丕賱爻亘亘 賮賴賲 賱丕 賷乇賷丿賵賳 丕賳 賷毓乇賮賵丕 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱賵乇丕孬賷丞 賱丕 亘賱 丕賱丨賰賲丞 賮賯胤 賲賳 匕賱賰 亘賱 廿賳賴賲 賷賲賷賱賵賳 賱丕毓胤丕亍 鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲 丨鬲賶 賵賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 爻禺賷賮丞 賲孬賱 丕丨丿賶 賲噩賲賵毓丕鬲 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 賲賳 爻亘毓丞 丕賱賶 孬賲丕賳賷丞 爻賳賵丕鬲 鬲賲 爻丐丕賱賴賲 毓賳 爻亘亘 賰賵賳 丕賱氐禺賵乇 賲丿亘亘丞 賯丿賲賵丕 鬲賮丕爻賷乇 賲孬賱 賰賷 賱丕 鬲噩賱爻 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賮鬲丨胤賲賴丕 賵賮囟賱賵賴丕 毓賱賶 鬲賮丕爻賷乇 賮賷夭賷丕卅賷丞 "毓賱賲賷丞" 鬲賳丕丿賷 亘丕賱毓卮賵丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱氐丿賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 賲賳 丕賴賲 賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱丿乇賵賷賳賷丞
賵賷賯賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 賷丐賰丿 丕賳賳丕 賱丕 賳賳賲賷 賳夭毓丞 乇丐賷丞 丕賱睾丕賷丞 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲. 賵賱賰賳 賳賱夭賲 亘丕賳 賳鬲毓賱賲 賰鬲賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賷賱 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱乇爻賲賷 賵賲毓 匕賱賰 賷鬲爻賱賱 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲爻賷賷乇 賱賷馗賴乇 毓賳丿賲丕 賳賰賵賳 卮丿賷丿 丕賱鬲賷賯馗
賰賲丕 賷丐賰丿 丕賱亘丕丨孬賵賳 丕賳 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 賷賵賱丕丿賵賳 賲丐賲賳賷賳 亘賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕禺乇丞 賵賲丐賲賳賷賳 亘丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賰賱賷 丕賱丕丿乇丕賰 賵丕賱賯丿乇丞 賵丕賱毓賱賲 賵丕賱禺賷乇賷丞 賵丕賳賴 丨賷 賱丕 賷賲賵鬲 賵丕賳賴賲 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱孬丕賱孬丞 賵丕賳賴賲 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱孬丕賱孬丞 賲賳 丕賱毓賲乇 賷賮賴賲賵賳 丕賱賱賴 亘卮賰賱 氐丨賷丨 賵賱賷爻 丕賱賳丕爻
賵賷孬亘鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲乇丞 丕禺乇賶 丕爻鬲丨丕賱丞 賮乇囟賷丞 丕賱鬲賱賯賷賳 賰賵賳 丕賯賳丕毓 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 亘丨賯丕卅賯 賰丕賱丕噩爻丕賲 丕賱亘賰鬲賷乇賷丞 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 毓賱賶 爻胤丨 丕賱胤丕賵賱丞 賲孬賱丕 丕賲乇 卮亘賴 賲爻鬲丨賷賱
賵賳禺鬲賲 亘賴匕丕 丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻.
賷賯賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳丿賲丕 丕氐丕亘鬲 賲氐乇 丕賱胤賵丕毓賷賳 丕賱毓卮乇 丕賯鬲賳毓 賮乇毓賵賳 丕禺賷乇丕 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賷爻丕賳丿 賲賵爻賶 賵丕賳 賵丕賳賴 賷噩亘 鬲丨乇賷乇 丕賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳. 賱賰賳 賮乇毓賵賳 丕賱賷賵賲 乇亘賲丕 賷賱賯賷 丕賱賲亘賷丿丕鬲 噩賵丕 賱賯鬲賱 丕賱噩乇丕丿 賵丕賱匕亘丕亘 賵丕賱亘毓賵囟. 亘鬲丨賯賷賯 丕卮乇丕賮 丕賱丕賲賲 丕賱賲鬲丨丿丞 賱丨丕賱丞 乇賲賷 睾賷乇 卮乇毓賷 賱賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 丕賱賲匕亘賵丨丞 賲賳 丿賵賱丞 賲噩丕賵乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賷賱 亘賲丕 賷賮爻乇 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賰賲賷丞 丕賱丿賲 賮賷 丕賱賲丕亍 賵賷氐丿乇 賲毓丕賷賷乇 丕賳亘毓丕孬丕鬲 賵丕賰孬乇 鬲卮丿丿丕 賮賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱鬲賳賯賷丞 丕賱丕噩賵丕亍 賲賳 丕賱馗賱賲丞 賵賷鬲賴賲 賲賵爻賶 亘卮賳 丨乇亘 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 鬲爻亘亘 丕賱丿賲丕賲賱 賵賲賵鬲 丕賱亘卮乇 賵丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賵賷囟睾胤 賲賳 丕噩賱 賵囟毓 賲毓丕賴丿丞 丿賵賱賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賱賲賰丕賮丨丞 鬲睾賷乇 丕賱賲賳丕禺 亘爻亘亘 賰賲賷丞 賲丿賴卮丞 賲賳 賴胤賵賱丕鬲 丕賱亘乇丿
丕賳 賮乇毓賵賳丕 賲毓丕氐乇丕 賯丿 賱丕 賷乇賶 丕胤賱丕賯丕 丕賳 丕賱丕賵亘卅丞 賯丿 爻亘亘賴丕 丕賱賱賴 賵賱賰賳 賷乇丕賴丕 賲夭賷噩丕 賲賳 賮毓賱 丕賱氐丿賮丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 丕賱亘賷卅賷丞 丕賱爻賷卅丞 賵賲丐丕賲乇丞 賲賳爻賯丞 鬲賳爻賷賯丕 噩賷丿丕 賵賲毓賯丿丞 鬲賰賳賵賱賵噩賷丕 賲賳 丕賱賲毓丕乇囟丞
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 囟賲賳 賲亘丕丿乇丞 兀胤賷丕賮
丕賱鬲賷 賵賯賮鬲 毓賱賶 賴賳丕亍 乇丨賲賴丕 丕賱賱賴 丨賷孬 賯丕賲鬲 賴賷 賳賮爻賴丕 亘賵囟毓 賯丕卅賲丞 賴匕賴 丕賱賰鬲亘
賴匕丕 乇丕亘胤 丕賱賲亘丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賱睾乇丕賲
賵 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賷乇 兀賵丿 兀賳 兀賯賵賱 兀賳賷 丕爻鬲毓賲賱鬲 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘丞 丕賱賲乇丕噩毓丞 亘賵鬲 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱氐賵鬲 廿賱賶 賰鬲丕亘丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賱睾乇丕賲
賵賴賵 亘賵鬲 毓馗賷賲 賷禺鬲氐乇 毓賱賷賰 毓賳丕亍 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賵 賷禺賱氐賰 賲賳 丕賱鬲爻賵賷賮 賵 丕賱賰爻賱
賴匕丕 賴賵
@transcriber_bot
賷賵賱丿 丕賱賲賵賱賵丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賮胤乇丞貙 賮兀亘賵丕賴 賷賴賵丿丕賳賴 兀賵 賷賳氐乇丕賳賴 兀賵 賷賲噩爻丕賳賴
乇丕亘胤 賲乇丕噩毓丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賶 賷賵鬲賷賵亘
賱丕 鬲亘禺賱賵丕 毓賱賷賳丕 亘廿賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲賰賲 賵 賳氐丕卅丨賰賲 賵 氐丕賱丨 丿毓丕卅賰賲
________________________________________
丕孬亘鬲鬲 丕賱丕亘丨丕孬 丕賱毓賱賲賷丞 丕賳 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 賱丿賷賴賲 賲賷賱 胤亘賷毓賷 賱賱丕賷賲丕賳 亘賵噩賵丿 禺丕賱賯 賰丕賲賱 丕賱賯丿乇丞 賵丕賱毓賱賲 賰賲丕 丕賳 賱丿賷賴賲 丕賷賲丕賳 賮胤乇賷 亘丕賱睾丕卅賷丞 賵賲亘丿兀 丕賱爻亘亘賷丞 賵賱賷爻 賱匕賱賰 毓賱丕賯丞 亘丕賱鬲賱賯賷賳 丨賷孬 賷賯賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賳賴 賱賵 賱賲 鬲賯丿賲 賱賱丕胤賮丕賱 丕賮賰丕乇 毓賳 丕賱丕賱賴丞 爻賷賰鬲卮賮賵賳 丕賱丕賱賴丞 亘丕賳賮爻賴賲
丕賲丕 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賱睾丕卅賷丞 賮丕賳 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 丿丕卅賲賷 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱 毓賳 丕賱丨賰賲丞 賲賳 賵乇丕亍 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍 賵賱賷爻 毓賳 丕賱爻亘亘 賮賴賲 賱丕 賷乇賷丿賵賳 丕賳 賷毓乇賮賵丕 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱賵乇丕孬賷丞 賱丕 亘賱 丕賱丨賰賲丞 賮賯胤 賲賳 匕賱賰 亘賱 廿賳賴賲 賷賲賷賱賵賳 賱丕毓胤丕亍 鬲賮爻賷乇丕鬲 丨鬲賶 賵賱賵 賰丕賳鬲 爻禺賷賮丞 賲孬賱 丕丨丿賶 賲噩賲賵毓丕鬲 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 賲賳 爻亘毓丞 丕賱賶 孬賲丕賳賷丞 爻賳賵丕鬲 鬲賲 爻丐丕賱賴賲 毓賳 爻亘亘 賰賵賳 丕賱氐禺賵乇 賲丿亘亘丞 賯丿賲賵丕 鬲賮丕爻賷乇 賲孬賱 賰賷 賱丕 鬲噩賱爻 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賮鬲丨胤賲賴丕 賵賮囟賱賵賴丕 毓賱賶 鬲賮丕爻賷乇 賮賷夭賷丕卅賷丞 "毓賱賲賷丞" 鬲賳丕丿賷 亘丕賱毓卮賵丕卅賷丞 賵丕賱氐丿賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賴賷 賲賳 丕賴賲 賲亘丕丿卅 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱丿乇賵賷賳賷丞
賵賷賯賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 賷丐賰丿 丕賳賳丕 賱丕 賳賳賲賷 賳夭毓丞 乇丐賷丞 丕賱睾丕賷丞 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲. 賵賱賰賳 賳賱夭賲 亘丕賳 賳鬲毓賱賲 賰鬲賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賷賱 賮賷 丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱乇爻賲賷 賵賲毓 匕賱賰 賷鬲爻賱賱 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲爻賷賷乇 賱賷馗賴乇 毓賳丿賲丕 賳賰賵賳 卮丿賷丿 丕賱鬲賷賯馗
賰賲丕 賷丐賰丿 丕賱亘丕丨孬賵賳 丕賳 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 賷賵賱丕丿賵賳 賲丐賲賳賷賳 亘賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕禺乇丞 賵賲丐賲賳賷賳 亘丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賰賱賷 丕賱丕丿乇丕賰 賵丕賱賯丿乇丞 賵丕賱毓賱賲 賵丕賱禺賷乇賷丞 賵丕賳賴 丨賷 賱丕 賷賲賵鬲 賵丕賳賴賲 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱孬丕賱孬丞 賵丕賳賴賲 賮賷 爻賳 丕賱孬丕賱孬丞 賲賳 丕賱毓賲乇 賷賮賴賲賵賳 丕賱賱賴 亘卮賰賱 氐丨賷丨 賵賱賷爻 丕賱賳丕爻
賵賷孬亘鬲 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲乇丞 丕禺乇賶 丕爻鬲丨丕賱丞 賮乇囟賷丞 丕賱鬲賱賯賷賳 賰賵賳 丕賯賳丕毓 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 亘丨賯丕卅賯 賰丕賱丕噩爻丕賲 丕賱亘賰鬲賷乇賷丞 丕賱賲賵噩賵丿丞 毓賱賶 爻胤丨 丕賱胤丕賵賱丞 賲孬賱丕 丕賲乇 卮亘賴 賲爻鬲丨賷賱
賵賳禺鬲賲 亘賴匕丕 丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻.
賷賯賵賱 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賳丿賲丕 丕氐丕亘鬲 賲氐乇 丕賱胤賵丕毓賷賳 丕賱毓卮乇 丕賯鬲賳毓 賮乇毓賵賳 丕禺賷乇丕 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賷爻丕賳丿 賲賵爻賶 賵丕賳 賵丕賳賴 賷噩亘 鬲丨乇賷乇 丕賱毓亘乇丕賳賷賷賳. 賱賰賳 賮乇毓賵賳 丕賱賷賵賲 乇亘賲丕 賷賱賯賷 丕賱賲亘賷丿丕鬲 噩賵丕 賱賯鬲賱 丕賱噩乇丕丿 賵丕賱匕亘丕亘 賵丕賱亘毓賵囟. 亘鬲丨賯賷賯 丕卮乇丕賮 丕賱丕賲賲 丕賱賲鬲丨丿丞 賱丨丕賱丞 乇賲賷 睾賷乇 卮乇毓賷 賱賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 丕賱賲匕亘賵丨丞 賲賳 丿賵賱丞 賲噩丕賵乇丞 賮賷 丕賱賳賷賱 亘賲丕 賷賮爻乇 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 賰賲賷丞 丕賱丿賲 賮賷 丕賱賲丕亍 賵賷氐丿乇 賲毓丕賷賷乇 丕賳亘毓丕孬丕鬲 賵丕賰孬乇 鬲卮丿丿丕 賮賷 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱鬲賳賯賷丞 丕賱丕噩賵丕亍 賲賳 丕賱馗賱賲丞 賵賷鬲賴賲 賲賵爻賶 亘卮賳 丨乇亘 亘賷賵賱賵噩賷丞 鬲爻亘亘 丕賱丿賲丕賲賱 賵賲賵鬲 丕賱亘卮乇 賵丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賵賷囟睾胤 賲賳 丕噩賱 賵囟毓 賲毓丕賴丿丞 丿賵賱賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賱賲賰丕賮丨丞 鬲睾賷乇 丕賱賲賳丕禺 亘爻亘亘 賰賲賷丞 賲丿賴卮丞 賲賳 賴胤賵賱丕鬲 丕賱亘乇丿
丕賳 賮乇毓賵賳丕 賲毓丕氐乇丕 賯丿 賱丕 賷乇賶 丕胤賱丕賯丕 丕賳 丕賱丕賵亘卅丞 賯丿 爻亘亘賴丕 丕賱賱賴 賵賱賰賳 賷乇丕賴丕 賲夭賷噩丕 賲賳 賮毓賱 丕賱氐丿賮丞 賵丕賱爻賷丕爻丞 丕賱亘賷卅賷丞 丕賱爻賷卅丞 賵賲丐丕賲乇丞 賲賳爻賯丞 鬲賳爻賷賯丕 噩賷丿丕 賵賲毓賯丿丞 鬲賰賳賵賱賵噩賷丕 賲賳 丕賱賲毓丕乇囟丞
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 囟賲賳 賲亘丕丿乇丞 兀胤賷丕賮
丕賱鬲賷 賵賯賮鬲 毓賱賶 賴賳丕亍 乇丨賲賴丕 丕賱賱賴 丨賷孬 賯丕賲鬲 賴賷 賳賮爻賴丕 亘賵囟毓 賯丕卅賲丞 賴匕賴 丕賱賰鬲亘
賴匕丕 乇丕亘胤 丕賱賲亘丕丿乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賱睾乇丕賲
賵 賮賷 丕賱兀禺賷乇 兀賵丿 兀賳 兀賯賵賱 兀賳賷 丕爻鬲毓賲賱鬲 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘丞 丕賱賲乇丕噩毓丞 亘賵鬲 鬲丨賵賷賱 丕賱氐賵鬲 廿賱賶 賰鬲丕亘丞 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲賱睾乇丕賲
賵賴賵 亘賵鬲 毓馗賷賲 賷禺鬲氐乇 毓賱賷賰 毓賳丕亍 丕賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賵 賷禺賱氐賰 賲賳 丕賱鬲爻賵賷賮 賵 丕賱賰爻賱
賴匕丕 賴賵
@transcriber_bot
April 23, 2022
賯乇丕亍丞 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰丕賳鬲 賲賲鬲毓丞 賵賱丕 卮賰... 鬲乇噩賲丞 鬲乇賮毓 賱賴丕 丕賱賯亘毓丞... 亘賷丿 兀賳賷 卮毓乇鬲 亘廿賳賮氐丕賱 胤賮賷賮 毓賲丕 賷賯丿賲賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賲毓 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 (亘毓賳賵丕賳 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩) 禺氐賵氐丕 賵賴賵 賷卮乇丨 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞 賵氐毓賵亘丞 鬲賯亘賱賴丕... 賵兀毓夭賵 匕賱賰 賱賰賵賳賴丕 鬲毓賵丿 亘丕賱兀氐賱 廿賱賶 噩匕賵乇賴 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱禺丕氐丞 賲賲丕 賷噩毓賱賴 賴賵 賳賮爻賴 賷賳毓鬲賴丕 亘丕賱賲賳丨乇賮丞 毓賳 丿賷賳 丕賱賮胤乇丞!! 賵亘丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 鬲毓賯賷丿 丕賱鬲賯丿賷賲 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 廿賱賷貨 兀馗賳 賵兀賳 丕賱賮賰乇丞 亘爻賷胤丞 賵賴賷 兀賳賳丕 賳賵賱丿 毓賱賶 丿賷賳 丕賱賮胤乇丞 賵賲賳 孬賲 賷賯賵賲 丕賱賵丕賱丿賷賳 賵丕賱賲丨賷胤 亘鬲賵噩賷賴賳丕 丿賷賳賷丕 賵賮賯丕 賱賲毓鬲賯丿丕鬲賴賲 賵鬲毓丕賱賷賲賴賲 丕賱丿賷賳賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷丐賲賳賵賳 亘賴丕!!
賱賯丿 賰丕賳 兀爻賱賵亘賴 乇丕卅毓丕 賵賴賵 賷卮乇丨 丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賯賵丿 廿賱賶 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 禺氐賵氐丕 賮賷 丕賱噩夭卅賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賳爻亘 賮賷賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱賳賮爻賴 丕賱賯賵丞 賲氐丿丕賯丕 賱鬲賯丿賲賴 丕賱毓賱賲賷 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷 賮賷丨氐乇 丕賱賱賵賲 兀賵丕賱孬賳丕亍 毓賳丿 賰賱 兀賲乇 賮賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丨爻亘!! 賵賰匕賱賰 毓賳丿 賳賯丿賴 賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲賱丨丿賵賳 賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賱賱丿賷賳 毓賱賶 兀賳賴 廿爻丕亍丞 賮賷 丕賱賲毓丕賲賱丞 鬲賲丕賲丕 賰丕賱丕毓鬲丿丕亍 丕賱噩爻丿賷 兀賵 丕賱噩賳爻賷!!
賯乇丕亍丞 孬丕賳賷丞 賮賷 乇賲囟丕賳...
兀賲賳丨 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 4 賳噩賵賲 賲賳 兀氐賱 5.
賱賯丿 賰丕賳 兀爻賱賵亘賴 乇丕卅毓丕 賵賴賵 賷卮乇丨 丕賱毓賵丕賲賱 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賯賵丿 廿賱賶 丕賱廿賱丨丕丿 禺氐賵氐丕 賮賷 丕賱噩夭卅賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賳爻亘 賮賷賴丕 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱賳賮爻賴 丕賱賯賵丞 賲氐丿丕賯丕 賱鬲賯丿賲賴 丕賱毓賱賲賷 賵丕賱鬲賯賳賷 賮賷丨氐乇 丕賱賱賵賲 兀賵丕賱孬賳丕亍 毓賳丿 賰賱 兀賲乇 賮賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵丨爻亘!! 賵賰匕賱賰 毓賳丿 賳賯丿賴 賳馗乇丞 丕賱賲賱丨丿賵賳 賱鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賱賱丿賷賳 毓賱賶 兀賳賴 廿爻丕亍丞 賮賷 丕賱賲毓丕賲賱丞 鬲賲丕賲丕 賰丕賱丕毓鬲丿丕亍 丕賱噩爻丿賷 兀賵 丕賱噩賳爻賷!!
賯乇丕亍丞 孬丕賳賷丞 賮賷 乇賲囟丕賳...
兀賲賳丨 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 4 賳噩賵賲 賲賳 兀氐賱 5.
November 8, 2021
亘丕賱賳馗乇 丕賱賶 爻胤賵丞 丕賱賲丿乇爻丞 丕賱鬲噩乇賷亘賷丞 賮賷 夭賲丕賳賳丕 賴匕丕 毓賱賶 毓賯賵賱 丕賱賳丕爻 賵丕丨鬲賰丕乇賴丕 賱鬲丨丿賷丿 丕賱丨賯 賲賳 丕賱亘丕胤賱 賵丕賱氐丨賷丨 賲賳 丕賱禺丕胤卅貙 賮廿賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱丕 賷爻鬲賴丕賳 亘兀賴賲賷鬲賴貙 禺丕氐丞 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賲賳賴貙 賵丕賱匕賷 爻乇丿 賮賷賴 賳鬲丕卅噩 鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賲賷丞 賳賮爻賷丞 鬲孬亘鬲 賳夭賵毓 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮胤乇賷丕 丕賱賶 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱廿賱賴.
賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞.
賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞.
August 30, 2015
鈥�. . . the facility with which children acquire and use god-concepts is obvious. Similar to how they come to reason about other people, children from religious families easily form ideas about gods. They readily explain events as possible consequences of a god鈥檚 activity. They make predictions and suppositions about god鈥檚 thoughts, opinions, and wishes. They apply ideas about gods in novel and sometimes personal ways. From where does this religious fluency come?鈥� (77-78).
鈥淭he easy answer (perhaps too easy) is that they are taught it: children believe because their parents (and other trusted adults) act as if they believe, and talk as if they believe. Until given strong reason to believe otherwise, this testimony is powerful. We might call this the indoctrination hypothesis鈥� (78).
鈥淭he question to be answered, then, is how and why many religious ideas are so easy for children to adopt鈥� (78).
鈥淥ne answer to this question has been at the theoretical center of the scientific study of religion and especially in the psychology of religion for over a century. The answer might be called the anthropomorphism hypothesis. . . . God was, is, and is being made in the image of people. By this view, children learn about people鈥攚hat they think, how they act, what they like鈥攁nd then analogically reason about gods鈥� (78-79).
鈥淭he anthropomorphism hypothesis further maintains that through the course of development, gods look less and less like a human because children have more sophisticated reasoning abilities to draw on to make sense of them鈥� (79).
鈥淔or Christian, Muslim, or Jewish children, God begins as a big person living in the sky and then either gradually or radically becomes an all-present, formless, unchanging, nontemporal, all-knowing, and all-powerful being. Crude anthropomorphism gives way to God as an abstract being with unusual properties鈥� (79).
In his book Born Believers, Justin Barrett argues for a what he calls 鈥渢he preparedness hypothesis.鈥� He argues that 鈥渃hildren do not have to reason about gods as they reason about humans. In fact, children鈥檚 minds actually facilitate the acquisition and use of many features of God concepts of the Abrahamic monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and perhaps those in other traditions as well . . . . Children may easily form ideas of God because their mental mechanisms have two properties that favor learning about God. First this equipment easily entertains nonhuman agents. Second, it appears to presume superhuman properties until it discovers otherwise. Superagents fall close to natural default settings鈥� (79).
鈥� . . . children are initially capable of understanding lots of beings鈥攆rom God to ghosts to gorillas鈥攁s well as they understand humans, and supernatural properties do not impose undue conceptual burdens鈥� (80).
鈥� . . . their minds assume that many superhuman properties are the norm鈥� (80).
鈥淒evelopmental psychologists continue to find evidence that the godly properties of superknowledge, superperception, creative power, and immortality, are quite intuitive, at least for young children. Concepts of God are easily accommodated because they play on many of these default assumptions rather than violate them鈥� (80).
鈥淎lready at age five, children treated God as significantly different from people (and animals) in the false-belief task. Children were not simply aping that 鈥楪od knows everything鈥� but apparently used their understanding of God鈥檚 superknowledge to solve a strange new problem鈥� (90).
Children 鈥渢heologically accurate鈥� from three years old on, while 鈥渢he majority of the children were not accurate regarding humans until five years old鈥� (90).
鈥淪o Piaget鈥檚 idea that children cannot conceive of God as different from a human being until around age eight or nine is mistaken鈥� (90).
鈥淔rom this experiment and others like it, it appears that the three-year-olds treat God and humans similarly, not because God is human-like but because people are, in certain respects, Godlike in terms of knowledge鈥� (90).
鈥� . . . we should more carefully scrutinize the beliefs of children than those of adults, particularly if they deviate from what adults believe. But adults generally do believe in gods鈥� (172).
鈥淭hat belief in gods begins in childhood and typically continues into adulthood places it in the same class as believing in gravity, the permanence of solid objects, the continuity of time, the predictability of natural laws, that causes precede effects, that animals bear young similar to themselves, that people have thoughts and wants that motivate and guide their actions, that some things are morally right or wrong, that their mothers love them, and numerous other ideas about the world . . . . These beliefs all arise early in childhood and typically persist into adulthood. If believing in gods is being 鈥榗hildish鈥� or 鈥榠mmature鈥� in the same respect as these sorts of beliefs, then belief in gods is in good company鈥� (172).
COUNTER EXAMPLE? False beliefs that persist into adulthood?
鈥淎s initially sensible sounding as the indoctrination hypothesis may be . . . this hypothesis has received little attention from scholars of religion. Several reasons for this neglect spring to mind鈥� (178).
鈥� . . . cultural anthropologists, religious studies scholars, and people raised in religious communities find the indoctrination hypothesis a caricature of what typically happens in religious communities鈥� (178).
鈥淓thnographies of religious belief and practice in traditional societies often stress the commonness of religious discourse and how it is neatly woven into daily life鈥� (178) LOOK UP REFERENCE.
鈥淩ather than coerce, threaten, and bully children into belief, adults simply believe . . . and act accordingly. They conduct the appropriate rituals, say prayers, discuss the meaning of life events, wonder about the activities of gods, and go about life as if gods were just as natural, normal, and certain as air, gravity, or germs鈥� (178).
鈥淭he one piece of 鈥榚vidence鈥� I hear most recently cited in relation to the indoctrination hypothesis is the observation that children tend to 鈥榠nherit鈥� their religion from their parents. Hindu parents have children who grow up to have Hindu beliefs鈥� (184).
鈥淚t does not follow, however, that if a child grew up with no Hindu parents and in no contact with other Hindus, the child would likely grow up without any religious beliefs or practices at all鈥� (184).
鈥淎s the indoctrination hypothesis attempts to account for why people have any and every kind of religious belief, the observation that specific varieties of religious beliefs are influenced by parents and social environment is irrelevant鈥� (184). SEE REFERENCE
Hauser鈥檚 book Moral Minds: 鈥淎ccording to Hauser, they possess a moral instinct (analogous to a grammar) that informs and restricts the range of moral rules that are likely to be received and understood as unchangeable norms鈥� (190).
鈥淚ndeed, Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and Deborah Keleman agrue to the contrary that children are biased to adopt some beliefs over others by the way their minds naturally function. Atran puts the place of belief in gods in startling strong terms when he writes: 鈥楽upernatural agency is the most culturally recurrent, cognitively relevant, and evolutionarily compelling concept in religion. The concept of the supernatural is culturally derived from an innate cognitive schema鈥欌€� (190). LOOK UP REFERENCE
鈥淎s anthropologist and psychologist Joe Henrich has demonstrated, perhaps for reasons of natural selection, people do not just blindly follow the example (spoken or otherwise) of any parent or adult in authority鈥� (194). LOOK UP REFERENCE
鈥淒awkins has suggested a view of the developing human child鈥檚 mind that assumes the young mind is blank slate just waiting to be filled in鈥� (194).
鈥淪uch a perspective lurks in many social sciences but has not squared with the state of the art in the psychological sciences for at least three decades鈥� (194).
鈥� . . . those of us who study religious thought and action鈥攕cientists and scholars such as Scott Atran, Jesse Bering, Pascal Boyer, Stewart Guthrie, Brian Malley, Bob McCauley, Deborah Keleman, Tom Lawson, Ilkka Pyysi盲inen, Jason Slone, Richard Sosis, Todd Tremlin, Harvey Whitehouse, and David Sloan Wilson鈥攄o not see religious ideas as intruders into human nature but as a wholly expected extension of the way humans are naturally put together鈥� (196).
鈥淗ow to teach children about God, what to teach, and when to teach it are all challenges that many parents, religious leaders, and religious educators face. The scientific research concerning children鈥檚 cognitive abilities relevant for religious thought certainly informs these questions鈥� (221).
鈥� . . . some have asserted that teaching children to believe in God is wrong鈥攅ven child abuse鈥� (222).
Nicholas Humphrey鈥檚 Amnesty Lecture: 鈥淐hildren, I鈥檒l argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people鈥檚 bad ideas鈥攏o matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children鈥檚 knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith./In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it鈥� (222).
鈥淒oes being taught the existence of an eternal hell during childhood cause comparable (or more) psychological harm than being physically or sexually abused?鈥� (224-225).
鈥淐onsiderable research on the relationship between religious commitment and psychological and physical well-being does exist, and the general finding is that committed theists are psychologically healthier and more equipped to cope with emotional and health problems than nonbelievers鈥� (225).
鈥淐hildren (generally) want to be what their parents are, on any number of religious and nonreligious dimensions, and to disallow them inclusion in that social circle is a form of emotional exile. Identifying with parents is natural鈥� (228). STUDIES FOR THIS?
鈥渦nrefined natural religion鈥� (229).
鈥減arents should, as much as children are capable, help them to learn how to think as opposed to simply telling them what to think鈥� (229).
Philosopher Roger Trigg: 鈥淭he right to religious liberty, however precious, can never be so unqualified as to leave the lives of young people at the mercy of those who have contempt for the voice of reason鈥� (232). And later 鈥淲hen religion cannot be transmitted to the next generation, it is not being freely exercised鈥� (232) SEE REFERENCE
鈥� . . . research does indicate that commitment to a religious belief system and participation in a religious community is associated with many positive outcomes. Actively religious people have been shown to enjoy more mental and emotional health, recover from trauma more quickly, have longer and happier lives, and are more generous, volunteer more, and actively contribute to communities more than nominally religious or nonreligious people do鈥� (233).
Robert Emmons on strivings
鈥淏eing actively religious, to the point that religious beliefs have an impact on one鈥檚 day-to-day goals or strivings, promotes well-being by structuring and ordering what is important in life, thereby reducing conflict, and thereby reducing mental and physical illness鈥� (234).
鈥淭he parents who regard their religious commitments as true and beneficial are justified in lovingly and thoroughly instructing their children in the ways of their religion鈥� (236).
ANECDOTE:
鈥淚 don鈥檛 believe that Jesus was born in a stable. It鈥檚 impossible. It doesn鈥檛 make any sense鈥�
鈥淥kay, well what do you think a stable is?鈥�
鈥淭hat small piece of metal that holds papers together.鈥�
鈥淲ell, I don鈥檛 believe that Jesus was born in a staple either.鈥�
鈥淯nless special environmental or personal conditions . . . get in the way, children will become religious without any direct instruction or teaching鈥� (238).
鈥� . . . the sort of religious beliefs children naturally acquire without any explicit input from adults will deviate from the worked-out systems of theology of the world鈥檚 religious traditions. Left to their own devices, they will likely become religious in some sense but probably in a sense more like what you would call superstition than a thoughtful, sophisticated belief and behavior system鈥� (238-239).
鈥淐hildren鈥檚 natural propensities toward religious thought and hunger for spiritual fulfillment will propel them toward some kind of religious expression whether trusted adults supply suitable targets or not鈥� (239).
鈥�. . . on their own, children will tend to become religious, but not necessarily in the best, most reasonable, or most beneficial type of religiousness鈥� (240).
鈥淗ere I offer some suggestions for those who wish to encourage children鈥檚 religious beliefs. I begin wit a caution: because participation in a religion can powerfully shape a person鈥檚 beliefs and values and can motivate people to both striking acts of benevolence or malevolence, I suggest parents examine the justifications for their own religious beliefs and commitments befoe blandly encouraging their children to own these beliefs. Parents should consider their reasons for beliefs of any kind, but perhaps especially those that may play a powerful role in their children鈥檚 lives if passed on. What I advocate is not a cynical stance but a humble one. We could be wrong about our commitments and should welcome what intellectual (including religious) traditions, the exercise of reason, and scientific evidence have to offer us by way of challenge, correction, or affirmation of our beliefs. Then when parents turn to offer insights to their children, they can feel confident that they have performed quality control on their own beliefs and are offering their children the best they have to offer. As a parent, I try to give my children skills for discerning the good and true in hopes that they will adopt my right beliefs but also reject my mistakes鈥� (240).
First recommendation is 鈥淪tart early鈥� (241).
鈥淵ou can teach about divine attributes such as being superknowing, superperceiving immortal, and wholly good. In fact, it may be that starting children when they are three may be more effective than waiting until they are eight or older鈥� (241).
鈥� . . . avoid abstract language and give children tangible thought problems through which they can exercise their understanding鈥� (241).
Superknowing: 鈥淐an God see what is in this darkened box?鈥� 鈥淭hat鈥檚 right! God can. But could your brother? Could a dog?鈥�
Immortal: 鈥淲hat was God like before you were born?鈥� 鈥淲hat will God be like many, many years from now?鈥� 鈥淲as there ever a time when God did not exist?鈥� 鈥淒id God need to be born?鈥� 鈥淲ill God ever die?鈥�
Creator: Draw children鈥檚 attention to what they are already inclined to see: the apparent function and purpose in the natural world. Then answer this question: But where does the design come from?
Roger Trigg Religion in Pubic Life paraphrased: 鈥� . . . often forgotten in discussions about children鈥檚 religious education is that religion is not merely an exercise in self-discovery or finding meaning for oneself. Religious education also concerns claims about how the world, humans, morality, and reality really are鈥� (242-243).
PERSONAL NOTE: My job is to know the resources well, so when the LIII children have a question I can direct them. 鈥淚鈥檓 not entirely sure. Let鈥檚 find out together鈥�
GET PAUL HARRIS research
鈥淗arris, an expert on how children learn through testimony, has begun systematically studying how children learn about unseen scientific entities such as germs and oxygen, as well as unseen beings such as spirits and God. He has emphasized the similarities in how children learn about these classes of entities as opposed to fantasy characters that their elders do not believe in, such as goblins and fairies鈥� (244).
鈥淒on鈥檛 say you believe in it or have faith in it; talk as if there is no question about it鈥� (245).
鈥淐hildren might be sensitive to the way 鈥榖elieving in鈥� is usually used for entities in which doubt of existence is possible鈥� (245).
鈥淚t may be appropriate on occasion to address the fact that others have divergent views. Scientists and other scholars do this with regard to cutting-edge areas of research where consensus is still being forged. But rather than say 鈥業 believe Y,鈥� the confident scholar says, 鈥淥thers believe X, but Y is the case, and here is why鈥� (245).
鈥淭alk about God in actual contexts in which God鈥檚 action can be detected鈥� (246).
鈥淗arris suggests that incorporating forces and agents into cause-and-effect relationships鈥攖he sorts of reasoning that children naturally pay considerable attention to鈥攎ay be more effective in fostering commitment than abstractly postulating a thing鈥檚 existence鈥� (246).
鈥淲ith this principle in mind, talking about God鈥檚 actions in cause-and-effect contexts in the here and now will be more effective than talking about God in the abstract or even what God did at the creation of the world, with Noah and the Flood or with Moses and the Exodus. These sorts of stories alone may give children the impression that God is more like a character in fantasy tales about fairies and ghouls than a real player in the world鈥� (247).
Chris Boyatzis LOOK UP #8 for Encouraging鈥�.Pehr Granqust Lee A. Kirkpatrick
鈥淭he hypersensitivity agency detection device...needs to be able to periodically link events in the world with the action of gods, or the gods will become less relevant鈥� (247)
鈥淧rayer, particularly asking and thanking God for common things like family members, health, and wealth, as well as mundane events . . . could help prime the one who prays to notice God鈥檚 actions. Of course, noticing God acting or even wondering at why God did not act as requested鈥ncourages bringing thought about God into causal connection with the real world鈥� (247-248).
鈥淣aturalistic or scientific explanations for events need not compete with or eliminate religious explanations. Multiple explanations may be true and helpful simultaneously. Hence, I am not suggesting that God or other religious forces replace scientific explanations but rather that they add ultimate causes behind the immediate causes鈥� (248) SEE REFERENCE
鈥淗arris offers that the exceptionality of the tooth fairy and Santa may encourage children to think of them as not of the same status as oxygen, germs and the like. Similarly, if you talk of gods, the ancestors, or whatever other religious entities you regard as real only during rituals or in places of worship or sacred spaces, or on special days such as Sundays or holidays, then you are tacitly communicating that these religious beings are relevant only under special conditions鈥� (249).
鈥淚nstead of talking about beliefs, using beliefs to generate inferences, attitudes, and feelings in lots of different contexts encourages depth of useful belief鈥� (250).
鈥溾€eep and broad religious beliefs鈥攖he kind that produce long-term commitment鈥攑robably come about through a similar process of seeing them used and using them over and over to solve problems, inspire actions, and evoke emotions鈥� (250).
鈥淎s developmental psychologist Chris Boyatzis rightly points out, religious belief in children is not just about their cool cognition. It is not just about what kids think, but also about what they feel鈥� (252).
鈥淭he easy answer (perhaps too easy) is that they are taught it: children believe because their parents (and other trusted adults) act as if they believe, and talk as if they believe. Until given strong reason to believe otherwise, this testimony is powerful. We might call this the indoctrination hypothesis鈥� (78).
鈥淭he question to be answered, then, is how and why many religious ideas are so easy for children to adopt鈥� (78).
鈥淥ne answer to this question has been at the theoretical center of the scientific study of religion and especially in the psychology of religion for over a century. The answer might be called the anthropomorphism hypothesis. . . . God was, is, and is being made in the image of people. By this view, children learn about people鈥攚hat they think, how they act, what they like鈥攁nd then analogically reason about gods鈥� (78-79).
鈥淭he anthropomorphism hypothesis further maintains that through the course of development, gods look less and less like a human because children have more sophisticated reasoning abilities to draw on to make sense of them鈥� (79).
鈥淔or Christian, Muslim, or Jewish children, God begins as a big person living in the sky and then either gradually or radically becomes an all-present, formless, unchanging, nontemporal, all-knowing, and all-powerful being. Crude anthropomorphism gives way to God as an abstract being with unusual properties鈥� (79).
In his book Born Believers, Justin Barrett argues for a what he calls 鈥渢he preparedness hypothesis.鈥� He argues that 鈥渃hildren do not have to reason about gods as they reason about humans. In fact, children鈥檚 minds actually facilitate the acquisition and use of many features of God concepts of the Abrahamic monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and perhaps those in other traditions as well . . . . Children may easily form ideas of God because their mental mechanisms have two properties that favor learning about God. First this equipment easily entertains nonhuman agents. Second, it appears to presume superhuman properties until it discovers otherwise. Superagents fall close to natural default settings鈥� (79).
鈥� . . . children are initially capable of understanding lots of beings鈥攆rom God to ghosts to gorillas鈥攁s well as they understand humans, and supernatural properties do not impose undue conceptual burdens鈥� (80).
鈥� . . . their minds assume that many superhuman properties are the norm鈥� (80).
鈥淒evelopmental psychologists continue to find evidence that the godly properties of superknowledge, superperception, creative power, and immortality, are quite intuitive, at least for young children. Concepts of God are easily accommodated because they play on many of these default assumptions rather than violate them鈥� (80).
鈥淎lready at age five, children treated God as significantly different from people (and animals) in the false-belief task. Children were not simply aping that 鈥楪od knows everything鈥� but apparently used their understanding of God鈥檚 superknowledge to solve a strange new problem鈥� (90).
Children 鈥渢heologically accurate鈥� from three years old on, while 鈥渢he majority of the children were not accurate regarding humans until five years old鈥� (90).
鈥淪o Piaget鈥檚 idea that children cannot conceive of God as different from a human being until around age eight or nine is mistaken鈥� (90).
鈥淔rom this experiment and others like it, it appears that the three-year-olds treat God and humans similarly, not because God is human-like but because people are, in certain respects, Godlike in terms of knowledge鈥� (90).
鈥� . . . we should more carefully scrutinize the beliefs of children than those of adults, particularly if they deviate from what adults believe. But adults generally do believe in gods鈥� (172).
鈥淭hat belief in gods begins in childhood and typically continues into adulthood places it in the same class as believing in gravity, the permanence of solid objects, the continuity of time, the predictability of natural laws, that causes precede effects, that animals bear young similar to themselves, that people have thoughts and wants that motivate and guide their actions, that some things are morally right or wrong, that their mothers love them, and numerous other ideas about the world . . . . These beliefs all arise early in childhood and typically persist into adulthood. If believing in gods is being 鈥榗hildish鈥� or 鈥榠mmature鈥� in the same respect as these sorts of beliefs, then belief in gods is in good company鈥� (172).
COUNTER EXAMPLE? False beliefs that persist into adulthood?
鈥淎s initially sensible sounding as the indoctrination hypothesis may be . . . this hypothesis has received little attention from scholars of religion. Several reasons for this neglect spring to mind鈥� (178).
鈥� . . . cultural anthropologists, religious studies scholars, and people raised in religious communities find the indoctrination hypothesis a caricature of what typically happens in religious communities鈥� (178).
鈥淓thnographies of religious belief and practice in traditional societies often stress the commonness of religious discourse and how it is neatly woven into daily life鈥� (178) LOOK UP REFERENCE.
鈥淩ather than coerce, threaten, and bully children into belief, adults simply believe . . . and act accordingly. They conduct the appropriate rituals, say prayers, discuss the meaning of life events, wonder about the activities of gods, and go about life as if gods were just as natural, normal, and certain as air, gravity, or germs鈥� (178).
鈥淭he one piece of 鈥榚vidence鈥� I hear most recently cited in relation to the indoctrination hypothesis is the observation that children tend to 鈥榠nherit鈥� their religion from their parents. Hindu parents have children who grow up to have Hindu beliefs鈥� (184).
鈥淚t does not follow, however, that if a child grew up with no Hindu parents and in no contact with other Hindus, the child would likely grow up without any religious beliefs or practices at all鈥� (184).
鈥淎s the indoctrination hypothesis attempts to account for why people have any and every kind of religious belief, the observation that specific varieties of religious beliefs are influenced by parents and social environment is irrelevant鈥� (184). SEE REFERENCE
Hauser鈥檚 book Moral Minds: 鈥淎ccording to Hauser, they possess a moral instinct (analogous to a grammar) that informs and restricts the range of moral rules that are likely to be received and understood as unchangeable norms鈥� (190).
鈥淚ndeed, Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and Deborah Keleman agrue to the contrary that children are biased to adopt some beliefs over others by the way their minds naturally function. Atran puts the place of belief in gods in startling strong terms when he writes: 鈥楽upernatural agency is the most culturally recurrent, cognitively relevant, and evolutionarily compelling concept in religion. The concept of the supernatural is culturally derived from an innate cognitive schema鈥欌€� (190). LOOK UP REFERENCE
鈥淎s anthropologist and psychologist Joe Henrich has demonstrated, perhaps for reasons of natural selection, people do not just blindly follow the example (spoken or otherwise) of any parent or adult in authority鈥� (194). LOOK UP REFERENCE
鈥淒awkins has suggested a view of the developing human child鈥檚 mind that assumes the young mind is blank slate just waiting to be filled in鈥� (194).
鈥淪uch a perspective lurks in many social sciences but has not squared with the state of the art in the psychological sciences for at least three decades鈥� (194).
鈥� . . . those of us who study religious thought and action鈥攕cientists and scholars such as Scott Atran, Jesse Bering, Pascal Boyer, Stewart Guthrie, Brian Malley, Bob McCauley, Deborah Keleman, Tom Lawson, Ilkka Pyysi盲inen, Jason Slone, Richard Sosis, Todd Tremlin, Harvey Whitehouse, and David Sloan Wilson鈥攄o not see religious ideas as intruders into human nature but as a wholly expected extension of the way humans are naturally put together鈥� (196).
鈥淗ow to teach children about God, what to teach, and when to teach it are all challenges that many parents, religious leaders, and religious educators face. The scientific research concerning children鈥檚 cognitive abilities relevant for religious thought certainly informs these questions鈥� (221).
鈥� . . . some have asserted that teaching children to believe in God is wrong鈥攅ven child abuse鈥� (222).
Nicholas Humphrey鈥檚 Amnesty Lecture: 鈥淐hildren, I鈥檒l argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people鈥檚 bad ideas鈥攏o matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children鈥檚 knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith./In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it鈥� (222).
鈥淒oes being taught the existence of an eternal hell during childhood cause comparable (or more) psychological harm than being physically or sexually abused?鈥� (224-225).
鈥淐onsiderable research on the relationship between religious commitment and psychological and physical well-being does exist, and the general finding is that committed theists are psychologically healthier and more equipped to cope with emotional and health problems than nonbelievers鈥� (225).
鈥淐hildren (generally) want to be what their parents are, on any number of religious and nonreligious dimensions, and to disallow them inclusion in that social circle is a form of emotional exile. Identifying with parents is natural鈥� (228). STUDIES FOR THIS?
鈥渦nrefined natural religion鈥� (229).
鈥減arents should, as much as children are capable, help them to learn how to think as opposed to simply telling them what to think鈥� (229).
Philosopher Roger Trigg: 鈥淭he right to religious liberty, however precious, can never be so unqualified as to leave the lives of young people at the mercy of those who have contempt for the voice of reason鈥� (232). And later 鈥淲hen religion cannot be transmitted to the next generation, it is not being freely exercised鈥� (232) SEE REFERENCE
鈥� . . . research does indicate that commitment to a religious belief system and participation in a religious community is associated with many positive outcomes. Actively religious people have been shown to enjoy more mental and emotional health, recover from trauma more quickly, have longer and happier lives, and are more generous, volunteer more, and actively contribute to communities more than nominally religious or nonreligious people do鈥� (233).
Robert Emmons on strivings
鈥淏eing actively religious, to the point that religious beliefs have an impact on one鈥檚 day-to-day goals or strivings, promotes well-being by structuring and ordering what is important in life, thereby reducing conflict, and thereby reducing mental and physical illness鈥� (234).
鈥淭he parents who regard their religious commitments as true and beneficial are justified in lovingly and thoroughly instructing their children in the ways of their religion鈥� (236).
ANECDOTE:
鈥淚 don鈥檛 believe that Jesus was born in a stable. It鈥檚 impossible. It doesn鈥檛 make any sense鈥�
鈥淥kay, well what do you think a stable is?鈥�
鈥淭hat small piece of metal that holds papers together.鈥�
鈥淲ell, I don鈥檛 believe that Jesus was born in a staple either.鈥�
鈥淯nless special environmental or personal conditions . . . get in the way, children will become religious without any direct instruction or teaching鈥� (238).
鈥� . . . the sort of religious beliefs children naturally acquire without any explicit input from adults will deviate from the worked-out systems of theology of the world鈥檚 religious traditions. Left to their own devices, they will likely become religious in some sense but probably in a sense more like what you would call superstition than a thoughtful, sophisticated belief and behavior system鈥� (238-239).
鈥淐hildren鈥檚 natural propensities toward religious thought and hunger for spiritual fulfillment will propel them toward some kind of religious expression whether trusted adults supply suitable targets or not鈥� (239).
鈥�. . . on their own, children will tend to become religious, but not necessarily in the best, most reasonable, or most beneficial type of religiousness鈥� (240).
鈥淗ere I offer some suggestions for those who wish to encourage children鈥檚 religious beliefs. I begin wit a caution: because participation in a religion can powerfully shape a person鈥檚 beliefs and values and can motivate people to both striking acts of benevolence or malevolence, I suggest parents examine the justifications for their own religious beliefs and commitments befoe blandly encouraging their children to own these beliefs. Parents should consider their reasons for beliefs of any kind, but perhaps especially those that may play a powerful role in their children鈥檚 lives if passed on. What I advocate is not a cynical stance but a humble one. We could be wrong about our commitments and should welcome what intellectual (including religious) traditions, the exercise of reason, and scientific evidence have to offer us by way of challenge, correction, or affirmation of our beliefs. Then when parents turn to offer insights to their children, they can feel confident that they have performed quality control on their own beliefs and are offering their children the best they have to offer. As a parent, I try to give my children skills for discerning the good and true in hopes that they will adopt my right beliefs but also reject my mistakes鈥� (240).
First recommendation is 鈥淪tart early鈥� (241).
鈥淵ou can teach about divine attributes such as being superknowing, superperceiving immortal, and wholly good. In fact, it may be that starting children when they are three may be more effective than waiting until they are eight or older鈥� (241).
鈥� . . . avoid abstract language and give children tangible thought problems through which they can exercise their understanding鈥� (241).
Superknowing: 鈥淐an God see what is in this darkened box?鈥� 鈥淭hat鈥檚 right! God can. But could your brother? Could a dog?鈥�
Immortal: 鈥淲hat was God like before you were born?鈥� 鈥淲hat will God be like many, many years from now?鈥� 鈥淲as there ever a time when God did not exist?鈥� 鈥淒id God need to be born?鈥� 鈥淲ill God ever die?鈥�
Creator: Draw children鈥檚 attention to what they are already inclined to see: the apparent function and purpose in the natural world. Then answer this question: But where does the design come from?
Roger Trigg Religion in Pubic Life paraphrased: 鈥� . . . often forgotten in discussions about children鈥檚 religious education is that religion is not merely an exercise in self-discovery or finding meaning for oneself. Religious education also concerns claims about how the world, humans, morality, and reality really are鈥� (242-243).
PERSONAL NOTE: My job is to know the resources well, so when the LIII children have a question I can direct them. 鈥淚鈥檓 not entirely sure. Let鈥檚 find out together鈥�
GET PAUL HARRIS research
鈥淗arris, an expert on how children learn through testimony, has begun systematically studying how children learn about unseen scientific entities such as germs and oxygen, as well as unseen beings such as spirits and God. He has emphasized the similarities in how children learn about these classes of entities as opposed to fantasy characters that their elders do not believe in, such as goblins and fairies鈥� (244).
鈥淒on鈥檛 say you believe in it or have faith in it; talk as if there is no question about it鈥� (245).
鈥淐hildren might be sensitive to the way 鈥榖elieving in鈥� is usually used for entities in which doubt of existence is possible鈥� (245).
鈥淚t may be appropriate on occasion to address the fact that others have divergent views. Scientists and other scholars do this with regard to cutting-edge areas of research where consensus is still being forged. But rather than say 鈥業 believe Y,鈥� the confident scholar says, 鈥淥thers believe X, but Y is the case, and here is why鈥� (245).
鈥淭alk about God in actual contexts in which God鈥檚 action can be detected鈥� (246).
鈥淗arris suggests that incorporating forces and agents into cause-and-effect relationships鈥攖he sorts of reasoning that children naturally pay considerable attention to鈥攎ay be more effective in fostering commitment than abstractly postulating a thing鈥檚 existence鈥� (246).
鈥淲ith this principle in mind, talking about God鈥檚 actions in cause-and-effect contexts in the here and now will be more effective than talking about God in the abstract or even what God did at the creation of the world, with Noah and the Flood or with Moses and the Exodus. These sorts of stories alone may give children the impression that God is more like a character in fantasy tales about fairies and ghouls than a real player in the world鈥� (247).
Chris Boyatzis LOOK UP #8 for Encouraging鈥�.Pehr Granqust Lee A. Kirkpatrick
鈥淭he hypersensitivity agency detection device...needs to be able to periodically link events in the world with the action of gods, or the gods will become less relevant鈥� (247)
鈥淧rayer, particularly asking and thanking God for common things like family members, health, and wealth, as well as mundane events . . . could help prime the one who prays to notice God鈥檚 actions. Of course, noticing God acting or even wondering at why God did not act as requested鈥ncourages bringing thought about God into causal connection with the real world鈥� (247-248).
鈥淣aturalistic or scientific explanations for events need not compete with or eliminate religious explanations. Multiple explanations may be true and helpful simultaneously. Hence, I am not suggesting that God or other religious forces replace scientific explanations but rather that they add ultimate causes behind the immediate causes鈥� (248) SEE REFERENCE
鈥淗arris offers that the exceptionality of the tooth fairy and Santa may encourage children to think of them as not of the same status as oxygen, germs and the like. Similarly, if you talk of gods, the ancestors, or whatever other religious entities you regard as real only during rituals or in places of worship or sacred spaces, or on special days such as Sundays or holidays, then you are tacitly communicating that these religious beings are relevant only under special conditions鈥� (249).
鈥淚nstead of talking about beliefs, using beliefs to generate inferences, attitudes, and feelings in lots of different contexts encourages depth of useful belief鈥� (250).
鈥溾€eep and broad religious beliefs鈥攖he kind that produce long-term commitment鈥攑robably come about through a similar process of seeing them used and using them over and over to solve problems, inspire actions, and evoke emotions鈥� (250).
鈥淎s developmental psychologist Chris Boyatzis rightly points out, religious belief in children is not just about their cool cognition. It is not just about what kids think, but also about what they feel鈥� (252).
August 10, 2024
賮胤乇賵賷丞 丕賱丕賷賲丕賳
賱賱丿賰鬲賵乇 噩爻鬲賵賳 亘丕乇賷鬲
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賵鬲賲 亘匕賱 噩賴丿 毓丕賱賷 賲賳 丿賰鬲賵乇 賮賷 噩丕賲毓丞 兀賵賰爻賮賵乇丿貙 賮賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賯爻賲 廿賱賶 噩夭卅賷賳 賲賳賴丕 丕賱兀丿賱丞 賵 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 丕賱鬲賷 丕爻鬲賳丿 毓賱賷賴丕 賮賷 賲丿丞 伲贍 毓丕賲 鬲賯乇賷亘丕賸 賲賳 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕亘毓丕丿 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞貙 賵賷卮乇毓 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賳 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賳丕爻 賷丐賲賳賵 亘丕賱丌賱賴丞 賲賳 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱乇丐賶 賵賷匕賰乇 賴匕賴 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞 丕賱兀賳孬乇亘賵賱賵噩賷丞 賮賷 丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲 賵賴賷 丕賳 丕賱丿賷賳 噩夭亍 丕爻丕爻賷 賲賳 鬲賰賵賷賳 丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲貙 賵賷亘丿丕 賮賷 爻乇丿 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱鬲賷 禺丕囟賴丕 賵丕賱鬲賷 兀噩乇賷丞 賮賷 亘毓丿賷賳 毓賱賲 賳賮爻 丕賱鬲賳賲賵賷 賵 毓賱賲 賳賮爻 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 賵睾賷乇賴賲 賲賳 丨賯賵賱 (賰丕賳 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 賮賷 丕賱丕孬賳賷賳 賵 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱丕爻鬲毓乇丕賮賷丞)貙 賵賰丕賳鬲 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 賯丿 兀噩乇賷丞 亘賷賳 兀爻乇 賲丨丕賮馗丞 賵兀爻乇 賱賷爻鬲 賲鬲丿賷賳丞 賵兀爻乇 賲賳 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱兀毓乇丕賯 賵 丕賱亘賱丿丕賳 賮賯丿 鬲賲鬲 亘毓囟 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 毓賱賶 卮毓賵亘 亘丿丕卅賷丞 賲孬賱 卮毓賵亘 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱賳丕賲賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻鬲賵胤賳 丕賱睾丕亘丕鬲 賵 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賷卮 賲鬲賰賵賰亘丞 毓賱賶 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟貙 賵賷賵囟丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕噩丕乇卅賴 賴匕賴 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵 丕賱賲孬賷乇丞 丕賳 毓賯賱 丕賱賮乇丿 賷賳賲賵 賵賮賷賴 丕爻丕爻賷丕鬲 賲毓乇賮賷丞 賵賱賰賳 賷丨鬲丕噩 賷賳賲賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞貙 賵賯丿 鬲賲鬲 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賶 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱兀毓賲丕乇 亘丕賱禺氐賵氐 賲賳 佶 - 侉 爻賳賵丕鬲 賵丕賯賱 賵兀賰孬乇 亘賯賱賷賱貙 賵賵囟丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賳賴 丕賱胤賮賱 賱丿賷賴 賲賳 丕賱賵賱丕丿丞 賯賵丕毓丿 丕爻丕爻賷丞 賷亘賳賷 毓賱賷賴丕 亘丨賷孬 丕賳 賷賮乇賯 亘賷賳 賲丕 賴賵 噩賲丕丿 賵賴賵 賲鬲丨乇賰 賵賷毓乇賮 丕賳 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 賲丕爻賰鬲賳賴 丕賲賴 丕賵 賱丕貙 賲毓 賲乇賵乇 丕賱毓賲乇 賷鬲胤賵乇 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 賱丿賶 丕賱胤賮賱 賮賷氐亘丨 賷賲賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱兀噩爻丕賲 丕賱爻丕賰賳丞 賵 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賲丞貙 賵賷氐亘丨 丕賱胤賮賱 賷乇亘胤 亘賷賳 丕賱胤丕賯丞 賵 丕賱丨乇賰丞 賮賷 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍 丕賱丨賷丞 賵 丕賱睾賷乇 匕賱賰貙 賵賷爻鬲賵毓亘 賯丕毓丿丞 丕賱丕孬乇 賷丿賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丐孬乇 貙 賵賷賵囟丨 丕賳 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賱丿賶 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 丕賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱賲噩乇丿丞 賵 丕賱賮賵賯 胤亘賷毓賷丞貙 亘賱 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱禺賷丕賱賷 賱丿賶 丕賱亘卮乇 賰賰賱.
賵
胤亘賷毓丞 鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 睾丕賷丞 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賮賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賲賳 丕賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱鬲賷 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵賴丕 廿賱賶 丕賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 .
賵賯鬲 鬲賲鬲 賲毓馗賲 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱睾丕卅賷丞 丕賱睾賷乇 賲賲賷夭丞 毓賳丿 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 毓賱賲 賳賮爻 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰.
亘毓丿 爻丐丕賱 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 丕爻卅賱丞 賲賮鬲賵丨丞 毓賳 睾丕賷丕鬲 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賲賳 丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賵 噩賲丕丿丕鬲 爻丕賱賵賴賲 爻丐丕賱 賲睾賱賯 賴賱 丕丨丿 鬲賵噩丿 丕賱丕卮賷丌亍 賮噩賲賷毓 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 賯丕賱賵 賳毓賲 丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賱亘毓囟 丕賳 丕丨丿 丕賵噩丿 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 丕丨丿 兀賵噩丿 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲.
貙
賵鬲賲鬲 賲賳丕賯卮丞 丕乇丕亍
噩丕賳 亘賷噩賷賴 賵 丕賱氐賳毓賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賵賰賷賮賷丞 丕賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賲丕 賷賲賷夭賵 亘賷賳 丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵 丕賱賲禺賱賵賯 廿賱丕 賮賷 毓賲乇 侉 爻賳賵丕鬲貙 賱賰賳 賷毓乇賮賵 丕賳賴 賮賷賴 禺丕賱賯 賲賳 丕賱丕爻丕爻.
賵兀毓鬲賲丿 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賱賶 賳馗乇賷鬲賷賳 賵賰丕賳 賲亘賴乇 賮賷賴賲丕 賵賴賲丕 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱毓賯賱 賵 賳馗乇賷丞 噩賴丕夭 卮丿賷丿 丕賱丨爻丕爻賷丞. 賵亘賳賶 毓賱賷賴賲 亘賳丕亍 乇氐賷賳.
賵賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷乇賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳鬲丕卅噩 亘丨孬賴 賵賷亘乇賴賳 毓賱賷賴丕 賲賳 賳賵丕丨賷 毓賯賱賷丞 賵賷亘賷賳 丕乇丕亍 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賵 丕賱亘丕丨孬賷賳
賲孬賱:
鈥庁ㄘз堎� 廿賱. 賴丕乇賷爻
鈥庁辟堌� 鬲乇賷睾
鈥庂堌з� 亘賷噩賷賴
鈥庂堌嘿娯辟囐� .
鈥庂冐ж� 賷爻鬲丨賯 賵鬲毓賱賲鬲 賲賳賴 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵 丕賱賰孬賷乇 毓賳 賳賲賵 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵 鬲賮賰賷乇賴 賲賳 丕賱氐睾乇 廿賱賶 丕賱賰亘乇 .
賱賱丿賰鬲賵乇 噩爻鬲賵賳 亘丕乇賷鬲
賰鬲丕亘 乇丕卅毓 賵鬲賲 亘匕賱 噩賴丿 毓丕賱賷 賲賳 丿賰鬲賵乇 賮賷 噩丕賲毓丞 兀賵賰爻賮賵乇丿貙 賮賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賯爻賲 廿賱賶 噩夭卅賷賳 賲賳賴丕 丕賱兀丿賱丞 賵 丕賱賳鬲丕卅噩 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 丕賱鬲賷 丕爻鬲賳丿 毓賱賷賴丕 賮賷 賲丿丞 伲贍 毓丕賲 鬲賯乇賷亘丕賸 賲賳 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕亘毓丕丿 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞貙 賵賷卮乇毓 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賳 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賳丕爻 賷丐賲賳賵 亘丕賱丌賱賴丞 賲賳 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱乇丐賶 賵賷匕賰乇 賴匕賴 丕賱賯丕毓丿丞 丕賱兀賳孬乇亘賵賱賵噩賷丞 賮賷 丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲 賵賴賷 丕賳 丕賱丿賷賳 噩夭亍 丕爻丕爻賷 賲賳 鬲賰賵賷賳 丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲貙 賵賷亘丿丕 賮賷 爻乇丿 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱鬲賷 禺丕囟賴丕 賵丕賱鬲賷 兀噩乇賷丞 賮賷 亘毓丿賷賳 毓賱賲 賳賮爻 丕賱鬲賳賲賵賷 賵 毓賱賲 賳賮爻 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 賵睾賷乇賴賲 賲賳 丨賯賵賱 (賰丕賳 丕賱鬲乇賰賷夭 賮賷 丕賱丕孬賳賷賳 賵 丕賱毓賱賵賲 丕賱丕爻鬲毓乇丕賮賷丞)貙 賵賰丕賳鬲 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 賯丿 兀噩乇賷丞 亘賷賳 兀爻乇 賲丨丕賮馗丞 賵兀爻乇 賱賷爻鬲 賲鬲丿賷賳丞 賵兀爻乇 賲賳 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱兀毓乇丕賯 賵 丕賱亘賱丿丕賳 賮賯丿 鬲賲鬲 亘毓囟 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 毓賱賶 卮毓賵亘 亘丿丕卅賷丞 賲孬賱 卮毓賵亘 丕賱丿賵賱 丕賱賳丕賲賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲爻鬲賵胤賳 丕賱睾丕亘丕鬲 賵 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賷卮 賲鬲賰賵賰亘丞 毓賱賶 亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟貙 賵賷賵囟丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕噩丕乇卅賴 賴匕賴 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵 丕賱賲孬賷乇丞 丕賳 毓賯賱 丕賱賮乇丿 賷賳賲賵 賵賮賷賴 丕爻丕爻賷丕鬲 賲毓乇賮賷丞 賵賱賰賳 賷丨鬲丕噩 賷賳賲賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞貙 賵賯丿 鬲賲鬲 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 毓賱賶 賲禺鬲賱賮 丕賱兀毓賲丕乇 亘丕賱禺氐賵氐 賲賳 佶 - 侉 爻賳賵丕鬲 賵丕賯賱 賵兀賰孬乇 亘賯賱賷賱貙 賵賵囟丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 丕賳賴 丕賱胤賮賱 賱丿賷賴 賲賳 丕賱賵賱丕丿丞 賯賵丕毓丿 丕爻丕爻賷丞 賷亘賳賷 毓賱賷賴丕 亘丨賷孬 丕賳 賷賮乇賯 亘賷賳 賲丕 賴賵 噩賲丕丿 賵賴賵 賲鬲丨乇賰 賵賷毓乇賮 丕賳 廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 賲丕爻賰鬲賳賴 丕賲賴 丕賵 賱丕貙 賲毓 賲乇賵乇 丕賱毓賲乇 賷鬲胤賵乇 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰 賱丿賶 丕賱胤賮賱 賮賷氐亘丨 賷賲賷夭 亘賷賳 丕賱兀噩爻丕賲 丕賱爻丕賰賳丞 賵 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賲丞貙 賵賷氐亘丨 丕賱胤賮賱 賷乇亘胤 亘賷賳 丕賱胤丕賯丞 賵 丕賱丨乇賰丞 賮賷 丕賱丕卮賷丕亍 丕賱丨賷丞 賵 丕賱睾賷乇 匕賱賰貙 賵賷爻鬲賵毓亘 賯丕毓丿丞 丕賱丕孬乇 賷丿賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丐孬乇 貙 賵賷賵囟丨 丕賳 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 賱丿賶 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 丕賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱賲噩乇丿丞 賵 丕賱賮賵賯 胤亘賷毓賷丞貙 亘賱 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱鬲氐賵乇 丕賱禺賷丕賱賷 賱丿賶 丕賱亘卮乇 賰賰賱.
賵
胤亘賷毓丞 鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 睾丕賷丞 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賮賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞 賲賳 丕賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱鬲賷 賷爻鬲禺丿賲賵賴丕 廿賱賶 丕賱兀賲賵乇 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵 丕賱賰賵賳賷丞 .
賵賯鬲 鬲賲鬲 賲毓馗賲 丕賱鬲噩丕乇亘 丕賱睾丕卅賷丞 丕賱睾賷乇 賲賲賷夭丞 毓賳丿 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賮賷 毓賱賲 賳賮爻 丕賱廿丿乇丕賰.
亘毓丿 爻丐丕賱 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 丕爻卅賱丞 賲賮鬲賵丨丞 毓賳 睾丕賷丕鬲 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賲賳 丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賵 噩賲丕丿丕鬲 爻丕賱賵賴賲 爻丐丕賱 賲睾賱賯 賴賱 丕丨丿 鬲賵噩丿 丕賱丕卮賷丌亍 賮噩賲賷毓 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 賯丕賱賵 賳毓賲 丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賱亘毓囟 丕賳 丕丨丿 丕賵噩丿 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 丕丨丿 兀賵噩丿 丕賱丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲.
貙
賵鬲賲鬲 賲賳丕賯卮丞 丕乇丕亍
噩丕賳 亘賷噩賷賴 賵 丕賱氐賳毓賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賵賰賷賮賷丞 丕賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賲丕 賷賲賷夭賵 亘賷賳 丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵 丕賱賲禺賱賵賯 廿賱丕 賮賷 毓賲乇 侉 爻賳賵丕鬲貙 賱賰賳 賷毓乇賮賵 丕賳賴 賮賷賴 禺丕賱賯 賲賳 丕賱丕爻丕爻.
賵兀毓鬲賲丿 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 毓賱賶 賳馗乇賷鬲賷賳 賵賰丕賳 賲亘賴乇 賮賷賴賲丕 賵賴賲丕 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱毓賯賱 賵 賳馗乇賷丞 噩賴丕夭 卮丿賷丿 丕賱丨爻丕爻賷丞. 賵亘賳賶 毓賱賷賴賲 亘賳丕亍 乇氐賷賳.
賵賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷乇賷 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賳鬲丕卅噩 亘丨孬賴 賵賷亘乇賴賳 毓賱賷賴丕 賲賳 賳賵丕丨賷 毓賯賱賷丞 賵賷亘賷賳 丕乇丕亍 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賵 丕賱亘丕丨孬賷賳
賲孬賱:
鈥庁ㄘз堎� 廿賱. 賴丕乇賷爻
鈥庁辟堌� 鬲乇賷睾
鈥庂堌з� 亘賷噩賷賴
鈥庂堌嘿娯辟囐� .
鈥庂冐ж� 賷爻鬲丨賯 賵鬲毓賱賲鬲 賲賳賴 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵 丕賱賰孬賷乇 毓賳 賳賲賵 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳 賵 鬲賮賰賷乇賴 賲賳 丕賱氐睾乇 廿賱賶 丕賱賰亘乇 .
May 10, 2025
Interesting and fairly easy read about the cognitive science of religious belief in children.
September 17, 2021
賳亘匕丞 毓賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘:
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷胤乇丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 毓賳 賲丕 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷賵賱丿賵賳 賲丐賲賳賷賳 兀賲 賱丕貙 賵賴賱 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 兀賳 丕賱胤賮賱 賷丐賲賳 亘賲丕 賷賲賱賷 毓賱賷賴 賵丕賱丿賷賴責 賵毓丿丞 賮乇囟賷丕鬲 兀禺乇賶貙 賵毓乇囟 亘賷賳賴丕 兀賯賵丕賱 賵兀亘丨丕孬 賵兀賲孬賱丞 賲賳 賵丕賯毓 丨賷丕鬲賴 兀賵 賯氐氐 兀購禺亘乇 亘賴丕貙 廿賲丕 鬲丿毓賲 兀賵 鬲丿丨囟 鬲賱賰 丕賱賮乇囟賷丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲貙 賱爻鬲 毓賱賶 賷賯賷賳 亘兀賷 胤乇賮 賰丕賳 賷賲賷賱 廿賱賷賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘貙 賵賱賰賳 賰鬲丕亘鬲賴 鬲賵丨賷 亘丨賷丕丿賷鬲賴 鬲噩丕賴 丕賱兀賲乇賷賳貙 賮賯丿 兀賷丿 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵乇賮囟 亘毓囟賴丕 鬲賲丕賲丕賸貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賳丕亘毓丞 賲賳 賮賰乇 丿賷賳賷 兀賵 賱丕 丿賷賳賷.
賱賲 賷賰賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賲丕 鬲禺賷賱鬲貙 賮氐乇鬲 兀噩乇 賳賮爻賷 噩乇丕賸 丨鬲賶 兀賳賴賷賴貙 賮丕賱丨賲丿賱賱賴 兀賳賴賷鬲賴 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍丞 賲鬲匕亘匕亘丞 丿丕賲鬲 賯乇丕亘丞 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 兀爻丕亘賷毓 鈥�
丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲:
"丕亘丿兀 亘丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賲亘賰乇丕賸貙 廿賳 丕賱丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 丕賱賯賱賷賱 賮賷 丕賱爻賳賵丕鬲 丕賱兀賵賱賶- 毓購賲乇 孬賱丕孬 廿賱賶 兀乇亘毓 爻賳賵丕鬲- 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 兀賰孬乇 賯賷賲丞 賲賳 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 兀賰亘乇 賮賷 賲乇丕丨賱 丕賱胤賮賵賱丞 丕賱賲鬲兀禺乇丞"
" 兀賳卮賶亍 毓賱丕賯丞 丌賲賳丞 賲毓 兀胤賮丕賱賰貙 賮丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷乇睾亘賵賳 亘兀賳 賷賰賵賳賵丕 賲孬賱 賲賳 賷丨亘賵賳"
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷胤乇丨 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲 毓賳 賲丕 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷賵賱丿賵賳 賲丐賲賳賷賳 兀賲 賱丕貙 賵賴賱 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 兀賳 丕賱胤賮賱 賷丐賲賳 亘賲丕 賷賲賱賷 毓賱賷賴 賵丕賱丿賷賴責 賵毓丿丞 賮乇囟賷丕鬲 兀禺乇賶貙 賵毓乇囟 亘賷賳賴丕 兀賯賵丕賱 賵兀亘丨丕孬 賵兀賲孬賱丞 賲賳 賵丕賯毓 丨賷丕鬲賴 兀賵 賯氐氐 兀購禺亘乇 亘賴丕貙 廿賲丕 鬲丿毓賲 兀賵 鬲丿丨囟 鬲賱賰 丕賱賮乇囟賷丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲爻丕丐賱丕鬲貙 賱爻鬲 毓賱賶 賷賯賷賳 亘兀賷 胤乇賮 賰丕賳 賷賲賷賱 廿賱賷賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘貙 賵賱賰賳 賰鬲丕亘鬲賴 鬲賵丨賷 亘丨賷丕丿賷鬲賴 鬲噩丕賴 丕賱兀賲乇賷賳貙 賮賯丿 兀賷丿 亘毓囟 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賵乇賮囟 亘毓囟賴丕 鬲賲丕賲丕賸貙 爻賵丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 賳丕亘毓丞 賲賳 賮賰乇 丿賷賳賷 兀賵 賱丕 丿賷賳賷.
賱賲 賷賰賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賲丕 鬲禺賷賱鬲貙 賮氐乇鬲 兀噩乇 賳賮爻賷 噩乇丕賸 丨鬲賶 兀賳賴賷賴貙 賮丕賱丨賲丿賱賱賴 兀賳賴賷鬲賴 亘毓丿 賯乇丕亍丞 賲鬲匕亘匕亘丞 丿丕賲鬲 賯乇丕亘丞 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞 兀爻丕亘賷毓 鈥�
丕賱丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲:
"丕亘丿兀 亘丕賱鬲毓賱賷賲 賲亘賰乇丕賸貙 廿賳 丕賱丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 丕賱賯賱賷賱 賮賷 丕賱爻賳賵丕鬲 丕賱兀賵賱賶- 毓購賲乇 孬賱丕孬 廿賱賶 兀乇亘毓 爻賳賵丕鬲- 賯丿 賷賰賵賳 兀賰孬乇 賯賷賲丞 賲賳 丕爻鬲孬賲丕乇 兀賰亘乇 賮賷 賲乇丕丨賱 丕賱胤賮賵賱丞 丕賱賲鬲兀禺乇丞"
" 兀賳卮賶亍 毓賱丕賯丞 丌賲賳丞 賲毓 兀胤賮丕賱賰貙 賮丕賱兀胤賮丕賱 賷乇睾亘賵賳 亘兀賳 賷賰賵賳賵丕 賲孬賱 賲賳 賷丨亘賵賳"
June 26, 2017
This book has two halves and a sort of subpart. The first is the evidence of children's belief from interesting experiments in the literature. The second is the applications or how that stuff works in the real world. The last two chapters are about how to be atheist and how to raise your kid religious which I think are supposed to be like instructions distilled from the rest, but just came off strange given tone of the rest of book. Regardless, this was an interesting pop science treatment of the brain science and development of religion in the minds of children. Other people talk about his bias in their reviews but I was just as likely to find him snarky about Christian beliefs as atheists.
April 16, 2025
4.5 stars. This is a fascinating argument for the naturalness of belief in God/a god and how children are uniquely placed to know this. The focus on this belief as a form of general revelation is useful. But mostly that its backed up by research. Half a star off as its a little dated now in its engagement with Dawkins and Hitchens, etc.
Interesting aside on the higher levels of atheism amongst men and the link with Baron Cohen's 'male-brainedness'
Great read!
Interesting aside on the higher levels of atheism amongst men and the link with Baron Cohen's 'male-brainedness'
Great read!
Want to Read
February 17, 2020乇丕亘胤 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲
乇丕亘胤 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞
乇丕亘胤 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞
April 29, 2021
Are babies born believers? Or the idea of God is only limited to adults? With the rise of developmental psychology in the last hundred years, research showed interesting and astonishing results. This book describes all of this in detail with scientific evidence both for and against.
Just Myth or a Fact?
Children's Idea of God
How do they Know Him?
Should Parents Play Any Role
Parenting is Important!
Choice is Theirs
Just Myth or a Fact?
In Islam, there is a concept called Fitra or the embed nature. It is indicated even in The Quran. According to this phenomenon, Allah embedded the loyalty to Him into our soul when He created it. Therefore, human beings are naturally inclined to believe in some sort of God. It does not need to be forced on him/her. Other major religions also have similar beliefs. But this is what religion tells us; what about science?
Children's Idea of God
Before asking whether a child believes in God or not, it is essential to know, "Can a child even recognize God?" According to the research, children can identify living things, physical objects, humans, and many more. They can identify the presence of both seen and unseen agents (things/beings). Not only that, they are eager to know the "why" or the reasoning behind everything. So, if there is a God, a child possesses the ability to identify Him.
Many scientific studies have shown that children are naturally inclined to God-idea as if they know Him very well. In fact, sometimes better than adults; especially in understanding supernatural powers like - beyond time-space, controls everything, the infinity of His properties.
How do they Know Him?
But how!? How do they know Him? The easy answer is - "From parents." Not so fast! The writer presented many studies against the Indoctrination Hypothesis or taught by parents.
For instance - If parents do not brainwash their child, would we lose all the religion from the world? Hypothetically, if atheism is natural, an atheist parent's child would remain atheist (but evidence shows otherwise). A calculation shows that, in that scenario, after 6 generations (approx 200 years), only 5% of the world population would be religious. But we do not see that, do we? Hinduism is here for thousands of years. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam are also surviving strongly for thousands of years. So, it is not indoctrination, something else must be going on.
Evidently, children do not simply trust what their parents or other authority figures tell them. If a child would listen/believe his parents that easily, our parents' lives would be more comfortable and pleasant. Parents know this very well. They just hope that their child listens or at least pretends to believe them. Furthermore, research shows that indoctrination can backfire, resulting in the child not being interested in what is taught anymore.
Should Parents Play Any Role
Outspoken atheists of present time like Dawkins and Hitchens compares parents effort to teach their children religiosity to the child (sexual) abuse. It is well documented in the scientific studies that 鈥� if a family follows the religious value more, the children would be more mentally, spiritually, socially, and physically healthy. In contrast, the negative effect of child abuse is also well documented. However, there is no scientific evidence on the relation/connection between these two experiences. Thus, without any structured scientific relation between them, such claim of Dawkins and Hitchens in their lectures, writings is irresponsible in general and dangerous for science. Undoubtedly, parents' responsibility is to ensure that their children grow up as good human beings.
Interestingly, the book also discusses in detail whether atheism is natural in children. In fact, it compiled a list of suggestions to become a successful atheist!
Parenting is Important!
It is evident from the research works of the last hundred years that children have a natural tendency towards believing in God. Yet, born believers need proper training to better utilize it. There is a story in the book. A child was asked how does he follow Jesus without seeing him? He answered, "I just watch daddy 鈥� he has to live like Jesus, and I have to live like him."
Children primarily want to be like their parents. At an early age, they try to find their hero in them. Thus, despite being born believers, parents play an important role in later development. For example- every child has a natural tendency to eat when s/he is hungry. But it takes guidance to teach him what to eat and what not to, what is healthy and what is not. In the last two chapters, the book discusses what role parents should play in children's theological development.
Choice is Theirs
In the conclusion of the book, the writer commented - people are free to make their own decision. Parents, teachers, and caregivers should make a proper effort to pass down what they believe as truth. But at the end of the day, it is their choice if they become a true believer or not.
Though children may be born believers, whether they die believers is between them and God.
July 24, 2021
Cognitive psychology of religion stuff, a growing field. Really interesting stuff.
April 11, 2025
Not as good as my christian described
June 7, 2012
There are certain actions our brains make which are so natural that we don鈥檛 even realize we are making them. One of these things is 鈥渂eliefs鈥�. We have the ability to believe and a Webster鈥檚 definition of the term but why and how do we 鈥渂elieve鈥�? Taking this a step further, Justin L. Barrett Ph.D shows the link between brain development in children and the ability, disposition, and even preference to have beliefs in something abstract or supernatural. 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� explores this connection between development psychology and religious psychology.
Barrett successfully captures the reader with thought-provoking ideas as early as the 鈥淚ntroduction鈥� of 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� (ever notice that EVERY single culture in EVERY single age has believed in a god of some sort?). Sadly, this instant reading excitement dims slightly as the actual text begins.
Initially, Barrett explains development experiments on the tendencies of babies and young children to believe that invisible 鈥渁gents鈥� create and/or control the order of the world. Although many of these experiments are interesting and even quite compelling; Barrett doesn鈥檛 thoroughly explain and connect these findings with his hypothesis. Much of the scientific elements seem related to existential theory and therefore results in the reader making his/her own connections to children鈥檚 beliefs in gods and religions. Simply put, there is too much room for interpretation and Barrett is not 100 percent clear or convincing, leading to a lack of being 鈥渂lown away鈥�.
Worried that 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� will contain too much scientific jargon or data? Rest assured, that is not the case. In fact, Barrett overdoes the level of simplicity and begins each chapter with a whimsical or humorous story. 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� also lacks in proper data or chart information. The hypothesis is weakened and the reader craves more scientific background versus less gloss. More than likely, the text was dummied down to attract the average reader but this resulted in too much simplification. Plus, the connection to religion is unclear at points. I gathered that babies (and humans, in general) need to attribute blame and creation to something or someone (or a force) but that doesn鈥檛 (per se) mean a belief in god or religion.
Another annoying writing tactic is Barrett鈥檚 constant 鈥渞ecap鈥� of previous arguments and chapters (which becomes tedious) and his mentioning of 鈥渨hat鈥檚 coming up鈥� creates the feel of a live television programming going into a commercial break. Fortunately, there are stronger moments as 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� progresses. For instance, I learned that my ability (or lack there of) to calculate 鈥渇orever鈥� and something 鈥渏ust being there鈥� versus being created is called 鈥渁rtificialism鈥� according to psychologists. Experiments are also discussed how young children attribute natural events/artifacts (mountains, tornado) as being created by 鈥渘ot humans鈥� and then choosing 鈥済od鈥� as the creator. Most children, even those pointed in other directions by their parents or educators; are prone to choosing creationalism over evolution or spontaneous generation.
Again, the level of compelling information becomes even more baffling (in a good way) as Barrett becomes more secure in presenting his information. The experiments and research are worth mentioning and will spark healthy debates. Further, they encompass all areas related to spirituality and beliefs on cultures all around the world, creating a very complete view and argument.
The second section of 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� dives deeper into how all of the evidence relates to the hypothesis, how children are born believers in 鈥渘atural religion鈥� and are not theologians (very different), and presents the arguments of whether religion is childish. Although not as strong as the first section, Barrett is still passionate and insightful.
Oddly, Barrett spends the entire book arguing that children are not forced or ingrained (neurologically) to merely believe what their parents insist on believing and yet later comments that children naturally want to relate to their parents even in religious forums. Contradiction?
Barrett wraps up 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� with tips on either becoming an atheist or encouraging (conversely) religion to children. As a reader without children of my own, I found this to be bland and skimmable but parents could find this useful.
Overall, 鈥淏orn Believers: is a good scratching of the surface and introduction to the topic which encourages further reading.
Barrett successfully captures the reader with thought-provoking ideas as early as the 鈥淚ntroduction鈥� of 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� (ever notice that EVERY single culture in EVERY single age has believed in a god of some sort?). Sadly, this instant reading excitement dims slightly as the actual text begins.
Initially, Barrett explains development experiments on the tendencies of babies and young children to believe that invisible 鈥渁gents鈥� create and/or control the order of the world. Although many of these experiments are interesting and even quite compelling; Barrett doesn鈥檛 thoroughly explain and connect these findings with his hypothesis. Much of the scientific elements seem related to existential theory and therefore results in the reader making his/her own connections to children鈥檚 beliefs in gods and religions. Simply put, there is too much room for interpretation and Barrett is not 100 percent clear or convincing, leading to a lack of being 鈥渂lown away鈥�.
Worried that 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� will contain too much scientific jargon or data? Rest assured, that is not the case. In fact, Barrett overdoes the level of simplicity and begins each chapter with a whimsical or humorous story. 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� also lacks in proper data or chart information. The hypothesis is weakened and the reader craves more scientific background versus less gloss. More than likely, the text was dummied down to attract the average reader but this resulted in too much simplification. Plus, the connection to religion is unclear at points. I gathered that babies (and humans, in general) need to attribute blame and creation to something or someone (or a force) but that doesn鈥檛 (per se) mean a belief in god or religion.
Another annoying writing tactic is Barrett鈥檚 constant 鈥渞ecap鈥� of previous arguments and chapters (which becomes tedious) and his mentioning of 鈥渨hat鈥檚 coming up鈥� creates the feel of a live television programming going into a commercial break. Fortunately, there are stronger moments as 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� progresses. For instance, I learned that my ability (or lack there of) to calculate 鈥渇orever鈥� and something 鈥渏ust being there鈥� versus being created is called 鈥渁rtificialism鈥� according to psychologists. Experiments are also discussed how young children attribute natural events/artifacts (mountains, tornado) as being created by 鈥渘ot humans鈥� and then choosing 鈥済od鈥� as the creator. Most children, even those pointed in other directions by their parents or educators; are prone to choosing creationalism over evolution or spontaneous generation.
Again, the level of compelling information becomes even more baffling (in a good way) as Barrett becomes more secure in presenting his information. The experiments and research are worth mentioning and will spark healthy debates. Further, they encompass all areas related to spirituality and beliefs on cultures all around the world, creating a very complete view and argument.
The second section of 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� dives deeper into how all of the evidence relates to the hypothesis, how children are born believers in 鈥渘atural religion鈥� and are not theologians (very different), and presents the arguments of whether religion is childish. Although not as strong as the first section, Barrett is still passionate and insightful.
Oddly, Barrett spends the entire book arguing that children are not forced or ingrained (neurologically) to merely believe what their parents insist on believing and yet later comments that children naturally want to relate to their parents even in religious forums. Contradiction?
Barrett wraps up 鈥淏orn Believers鈥� with tips on either becoming an atheist or encouraging (conversely) religion to children. As a reader without children of my own, I found this to be bland and skimmable but parents could find this useful.
Overall, 鈥淏orn Believers: is a good scratching of the surface and introduction to the topic which encourages further reading.
March 18, 2012
Received this book as ARC from 欧宝娱乐.
"The belief in God appears to be a naturally occurring human phenomenon" Agree or Disagree?
Dr. Justin Barrett has written a thought provoking novel on the subject of children and faith. Are we born believing in a supreme being? Or is it something taught to us?
This book is divided into two parts. Part one is labeled "The Evidence". It is primarily a listing of many studies Dr. Barrett used to explain his belief that we are all 'born believers'. He states (I am using a quote from an ARC- the actual quote in the published novel may be slightly different) "The vast majority of cultures, as well as the vast majority of people, believe in some sort of God or Gods" (page 21)
He lists not only studies, but information obtained by observing children.
I am not a theologian, nor an anthropologist.
I found part one of this book to read like a textbook. Long and dry.
Part two, "The Implications", was far more interesting to read. Dr. Barrett describes "natural religion". A term he uses to describe what we have from birth. He states this "natural religion" is in it's infancy. What's the most interesting? Chapter 10 explains his thoughts on Should we Introduce our Children to God? Now we are at the nitty gritty, the reason why I wanted to read this book. It was worth the wait. I learned a great deal. I found myself either nodding in response to something written, or shaking my head and thinking "Is he nuts?"
Dr. Barrett offers some suggestions for encouraging children's religious development. I agree with some of what Dr. Barrett writes. In all honesty, there are some things I don't understand, and some things I think are outright strange.
My thoughts- interesting book, but as as parent, no matter how many studies you throw my way...I'm not certain I believe Dr. Barrett's theories. It's comforting to think we are all born with previous knowledge of God, but I'm not certain I quite buy the idea. I think this is something theologians, philosophers and anthropologists may be arguing over for years.
"The belief in God appears to be a naturally occurring human phenomenon" Agree or Disagree?
Dr. Justin Barrett has written a thought provoking novel on the subject of children and faith. Are we born believing in a supreme being? Or is it something taught to us?
This book is divided into two parts. Part one is labeled "The Evidence". It is primarily a listing of many studies Dr. Barrett used to explain his belief that we are all 'born believers'. He states (I am using a quote from an ARC- the actual quote in the published novel may be slightly different) "The vast majority of cultures, as well as the vast majority of people, believe in some sort of God or Gods" (page 21)
He lists not only studies, but information obtained by observing children.
I am not a theologian, nor an anthropologist.
I found part one of this book to read like a textbook. Long and dry.
Part two, "The Implications", was far more interesting to read. Dr. Barrett describes "natural religion". A term he uses to describe what we have from birth. He states this "natural religion" is in it's infancy. What's the most interesting? Chapter 10 explains his thoughts on Should we Introduce our Children to God? Now we are at the nitty gritty, the reason why I wanted to read this book. It was worth the wait. I learned a great deal. I found myself either nodding in response to something written, or shaking my head and thinking "Is he nuts?"
Dr. Barrett offers some suggestions for encouraging children's religious development. I agree with some of what Dr. Barrett writes. In all honesty, there are some things I don't understand, and some things I think are outright strange.
My thoughts- interesting book, but as as parent, no matter how many studies you throw my way...I'm not certain I believe Dr. Barrett's theories. It's comforting to think we are all born with previous knowledge of God, but I'm not certain I quite buy the idea. I think this is something theologians, philosophers and anthropologists may be arguing over for years.
May 24, 2012
I received this book as an ARC from goodreads.
This book has an interesting premise that all children are born with the propensity to believe In a higher power. This Barrett refers to as Natural Religion, and does not necessarily translate into organized religious belief. The author uses results from several experiments to support this hypothesis. The second half of the book however, is more about how to mold those born believers into organized believers, which I think misses the point. If we are all born believers, what does not tell us about the evolution of the religions that exist today and how can we better understand religious beliefs of the past?
September 14, 2013
Interesting book with many psychological students of young children to see what they believe and when. It shows that belief in the supernatural is the norm for young children. It refutes some of the claims of the new atheists about religious belief in children and religious teaching of children.
The last chapter is probably most relevant for Christian Educators and Christian Families. It talks about how to teach religion to children and has a nice bulleted list of 10 things to do that will help pass on your beliefs to your children. So, if you have a hard time making it through the whole book, at least read the last chapter.
The last chapter is probably most relevant for Christian Educators and Christian Families. It talks about how to teach religion to children and has a nice bulleted list of 10 things to do that will help pass on your beliefs to your children. So, if you have a hard time making it through the whole book, at least read the last chapter.
June 23, 2012
I feel as though it should have been half as long and twice as interesting. I found it to be very repetitive and often found my mind drifting from what would have been a very interesting topic. However, less-than-exhilarating writing and sub-par story-telling techniques are to be expected from a scientist.
April 30, 2013
Interesting enough. Not as extensively researched, or the research wasn't as extensively explained, as others, but develops a case for how the human tendency to seek out cause and effect and determine agency (those things which can act indepently) leads to a natural affinity for belief in the supernatural.
March 12, 2012
Interesting premise, needs more substantive research to better sustain.
July 11, 2012
Really interesting for people of all religions, including atheists.
January 6, 2017
This book is serious stuff and requires careful reading, or to be in the zone of deep spirituality. Some parts are not a quick and easy read. But its probing and fascinating.
May 19, 2015
I received this book through Good-reads first read program.
It was rough.
It was rough.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.