The following article inspired this blog post:
I came across this article on vox.com, which was a little
surprising since Vox generally writes about economics, politics, history and
other social trends as part of the new movement of “data journalism” along with
The Upshot (NY Times) and Fivethirtyeight (ESPN). With that background, I
thought they did a very good job of providing a neutral analysis to some
interesting research, and they actually came to two conclusions that were
interesting to me for different reasons.
The article starts with comments on a book written by Justin
Barrett, a researcher at Fuller Seminary, called “Born Believers” which
revolves around the thesis that children do not have to be taught to believe in
God, that it is hardwired into their brains. This is based primarily on the
observation that children have a tendency towards believing there is a
supernatural agent behind a world that has order and purpose. Barrett
acknowledges that this understanding can be overridden by circumstances such as
family and education, there is still a tendency towards religious beliefs.
Somewhat in response, a new article was published in
Cognitive Science that states that belief in the supernatural is a result of
education rather than, as argued by Barrett, something that would be hardwired
in the brain. In addition, “exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact
on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction.” In short, the
research published says that Barrett’s conclusion is wrong, children are not
born with a belief in God hardwired into their brain.
The methodology of the research was to give children three
types of narratives; religious, historical, fantastical, in regards to the
story of Moses and the Red Sea. They then interviewed two types of children,
those with religious upbringings and those without. They found, predictably in
my mind, that most children believed the historical narrative and also that
children raised in a religious setting believed the religious narrative and
those raised in a non-religious setting generally found the religious narrative
to be fiction. This is not really surprising.
What was interesting, and what leads to one of the
interesting conclusions from the article, was the response of the children to
the fantastical narrative (think Lord of the Rings). They found that the
children raised in religious settings were much more willing to see the
fantastical story as true, while those raised in non-religious settings saw it
as fiction.
The author of the study, who saw it as proof that religion
is not hardwired, saw this as an indication that religious children “have a
broader conception of what can actually happen.” She does not think it is a bad
thing, suggesting that religious children may be in a position to “accept
seemingly counterintuitive phenomena in ways that secular children might not.”
This could allow for the ability to develop broader frameworks and the ability
to engage in unexpected outcomes.
This conclusion made me instantly think about the
ramifications it may have for science. When we think of science in religion,
too much of the coverage and conversation is about how they are in conflict.
Part of this is justified, many of my brothers and sisters in the faith are
becoming dangerously and irresponsibly opposed to scientific findings (in the
variety of ways that I don’t want to get into at this time). There is a belief
held by some (mostly the hardcore atheists/secularists) that the pursuit of
science is incompatible with religious beliefs. I think that this study, in a
unique way, shows that is not the case. In fact, religious belief could have
very tangible benefits in research and discovery. I was especially intrigued by
the conclusion children who are raised in a religious setting seem to have the
ability to develop broader conceptual frameworks and the ability to accept
counterintuitive phenomena. These are key skills in research and inquiry.
The rest of the article deals with more contemporary issues
of how to interpret these issues and what this might mean for religious
education going forward. It is an interesting discussion and I suggest checking
it out for more in depth thought if you are interested. What struck me about
the debate, and about the positions that are taken, is that people will take
the same information and research and draw pretty much opposite conclusions.
Not surprisingly, these conclusions will be based on what your previous
worldviews were before you encountered the research. I do suppose I could be
somewhat guilty myself, as I am definitely playing up the results of the
findings that I find interesting, though I will say that reading the summary of
the book and of the article that were published, it didn’t really do much for
my mind one way or another about whether humans are born with an innate belief
in God.
The second conclusion that was interesting to me was just
how neutral the author of the article was on the issue of religious education.
I was especially intrigued by the way that they flipped the script in thinking
that the indoctrination of children might not be in teaching religion, but in
teaching no religion, as was quoted by Barrett. I am not sure if scientific
study will ever be able to get to the heart of this issue.
C S Lewis also said that “we have a God shaped hole in our
heart” and in a sense that is what I believe too. I spoke a little bit more
about this in my reflection of Jesus as the perfect philosopher:
For those that do believe in God, I think it is important to
remember that it can happen in all sorts of ways at all different times of
their lives. I don’t doubt that parents will pass on what they know to their
children, but there is ultimately much more to the story of how God works.
Very interesting piece Steve. It opens all sort of possibilities. On the other hand, we also need to deal with the fact that "evil" or the inclination to do evil is also innate. Ever wonder why we don't need to teach our toddlers "to not share,"? or not take other's children's toys?, or to not envy?
ReplyDelete