This story was on NPR today and cites some evolutionary scientists suggesting belief in God (whether or not God exists) provided advantages for early humans. So perhaps there is some genetic predisposition to believe in God or the supernatural. Link
Id Super Ego Ego (science has been slapping the right/religious around lately -- Lomborg, Hawking, the above study -- whap, whap, whap)
Belief in God is beneficial = evidence that God is not real? Am I understanding the point of your comments? Because that is what it looks like and it's ridiculous.
Ok, we're being told a group of scientists told a bunch of 5-9 year olds that they were being watched by a princess who could magically make herself invisible. The scientists then assume the behavior of the children is affected by their belief they are being observed. My question is: who is more gullible? A. The children B. The scientists C. The reporter D. The unquestioning reader
It can be sure. I think the last line of the article sums the whole thing up great though. Speculation. That's all. Romans 1 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
I'm not. But I sense that posting scripture on this thread reveals some troubled thoughts underneath. I'm kind of interested. Obviously, it's foolish to conclude from anything in this study about the existence or non-existence of a supernaturally divine deity. That's clearly not within the scope of the OP. But is it equally foolish to at least entertain the proposal that religious belief has been preferred throughout a period of human existence, in such a way as to infer that such beliefs possibly give humans an advantage for survival?
GT WT, I don't see anything "threatening" in the study. I just laugh at the notion that a group of 5 to 9 year olds would blithely accept the premise that a magically invisible person is watching them. I can't imagine any significant percentage of fourth graders buying that, and my son would have thought the scientists were crazy when he was in kindergarten. From that point forward, the entire study seems nothing but a series of assumptions under conditions that are so far removed from those that would confront a population facing survival issues that the whole thing borders on the ludicrous as a study. I don't know if I'd say that I'd disagree with the premises that a belief in a overseeing divinity is beneficial as a species survival trait. I just think the study is bunch of crap.
Please. Tell kid's that if they don't eat their beans the bogey monster that lives under the bed will come out at night and eat them. Scaring people with mysticism ain't new... just ask Glenn Beck.
See, that's just the thing: he wasn't attempting to prove that the bible was valid. He was essentially offering up a passage that highlighted the sort of distinction that I later paraphrased. And if my paraphrasing was welcomed by both GT and Old Hippie, then I don't see how they can't also praise the choosing of that passage. What is the problem, exactly? The bible passage that Monahorns quoted is absolutely on point, and anyone who praises my paraphrasing of that passage should also praise the passage itself.
You can see the "faith" style applied in this discussion by some. A) You're wrong B) Why am I wrong? What makes you say that? A) You're wrong because you're wrong B) Could you please elaborate? Huh?? I don't get you A) You're wrong
GT, He didn't take the time to read the thread. I stated a fact, which was, and is, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I will remain defensive of the truth.
I think that there is a big misunderstanding: People are coming to the thread looking for a fight over the existence of God, which is irrelevant to the study. I am really glad that you posted this- it's a cool experiment. However, the OP suggests that the findings can be extrapolated to humans in general, which is obviously not so. Clearing that up would probably go a long way to raising the quality of the discussion. That said, the greatest evolutionary fitness belongs to the group that does not believe in Princess Alice but which can convince a majority of their peers that she does exist and will reward behavior which benefits them and punish behavior which does not. This gets into the larger (and much more interesting question) of intra-species parasitism, in which anti-social creatures can take advantage of their altruistic peers. While there are nearly limitless examples of this, specific findings are confounded by the fact that most individuals will display both altruistic and selfish traits. One very interesting way of looking at this question is the horror genre of films and books (since we're on the topic of fantasy): horror generally focuses not so much on the evil/predatory force but on the group dynamics of the people pitted against it. That may seem like a stretch for a thread on 5-9 year olds being watched by an unseen Princess, but the base dynamic is exactly the same. Anyhow, I'll keep following this thread because I think that it has potential, even if it hasn't lived up to that yet.
