Are Children Intuitive Theists?

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

Notice what this argument is really saying - we expect God to be God and act like us.

That isn’t at all what the argument is saying. You have misread it, as indicated by your truncation of the sentence fragment you put in bold. Try restoring “all it takes to” in front of the bold bit.

[T_aquaticus]

@thoughtful

From the article - this but not in the way that you think.

A significant theoretical goal is to empirically discriminate the present hypothesis that children are inherently predisposed to invoke intention-based teleological explanations of nature and find them satisfying (see Bering, 2002, for a related stance) from the milder
hypothesis that children’s teleological orientation arises primarily from their possession of the kind of cognitive machinery (e.g., agency detection) that renders them susceptible to the religious representations of their adult culture—a position that predicts children would not independently generate explanations in terms of designing nonnatural agency without adult cultural influence.

What this tells me is that humans could have biases towards supernatural explanations. I would suggest that the case for religious beliefs would be strengthened if this bias did not exist. The chances of believing false religious claims is increased if we have a bias towards believing them which could cast more doubt on the question of how reasonable religious beliefs are.

[sfmatheson]

@thoughtful

Notice what this argument is really saying - we expect God to be God and act like us. But isn’t that actually rather odd?

Er, no, that’s not what this is “really saying,” at least not to me. I can’t actually tell where you got that from, but hey, you do you. As for whether human tendencies toward belief in the supernatural are “odd,” well, these theorists have convinced me of the opposite.

@thoughtful

What I’m saying is:
Kids see a lot of people running around with purpose who design things. They see other things in nature that are not designed by adults, so they also reason that a supernatural agent designed those things with purpose.

We’re wired for intelligent design and to see God as being like us.

Reaching theological conclusions from the behavioral wiring of humans seems bonkers to me, but… you do you.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

That isn’t at all what the argument is saying. You have misread it, as indicated by your truncation of the sentence fragment you put in bold. Try restoring “all it takes to” in front of the bold bit.

@T_aquaticus

What this tells me is that humans could have biases towards supernatural explanations. I would suggest that the case for religious beliefs would be strengthened if this bias did not exist.

@sfmatheson

Reaching theological conclusions from the behavioral wiring of humans seems bonkers to me, but… you do you.

I’m doing what the article said I’m wired to do. Since I believe in God, it makes sense to me that God designed us to understand we are like Him. Since you do not, it doesn’t make sense to you.

[T_aquaticus]

@thoughtful

I’m doing what the article said I’m wired to do. Since I believe in God, it makes sense to me that God designed us to understand we are like Him.

Biases do have a way of making certain beliefs make sense to some people. As children we may think the magician has supernatural powers when he makes someone levitate. When we grow older we look for the wires.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@T_aquaticus

Biases do have a way of making certain beliefs make sense to some people. As children we may think the magician has supernatural powers when he makes someone levitate. When we grow older we look for the wires.

You made me think of this video on skepticism. It refers to looking for those wires. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrGVeB_SPJg&t=5s

[sfmatheson]

@thoughtful

I’m doing what the article said I’m wired to do.

I’m wired to eat chocolate. Please tell me there’s some hope!

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Frank_robert

Three studies support this hypothesis, linking intuitive cognitive style to belief in God.

The first two studies show correlation only. I read through the section on the 3rd. I’m failing to see how it’s establishing a causal relationship, when it could actually be the other way around: As your belief in God strengthens you have a better intuition.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@sfmatheson

I’m wired to eat chocolate. Please tell me there’s some hope!

Matthew 7

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Revelation 3

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

[Frank_robert (Retired Psychologist)]

@thoughtful

I’m failing to see how it’s establishing a causal relationship, when it could actually be the other way around: As your belief in God strengthens you have a better intuition.

The causal relationship is shown in analysis of variance which is statically significant. Your statement concurs with the prediction.

As predicted, we found that participants who wrote about an experience that vindicated intuition (intuition-positive or reflection-negative) reported stronger belief in God

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Frank_robert

The causal relationship is shown in analysis of variance which is statically significant. Your statement concurs with the prediction.

As predicted, we found that participants who wrote about an experience that vindicated intuition (intuition-positive or reflection-negative) reported stronger belief in God

The emphasis seemed to be that it was only causal in the other direction. Or am I understanding it wrong?

[John_Harshman]

@Frank_robert

Your statement concurs with the prediction.

That depends on what “better” means. If it means “more trusted by you”, then yes. If it means “more likely to be true”, then no.

[AlanFox]

@thoughtful

The first two studies show correlation only. I read through the section on the 3rd. I’m failing to see how it’s establishing a causal relationship, when it could actually be the other way around: As your belief in God strengthens you have a better intuition.

You’re right to be skeptical. The trials used US citizens. Hardly a representative sample of humankind!

[T.j_Runyon]

@sfmatheson

Pascal Boyer.

Respect his work so much.

[AlanFox]

Evolutionary psychology has had a bit of a bad press. Should I read Boyer?

[Frank_robert (Retired Psychologist)]

@John_Harshman

That depends on what “better” means. If it means “more trusted by you”

That is the way I interpreted it.

[Frank_robert (Retired Psychologist)]

@thoughtful

As your belief in God strengthens you have a better intuition.

That relationship wasn’t measured. Wouldn’t it be likely that as your beliefs strengthened you would feel better about your intuitions.

[John_Harshman]

@Frank_robert

That is the way I interpreted it.

I don’t think that’s how it was intended.

[T.j_Runyon]

@AlanFox

Should I read Boyer?

Maybe @swamidass can walk over to his office one day and invite him over for office hours?

[T.j_Runyon]

@AlanFox

Evolutionary psychology has had a bit of a bad press. Should I read Boyer?

Some of it is justified, some isnt. It has grown and cleaned a lot of things up as a discipline. A lot of the criticisms of the field are misinformed. Also depends what evo psych you are talking about. Evo psych broadly defined incorporates fields such as behavioral ecology, paleoneurology, behavioral genetics, cultural evolution, developmental psych, etc. Though the evo psych you are talking about is the field developed by Tooby and Cosmides. That area has made progress. I would put Boyer outside that narrow definition. So yes, definitely read him.