Religion's Effect on Children's Ability to Recognize Fiction

[The Silent Seraph]

The study has an immense number of problems, one of the most glaring of which is that the "fantastical" (what the researchers were quantifying as fake) stories were merely adapted stories from the Bible. The children had likely heard these stories already and were familiar with them on a religious basis.

[Nerdologist]

The Silent Seraph

The study has an immense number of problems, one of the most glaring of which is that the "fantastical" (what the researchers were quantifying as fake) stories were merely adapted stories from the Bible. The children had likely heard these stories already and were familiar with them on a religious basis.

They were not all identical to the biblical stories they were based on. And if you look at the actual paper, there were two different studies.

In the first study each child was presented with three distinct versions of a biblical story: religious, fantastical, and realistic. The religious narrative attributed the miraculous event to divine intervention, the fantastical narrative attributed it to magic, and the realistic narrative involved no miraculous occurrence at all. However, all three featured the same character names (taken from the Bible) and similar plots. Children who had been exposed to religion were more likely to classify the protagonists of the religious and fantastical stories as real.

In the second study children were presented with two stories adapted from the Bible that featured the familiar "causal violation" as well as another two versions that featured an entirely different, unfamiliar causal violation, but none used the same character names as the biblical story. One of the stories in each category (familiar & unfamiliar) contained the word "magic" and the other did not. The results revealed that there was about a 50% chance that children with religious exposure would categorize the protagonists in all four versions as real, whereas those without such exposure were much less likely to do so. Nevertheless, both groups of children were less likely to call the protagonist of the story with the word "magic" real than the protagonist of the story without that word. (Children were also asked to identify whether familiar historical people and fantasy characters were real or pretend, but religious exposure did not seem to significantly affect the results in this part of the study; the subjects usually answered correctly regardless of their religious background.)

[The Silent Seraph]

Nerdologist

The Silent Seraph

The study has an immense number of problems, one of the most glaring of which is that the "fantastical" (what the researchers were quantifying as fake) stories were merely adapted stories from the Bible. The children had likely heard these stories already and were familiar with them on a religious basis.

They were not all identical to the biblical stories they were based on. And if you look at the actual paper, there were two different studies.

In the first study each child was presented with three distinct versions of a biblical story: religious, fantastical, and realistic. The religious narrative attributed the miraculous event to divine intervention, the fantastical narrative attributed it to magic, and the realistic narrative involved no miraculous occurrence at all. However, all three featured the same character names (taken from the Bible) and similar plots. Children who had been exposed to religion were more likely to classify the protagonists of the religious and fantastical stories as real.

In the second study children were presented with two stories adapted from the Bible that featured the familiar "causal violation" as well as another two versions that featured an entirely different, unfamiliar causal violation, but none used the same character names as the biblical story. One of the stories in each category (familiar & unfamiliar) contained the word "magic" and the other did not. The results revealed that there was about a 50% chance that children with religious exposure would categorize the protagonists in all four versions as real, whereas those without such exposure were much less likely to do so. Nevertheless, both groups of children were less likely to call the protagonist of the story with the word "magic" real than the protagonist of the story without that word. (Children were also asked to identify whether familiar historical people and fantasy characters were real or pretend, but religious exposure did not seem to significantly affect the results in this part of the study; the subjects usually answered correctly regardless of their religious background.)

What you just quoted proves my point, and is one of the more major flaws in this study. Reading comprehension, away!

[Nerdologist]

The Silent Seraph

Nerdologist

The Silent Seraph

The study has an immense number of problems, one of the most glaring of which is that the "fantastical" (what the researchers were quantifying as fake) stories were merely adapted stories from the Bible. The children had likely heard these stories already and were familiar with them on a religious basis.

They were not all identical to the biblical stories they were based on. And if you look at the actual paper, there were two different studies.

In the first study each child was presented with three distinct versions of a biblical story: religious, fantastical, and realistic. The religious narrative attributed the miraculous event to divine intervention, the fantastical narrative attributed it to magic, and the realistic narrative involved no miraculous occurrence at all. However, all three featured the same character names (taken from the Bible) and similar plots. Children who had been exposed to religion were more likely to classify the protagonists of the religious and fantastical stories as real.

In the second study children were presented with two stories adapted from the Bible that featured the familiar "causal violation" as well as another two versions that featured an entirely different, unfamiliar causal violation, but none used the same character names as the biblical story. One of the stories in each category (familiar & unfamiliar) contained the word "magic" and the other did not. The results revealed that there was about a 50% chance that children with religious exposure would categorize the protagonists in all four versions as real, whereas those without such exposure were much less likely to do so. Nevertheless, both groups of children were less likely to call the protagonist of the story with the word "magic" real than the protagonist of the story without that word. (Children were also asked to identify whether familiar historical people and fantasy characters were real or pretend, but religious exposure did not seem to significantly affect the results in this part of the study; the subjects usually answered correctly regardless of their religious background.)

What you just quoted proves my point, and is one of the more major flaws in this study. Reading comprehension, away!

Why don't you back up that bald assertion?

[The Silent Seraph]

Nerdologist

The Silent Seraph

Nerdologist

The Silent Seraph

The study has an immense number of problems, one of the most glaring of which is that the "fantastical" (what the researchers were quantifying as fake) stories were merely adapted stories from the Bible. The children had likely heard these stories already and were familiar with them on a religious basis.

They were not all identical to the biblical stories they were based on. And if you look at the actual paper, there were two different studies.

In the first study each child was presented with three distinct versions of a biblical story: religious, fantastical, and realistic. The religious narrative attributed the miraculous event to divine intervention, the fantastical narrative attributed it to magic, and the realistic narrative involved no miraculous occurrence at all. However, all three featured the same character names (taken from the Bible) and similar plots. Children who had been exposed to religion were more likely to classify the protagonists of the religious and fantastical stories as real.

In the second study children were presented with two stories adapted from the Bible that featured the familiar "causal violation" as well as another two versions that featured an entirely different, unfamiliar causal violation, but none used the same character names as the biblical story. One of the stories in each category (familiar & unfamiliar) contained the word "magic" and the other did not. The results revealed that there was about a 50% chance that children with religious exposure would categorize the protagonists in all four versions as real, whereas those without such exposure were much less likely to do so. Nevertheless, both groups of children were less likely to call the protagonist of the story with the word "magic" real than the protagonist of the story without that word. (Children were also asked to identify whether familiar historical people and fantasy characters were real or pretend, but religious exposure did not seem to significantly affect the results in this part of the study; the subjects usually answered correctly regardless of their religious background.)

What you just quoted proves my point, and is one of the more major flaws in this study. Reading comprehension, away!

Why don't you back up that bald assertion?

If you can't read something and understand what it says, there's nothing to suggest you'd suddenly be capable if I restated it for you. Why don't you back up your *bold assertion of my error?

That means argue with logic, not copypaste from the article and claim that makes you right because... magic?

[Nerdologist]

The Silent Seraph

Nerdologist

The Silent Seraph

Nerdologist

The Silent Seraph

The study has an immense number of problems, one of the most glaring of which is that the "fantastical" (what the researchers were quantifying as fake) stories were merely adapted stories from the Bible. The children had likely heard these stories already and were familiar with them on a religious basis.

They were not all identical to the biblical stories they were based on. And if you look at the actual paper, there were two different studies.

In the first study each child was presented with three distinct versions of a biblical story: religious, fantastical, and realistic. The religious narrative attributed the miraculous event to divine intervention, the fantastical narrative attributed it to magic, and the realistic narrative involved no miraculous occurrence at all. However, all three featured the same character names (taken from the Bible) and similar plots. Children who had been exposed to religion were more likely to classify the protagonists of the religious and fantastical stories as real.

In the second study children were presented with two stories adapted from the Bible that featured the familiar "causal violation" as well as another two versions that featured an entirely different, unfamiliar causal violation, but none used the same character names as the biblical story. One of the stories in each category (familiar & unfamiliar) contained the word "magic" and the other did not. The results revealed that there was about a 50% chance that children with religious exposure would categorize the protagonists in all four versions as real, whereas those without such exposure were much less likely to do so. Nevertheless, both groups of children were less likely to call the protagonist of the story with the word "magic" real than the protagonist of the story without that word. (Children were also asked to identify whether familiar historical people and fantasy characters were real or pretend, but religious exposure did not seem to significantly affect the results in this part of the study; the subjects usually answered correctly regardless of their religious background.)

What you just quoted proves my point, and is one of the more major flaws in this study. Reading comprehension, away!

Why don't you back up that bald assertion?

If you can't read something and understand what it says, there's nothing to suggest you'd suddenly be capable if I restated it for you. Why don't you back up your *bold assertion of my error?

That means argue with logic, not copypaste from the article and claim that makes you right because... magic?

I wrote the entire thing myself, as a matter of fact. I pointed out that the stories were presented in unfamiliar formats as well as familiar ones. How is that not a logical critique of your claim?

Addendum: That wasn't a misspelling; bald assertion is a real term. I'm a fairly good speller. I also have decent reading comprehension skills. I could prove these things to you if you really wanted, but I don't wish to be thought of as a bragger.

[The Silent Seraph]

The stories, as I stated, were all extrapolated from Biblical stories. "Unfamiliar", as used in the study, merely means they changed "sea" into "mountain" and "God" into "magic", but the story's premise and events remain otherwise identical. That, coupled with the fact that they were easily able to distinguish between non-biblical fiction and reality shows that the researchers have created a biased system designed to trigger familiar pathways to produce manipulated results.

In addition, the study doesn't show what they claim it does, even disregarding their flawed methodology. It shows that secular children are closed-minded, and more apt to dismiss views contradicting their own, whereas religious children are more open-minded, and more apt to provide justification for unexplained events. Shortly put, the secular children would be those more likely to dismiss evidence which contradicted long-held beliefs, whereas religious children would be more likely to suspend disbelief and find explanations. This, interestingly enough, could serve as an explanation for why the champion minds of scientific advancement are primarily religious.

Now let's have your inevitable, ignorant debate of that last line.

[Nerdologist]

The Silent Seraph

The stories, as I stated, were all extrapolated from Biblical stories. "Unfamiliar", as used in the study, merely means they changed "sea" into "mountain" and "God" into "magic", but the story's premise and events remain otherwise identical. That, coupled with the fact that they were easily able to distinguish between non-biblical fiction and reality shows that the researchers have created a biased system designed to trigger familiar pathways to produce manipulated results.

I concede that it would be informative to conduct further research involving fantastical stories that bore no resemblance whatsoever to the biblical ones. I just couldn't tell from your initial post whether or not you realized that some of the narratives were quite different from what the Bible says. I personally think that the stories were altered enough to yield valuable information about what children exposed to religion are willing to believe.

You make a good point to bring up how easily the children could tell the difference between non-biblical fiction and reality. However, the examples presented during that part of the study involved familiar people/characters, so of course it was easy for them to make that distinction. The results from the story-based portion suggest that the distinction is not quite as easy for children who have been exposed to religion when they aren't familiar with the character, and have not had the chance to be told that said character is purely imaginary or that he/she was actually a historical figure.

The Silent Seraph

In addition, the study doesn't show what they claim it does, even disregarding their flawed methodology. It shows that secular children are closed-minded, and more apt to dismiss views contradicting their own, whereas religious children are more open-minded, and more apt to provide justification for unexplained events. Shortly put, the secular children would be those more likely to dismiss evidence which contradicted long-held beliefs, whereas religious children would be more likely to suspend disbelief and find explanations. This, interestingly enough, could serve as an explanation for why the champion minds of scientific advancement are primarily religious.

I don't think it really demonstrates much of anything about whether secular or religious children are more closed-minded. They both had to make a definite decision about the status of each character as real or fictional. In order to make a decision they had to close their minds to one possibility, but that doesn't mean they're closed-minded in the sense that they are unwilling to consider other possibilities when given a valid argument against their choice.

I don't know if that last sentence is true or not, but I won't dismiss it if you produce good evidence for it.

The Silent Seraph

Now let's have your inevitable, ignorant debate of that last line.

Please don't use that tone with me. I try to be as respectful as I can in these discussions. I'm not sure if anyone has ever tested my patience quite as much as yourself.

Edit: I found something else from the paper that's definitely worth pointing out, and this time I am going to quote it. In the second study, "religious children very rarely appealed to religion to justify their responses. This is in contrast to the findings from Study 1, where they appealed to religion for both fantastical and religious stories." So, perhaps the children didn't simply regard the stories as true because of their similarity to specific biblical passages, but rather because the children's exposure to religion and all its miracle claims has caused them to be less apt to recognize causal violations as absurd.