Infants, under the sway of powerful internal and external forces, make sense of their environments by imagining a creative and intelligent agent, a grand controller who makes the sun shine and the night fall. Given the pervasive risk of blind spots and biases, we conclude by emphasizing the need for accountability, transparency, skepticism, open-mindedness, and collegiality among scholars. We are all Born Believers, explains Professor Justin L. We agree with Shook’s claims that researchers’ own beliefs may impact their research questions, methods, and interpretations of findings. Barrett builds his case using a variety of studies regarding infant and child reactions and behavior. things to act and things to be acted upon. Third, we consider whether certain additional features, besides (vague) god beliefs themselves, might be part of a human predisposition toward religious belief. Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief is a two-part overview (the evidence/the implications) of nascent research in child development which suggests children naturally believe. Second, we address the question of how both god believers and nonbelievers might have both favorable and unfavorable responses to claims of god beliefs being innate. In response to points raised by Shook, we first discuss several complications that need to be balanced when defining and assessing the innateness hypothesis. John Shook’s article “Are People Born to be Believers, or are Gods Born to be Believed?” (this volume) critiques research findings and writings by Justin Barrett suggesting that god beliefs may be innate among human beings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |