Religious children have harder time between fact and fiction

Exactly.

Whether he believes it or not is irrelevant to the topic. Does he have a harder time distinguishing fact from fiction than if he had been raised with a strictly secular education? I don't see any evidence of that.And the topic is about children. Even if they do have a harder time as children they may still grow out of it as adults. I grew up in an environment that "should" have made me a creationist but it never did. It's not an assumption; it's a conclusion based on your posts in this thread.

Of course you don't....because you are a catholic and have to defend your faith.I am saying that those "silly" beliefs are exactly why religious kids have trouble differentiating fact from fiction because you don't tell them that those 'silly" beliefs are silly: you treat them the same as you do actual facts (even if you don't hammer home the veracity or lack thereof of them). Sorry, CS. It wasn't about "church going vs not", it is about secular vs church going (which implies religous).

quote:

---

The study found that, of the 66 participants, children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school were significantly less able than secular children to identify supernatural elements, such as talking animals, as fictional.

---

You're going to have to do better than "I am a catholic, so I think it's better than all the other religions"

It doesn't matter but it IS interesting. Why are you so shy?There's a problem of course. Transubstantiation is the defining miracle and qualifier of Catholicism. You promote yourself as a Catholic Scientist - the problem is obvious - bread and wine can't, scientifically, be the body and blood of Christ. So, what are you a scientist or a Catholic?

No, that's not the reason. And I'm saying that the Creationists are worse than the Catholics, for the reasons I've been explaining.There's a fundamental difference between "science is the enemy" and "we believe some weird stuff".I think an anti-science foundation would have greater effects on the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. I was going from memory... What I said came from reading this:

quote:

---

Irrespective of whether they attended a public school or a parochial school, children were asked about church attendance.
Specifically, after presentation of the final story, children were asked, Does your family go to services? Children who said yes were categorized as churchgoers. Children who said no were categorized as non-churchgoers.

---

But they do categorize them further:

quote:

---

For the 32 children who attended public school, 16 children were identified as churchgoers. The remaining 16 children were identified as non-churchgoers. For the 34 children who attended parochial school, 16 children were identified as churchgoers. The remaining 18 children were identified as non-churchgoers.

​

In summary, three groups of children had exposure to religion: churchgoers who attended public school; non-churchgoers who attended parochial school; and churchgoers who attended parochial school. A fourth group of children non-churchgoers attending public school had no exposure to religion in either church or school.

---

I think it would be interesting to look at the difference between Catholic children and Evangelical (or Creationist) children. While I expect they both do worse than the secular kids, I think the Catholics would do better than the Evangelicals.Do you disagree? I haven't said anything remotely like that.

I have no idea ...If you don't measure any difference is that because ...

1. ... there is no difference, ... or
2. ... you don't have a methodology\equipment to measure the difference ...

(okay I'll keep quiet now ... except to say that it still smacks of cannibalism to me ... maybe you need cannabis beforehand to get the full experience ... )enjoy

And who's to say that the element of Santa in us is due to the spirit of St. Nick pushing us ... ? Love Pogo - best comic strip every in my youth.Enjoy

It may not be the reason for you consciously, but it is what you are doing.At any rate, I am unsure we are close enough to the topic anymore because I think it is an entirely different subject to study which religious groups believe more fantasy. It's a bit like asking "who is the tallest hobbit?". All of you teach fiction as fact. If you didn't, there wouldn't be any asses in the pews. Given 400 years to consider facts, yes, any group can learn accept them. But then again: what is the catholic church's stance on contraception? On gay marriage? sure, they begrudgingly accept evolution, but only the theistic kind. So I suppose it is a step in the right direction. On the other hand, even creationists are making concessions.... I remain unconvinced that any given catholic is less susceptible to fantasy as fact than any given fundie. It's just a difference kind of fantasy.

Are you lambasting them because they rise to meet the changing needs of their followers or because you believe they're only doing it for their own sake?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

The latter.

Nope, its really not. This isn't about any given one, its about the children. Children don't live for 400 years

Yea I caught this article. It's pretty darn subjective to me and far from being a "controlled experiment". But the thing that made me laugh the most is that this article's roots stem from trying to prove that God doesn't exist. The exact same thing as trying to prove He exist's. What is that about trying to prove a false negative? So to me this study is just as bogus as creation science, i.e. NOT science at all.

I don't think it was that bad. The only criticism I'd give is that their sample size could have been bigger.And think about it: Why wouldn't kids who were taught that fictional stories were true have a harder time distinguishing between fact and fiction? I didn't see that at all. What part of the study made you think that? You're gonna have to support that accusation more if you want to convince anybody.

I think one thing being overlooked is that there is a cultural side to religion inaddition to the spiritual side.I do not take communion anymore because I no longer believe in transubstantiation.However, I lie to my young daughter (8) and try to raise her in accordance to the catechisms. Some day when she gets older she will be faced with the same realizations as many of us had to face. For now she is a child who still believes in magic.

Don't confuse "the Catholic Church" with the official position of the heirarchy. Your own reference says:

quote:

---

Only 30 percent of those surveyed believe they are actually receiving the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
29 percent think they are receiving bread and wine which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and, in so doing, are expressing their attachment to His person and words.
10 percent understand their action to be receiving bread and wine in which Jesus is present.
and 23 percent hold that they are receiving what has become the Body and Blood of Christ because of their personal belief. link

---

There is a diversity of opinion and understanding in the Church - i.e. among the members of the Church.