What apologists do is quote mine some articles
That would require actually QUOTING. This is quote-mining:
"On the basis of their developmental evidence, some authors have consequently raised the question of young children being “intuitive theists” (Kelemen, 2004) or “born believers” (Barrett, 2007)."
Kiessling, F., & Perner, J. (2014). God–Mother–Baby: What Children Think They Know.
Child development,
85(4), 1601-1616.
If someone like "
LegionOnomaMoi" would actually read the articles s/he proposed
I've not only read them, in 1 case I was involved in the study and in cases that I didn't list I worked with the authors (admittedly, not with respect to CSR).
it would become clear that someone like Dr. Paul Bloom says that religions are nothing special
Which explains his various papers on the subject...For example:
"The proposal explored here is that
humans possess early emerging and universal cognitive biases, including hypersensitivity to agency, a natural propensity to see non-random design as caused by an intelligent designer, and body–soul dualism. These make it natural to believe in gods and spirits, in the divine creation of the universe, and in an afterlife. These are the seeds from which religion grows.
This proposal is controversial. Some would argue that it attributes too much to young children and that I am underestimating the role of culture and learning. Others would argue that it attributes too little: that there are specific adaptations that are unique to religion. Distinguishing between such candidate theories is perhaps the main research program of the cognitive science of religion."
Bloom, P. (2009). Religion belief as an evolutionary accident. In M.J. Murray and J. Schloss (Eds.).
The Believing Primate. Oxford University Press.
(also, even in his talk "
Religion is nothing special" he describes how religious beliefs are special).
However, while Bloom clearly regards religion "special" in particular sense (a human universal, albeit an "evolutionary accident" or "byproduct" as opposed to an adaptive trait), he doesn't go as far as other cognitive scientists/evolutionary psychologists here in that he doesn't believe children are "intuitive theists" or otherwise predisposed towards belief in
God:
"Consider belief in a divine creator. Young children are prone to generate purpose-based explanations of the origins of natural objects and biological kinds. They believe, for example, that clouds are ‘for raining’ and animals are ‘to go in the zoo’ [9]. However, there is no evidence that children spontaneously come to believe in one or more divine creators.
and that kids can be primed for any catch words or concepts. They are kids."
Banerjee, K. & Bloom, P. (2013). Would Tarzan believe in God. The conditions for the emergence of religious belief.
Trends in Cognitive Science, 17, 7-8.
But his work does contribute to the cognitive science of religion, and more specifically to the view that humans do indeed have some sort of innate proclivity towards religious beliefs. His beliefs about these innate proclivities are fairly mild: he doesn't hold, as many of his colleagues do, that religion emerged due to its evolutionary advantage nor that Tarzan would believe in god because of humans innately believe in god (I didn't choose Tarzan here, he did: Banerjee, K. & Bloom, P. (2013). Would Tarzan believe in God. The conditions for the emergence of religious belief.
Trends in Cognitive Science, 17, 7-8).
Dr. Olivera Petrovich also laments that there is no research for psychologists to dig into and determine where this religious belief comes from.
There is an entire field devoted to this question:
Barrett, J. L. (2011).
Cognitive science of religion: Looking back, looking forward.
Journal for the scientific study of Religion,
50(2), 229-239.
It is impossible to measure religious indoctrination and kids are prone to fantasy-based intention and purpose oriented explanations. Useless for any scientific research.
Wrong.
What they ignore is that tribes without any exposure to gods quite happily live without them and don't develop a craving for the super-natural.
This wasn't even ignored by armchair historians, ethnologists, etc. of the early 20th century, such as Campbell or Evans-Pritchard.
It's sad to see some apologists try and wriggle in their favourite god here somehow and at all cost.
I wouldn't know. I'm agnostic, and don't believe in or favor any god.
