I thought the following comment from Dave (whose blog you should definitely check out) deserved its own discussion thread:
I’m almost finished reading a book called Joker One and part way through the book the author (a former marine lieutenant who served in Iraq) starts to talk about God. He is recounting his time in Iraq and just described the first loss of life that occurred within his own platoon. He decides that it is better to believe in God and his logic goes something like this:
If there is no God then there is no hope for his dead comrade. He is gone forever and has served and died for no ultimate purpose.
If there is a God then there is hope that this man is still alive in Heaven and has sacrificed himself for the greater good serving a higher purpose.
I think the point he makes brings up a good question: Would we be better off having hope in an afterlife from a pragmatic point of view? Would we be happier and less prone to become depressed if we at least clung to some *hope* that there is a better life waiting for us after we die? Would this hope do us any harm in the here and now or is it possible that holding on to this hope could make us a better person?
Let the discussion commence!
Finding Truth 
Hi Ken, sure, but here we are discussing a soldier’s religious beliefs and why he might hold on to them under stress.
LikeLike
“When I was in the Australian Army (45 years ago now) we were told that God-believers made better soldiers because of that (I’m not sure as a near-pacifist that I am very happy with that!)”
Hitler shared this same view. He required every soldier to wear a belt buckle which said, “Gott Mit Uns which means God With Us.
Now to be entirely fair unkleE, instead of framing something to support my comment, this Motto was used by German Armies dating back to the 17th Century. Hitler was just one of many commanders to do this.
LikeLike
Hi John, yes I said that. Barrett & Newberg and co find one thing, and others such as Bloom disagree. I pointed out there were both views, and that is the fair thing to do. I’m not sure if your statement recognises both views??
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE
You actually said “but there is evidence for it”… and this is just false, as Bloom points out: “There is no evidence that belief in the afterlife arises spontaneously in the absence of cultural support.”
LikeLike
John, because Paul Bloom says it doesn’t make it true. Justin Barrett disagrees, but I don’t say that what he says is true either. I just say both men are scientists and they work on evidence and they come to different conclusions. Do you think it is right to accept one and ignore the other?
But check out what I said: “arises very naturally in young children even if they don’t have a religious upbringing”. I didn’t say they were “born with” belief or that belief arose “spontaneously in the absence of cultural support”, just that it is natural (not something that has to be forced) and can arise in people not brought up religious. Nothing you’ve said contradicts that.
LikeLike
UnkleE, you quite specifically said “there is evidence for it” and this is just wrong. What there is strong evidence for is children naturally finding agency in nature. “Agency” and a belief in an “after life” are not the same thing, so no, there is no evidence for your claim, just wishful thinking on the part of Barrett.
LikeLike
Yes, I did say that because that is what research headed by Barrett has found, he says. Bloom disagrees and says there is no evidence. So I am justified in saying that there is evidence but others disagree.
So may I ask you again: why do you think only one side of the question should be taken notice of?
LikeLike
Interesting points, unkleE. Thanks, as always!
LikeLike
Ah, finally caught up with all the comments now.
John, thanks for posting the stuff from Bloom, too. I wasn’t familiar with him or Barrett, so this has been interesting.
LikeLike
Since we are talking about children now, perhaps we could pose the OP question again, but this time focus on little ones. What do you tell a child when they ask about a grandparent or other relative that has passed away?
It seems the easy thing to do is to say that the relative is gone, living in a happy place like heaven and set the child at ease. Is this acceptable or unacceptable?
For my part, and I have had to deal with this not too long ago, I just tell them what I know and leave the rest out. They can fill in the blanks themselves if they wish. “So-and-so has died and no longer lives with aunt d. He’s not there anymore.” If they specifically ask if there is a heaven, I’ll just state that I don’t know. This uncertainty may trouble them, but at least I’m being honest.
LikeLike
That’s a great question, Dave. My wife and I do something similar. We acknowledge that there could be something after this life, but we also stress that if there isn’t, then the person who’s passed away doesn’t know it, doesn’t feel bad about it, etc. And we also talk a lot about how people live on through our memories. My grandfather died in 2008, but we still talk about him and think about him all the time. His influence is still strongly felt, even now.
I think it would be easier to be able to tell the kids that their loved one still exists in some way and that they’ll see them again one day. But I also think it can be confusing, since the obvious question is “then why can’t we go ahead and see them now?”
I think the bottom line is that death is sad — and for kids, it can be confusing — no matter what your outlook on the hereafter is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s true. And if we make death sound like the entrance to a heavenly wonderland they may want to try it out ~scary thought~.
Reminds me of the apostle Paul and how he spoke of his desire to “depart”. Fortunately, I don’t see a lot of Christians killing themselves so they can see Jesus and live in heaven. That would probably change my indifference over what they believe in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi UnkleE
Are there “two” sides, UnkleE, or is Barrett (who is employed by the Fuller Theological Seminary) inflating findings to meet his theological/emotional needs?
From your link: Studies by Emily Reed Burdett and Justin Barrett, from the University of Oxford, suggest that children below the age of five find it easier to believe in some superhuman properties than to understand similar human limitations.
Yes, this is how we find agency in nature. I don’t doubt this for one moment. In fact, I’d be surprised if very young children didn’t do this. Finding agency is the product of a huge brain capable of anticipatory thought. It’s why we jump at a rustle in the grass. It’s a highly beneficial evolutionary adaption. I would call this perfectly natural given our capacities. It’s also a fine explanation for our sense of mind/body dualism. I stress ‘sense’ here because brain injury studies (including split brain cases) strongly refute any factual basis to this perceived concept.
Now, don’t get me wrong: I would in many respects argue that our tendency to formative supernatural notions is hardwired (I argue this point strongly, in fact, in my book), but I would stress here that conflating this natural tendency (a tendency that has an evolutionary explanation) to structured beliefs in god and an afterlife is an unfounded leap. To demonstrate this I would perhaps cite Palaeolithic burials with grave goods. That is our first physical evidence of a belief in an afterlife; an imagined realm where the dead has some use for the tools, jewellery, and personal items included with the body. The earliest Palaeolithic burials with grave goods we’re presently aware of are 90,000 years old. Human’s became what we consider “human” 200,000 years ago, or perhaps even later. This would demonstrate to me that concepts of afterlife are entirely cultural.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Dave
Great question. I was recently asked to pen a secular children’s story concerning exactly this, the death of a grandfather. Below is just a snippet
But Grandpa died. His thoughts stopped, and all those things that made Grandpa were freed to drift away and become other things.
Grandpa is a bird
Grandpa is a fish
Grandpa is a bridge
Grandpa is a leaf
Grandpa is a lion
Grandpa is a whale
Grandpa is a drop of rain
Grandpa is a billion other things today
and one day, again, he will be a star, just like you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let us know when that book’s available, John!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“conflating this natural tendency (a tendency that has an evolutionary explanation) to structured beliefs in god and an afterlife is an unfounded leap”
Hi John,
Well that is a bit clearer. But fortunately, I haven’t conflated any of this at all. I have just said that children find it natural to believe in an afterlife, I didn’t say “spontaneously” or anything like that (that is the bit where Barrett and Bloom and others disagree, and taking either of them without recognising the opposing view isn’t not fair to the evidence), I didn’t suggest anything about whether the belief was justified. I was just pointing out that it likely wasn’t a case of the soldier we are discussing having to drum up some belief to give his mind peace, it was more likely that he had some belief innately, for whatever reason, and it may have been quiescent or rejected, but became stronger in those circumstances.
“Are there “two” sides, UnkleE, or is Barrett (who is employed by the Fuller Theological Seminary) inflating findings to meet his theological/emotional needs?”
You may be surprised how often some atheists, when confronted with research they don’t like, make assertions that denigrate the researcher rather than accept what they have found. Barrett wasn’t worked on his own on this, but was one of the lead researchers in a three-year international research project involving researchers from several countries, and he was at the time director of the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford University.
And all you can do is make some snide comment about the fact that he happens to be a christian? That is unworthy. Imagine how crappy it would be if I made the equally possible suggestion that Bloom was biased, or that you were!?
So let’s leave that behind.
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE
You may be surprised how often some atheists, when confronted with research they don’t like, make assertions that denigrate the researcher rather than accept what they have found.
I read the paper, it doesn’t contradict what I am saying, nor truly add anything new to current understandings concerning the evolutionary explanation for the benefits of finding agency in nature. And I’m afraid it is necessary—vital even—to qualify Barrett’s position on reality. This is from the wiki page:
You see, UnkleE, Barrett (a Creationist) has his conclusions already in place. He is, therefore, trying desperately to fit the evidence to the answer he wants. He is not an objective observer, rather a researcher trying to justify his emotionally influenced position.
UnkleE, if you want to advance this conversation beyond the speculations of a Christian researcher trying to justify his own beliefs and placate his emotional needs, then perhaps you can address the question as to why the first burials with grave goods (which signify an almost certain belief in an afterlife) did not emerge in human history until many, many, many thousands of generations after we became “human.” That, to me, signifies such beliefs to be purely cultural, a creative adornment built upon senses of mind/body dualism and our natural (predetermined?) ability to find agency in nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent point, Ark!
LikeLike
Hi John, so this is your hypothesis?
A three year study involving 57 researchers who conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures, and managed and published by Oxford university, is actually “(a Creationist) [who] has his conclusions already in place …. trying desperately to fit the evidence to the answer he wants …. not an objective observer, rather a researcher trying to justify his emotionally influenced position ….. the speculations of a Christian researcher trying to justify his own beliefs and placate his emotional needs”?
Really? And you know that? And can demonstrate that all those other researchers were somehow conned by this desperate man placating his emotional needs so they went along with it??
I wonder if you realise that I could make similar accusations about Paul Bloom, or you, if I had a mind to? Fortunately, I don’t, for I believe such slander is unjustified unless there is compelling evidence.
But I have no intention of conversing with someone who uses such despicable tactics. So unless you are willing to either retract, or offer compelling evidence ….. ?
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE
Unfortunately for you, UnkleE, Barret has let the world know exactly his bias. From the NYT’s article:
Did you see that, UnkleE? Did you see where Barrett alerts everyone what his conclusion already is?
Here it is again, this time in slow motion: Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?”
Barrett (an employee of the Fuller Theological Seminary and the collator and interpreter of all these studies) has decided already what he wants to find.
With this in mind, I believe we’ll have to go through every one of these studies and see exactly what the researchers themselves said in their conclusions… What say you?
Now, could you address the question put to you?
LikeLike
HI John,
I don’t know what question you are referring to, and I’m not intending to discuss it now. I said that I wasn’t interested in discussing with someone who slanders with no compelling evidence a competent researcher simply because he is a christian. I meant it. But I am willing to explain my deep aversion to what you have said and hopeful that you may retract.
You attributed motives to Justin Barrett that are highly denigrating of his integrity and motivations, and accused him of doing research to “justify his emotionally influenced position”. By this smear tactic you dismissed his research. Yet the only evidence you offered was that he is a christian.
Now he was part of a huge research team, and we can assume not all of them were christians with the character flaws that you accuse Barrett of having. You denigrate them as well. And if your argument was reasonable, then you would also dismiss Paul Bloom’s work because he is an atheist and could also be “desperately” trying to “justify his emotionally influenced position”. All of us have viewpoints, but the methods of science are aimed at reducing subjectivity and providing repeatable objective results.
But not only have you denigrated a large research team, you have set up a somewhat false dichotomy between Bloom’s and Barrett’s views. Bloom disagrees with some aspects of Barrett’s conclusions, but he agrees pretty much with those aspects of Barrett’s work that I referenced and you objected to.
I said: “belief in an afterlife arises very naturally in young children even if they don’t have a religious upbringing” Bloom says: “human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena” and he also says “although we have to learn which specific afterlife people in our culture believe in (heaven, reincarnation, a spirit world, and so on), the notion that life after death is possible is not learned at all.” So both Bloom and Barrett support what I said.
Furthermore, Bloom doesn’t seem to share your negative view of Barrett. In this discussion he says of Barrett: “he’s one of the founders and most influential figures in the cognitive science of religion. He’s done hugely important work ….” I suggest you listen to at least the first 15 minutes of that discussion and you’ll find they both agree on the evolutionary origins of many of our religious inclinations, including the natural propensity to believe in an afterlife.
So I think you are factually wrong about Barrett (and Bloom) and you have made statements about Barrett that are quite reprehensible unless you have compelling evidence that he is much more biased than other researchers and he allows that bias to influence his work. I feel very strongly about this. Idiosyncratic selection of which experts we will accept based on their religious belief is something that can go both ways, and makes discussion impossible – I can dismiss “your” experts just as easily as you can dismiss mine, if I had a mind to do it. It is also a despicable thing to do unless there is clear evidence.
So, let me repeat. I think you can either offer compelling evidence of Barrett’s duplicity and dishonesty, or you can (I hope) retract your denigrating comments, or we can draw this discussion to a close. Thanks.
LikeLike
I don’t think Barrett was being intentionally duplicitous; he is a Creationist thus he is firm about his faith and where he stands. But he is bound to have considerable bias and suffer from the somewhat myopic world view all religious people suffer from to a greater or lessor degree.
Otherwise he would not believe in a god, now would he?
Also, it is perfectly reasonable for one as to ask his em>motivation for conducting such research, a valid question in light of the quote:
”Why wouldn’t God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?”
Which strikes me as confirming his ingrained bias toward his god. Not just any old god, either, but the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic deity, Yahweh/Jesus of Nazareth/Allah.
On the face of it, it seems likely that most, (if not all) of the researchers have some sort of god-belief as based on what we’ve read so far , none of the researchers has published a rebuttal of Barrett’s findings. ( Not that I am aware of)
Naturally, I stand under correction here and as you seem au fait with all aspects of this research I would be interested in your input in this regard, Unklee.
Namely:
1: What are the religious convictions- if any – of the researchers.
2: Can we confirm that every researcher came to the same/similar conclusion as Barrett?
LikeLike
Ark
I don’t think Barrett was being intentionally duplicitous
I thoroughly agree, and confirmation bias exists in many, many realms. But here we actually have the case of the allegedly scientific “researcher” stating exactly what his conclusion already it. By his own admission, he has already determined in his mind that his god has sown (literally, as he is a Creationist) this reality into all humans. That, then, is what he is looking for. That, then, is how he has approached all these studies (which i’m assuming were all independent): “interpreting” the data collected in accordance to what he wants.
Hardly objective and, as I proposed to UnkleE, we should review every study he has looked at to determine what their methods, data collection, and results actually were. I would hazard to think an independent researcher, like Bloom, might have arrived at a different interpretation.
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE
I was hoping you’d give your impression as to why the first evidence we have of burials with grave goods (which signifies a belief in an afterlife) only emerged 90,000 years ago, many thousands of generations after humans became what we consider “human.”
To me this strikes to the very heart of any hypothesis that a belief in an afterlife is somehow innate, natural, and not culture… a bedrock thing. The hard evidence points to such notions beings purely cultural. If this were not the case we would, I’d argue, have seen grave goods much, much, much earlier than we do.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
LikeLike