People Are Born with Religious Belief Argues New Book

[happyslug]

46. And the author of the book under discussion does NOT say children embrace theology

All the author is saying is they is a tendency to accept some form of belief in a higher power. In our culture that tends to be God, but in other culture that can be animism. i.e. some power beyond the person's knowledge has control over nature.

The Author of the book does NOT mention anything about a belief in afterlife, or any theological concepts. His point was simple, there seems to be an innate willingness to embrace the idea that some higher power has control over things a person himself or herself can NOT control. While the author is a Christian (and admits so in the book) he states NOTHING that shows an innate willingness to embrace any one religion or religion as a whole, just an innate willingness to embrace the concept that they are things in nature controlled by unseen forces AND those unseen forces are some form of spirit or god.

As to my comments on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books, I mention it for the simple reason it is one of classic comments that unimportant details should be avoided and is mostly worthless in most situations. Most people, even as late as the 1890s in the US, were farmers and it did not matter to them WHY the seasons occurred, but that they did. For such farmers the heliocentric theory was of no more value to them then the story of Ceres/Demeter and her daughter Proserpina/Persephone in explaining the coming of Spring and winter. A farmer's main concern was when to plant his crops and with that in mind the story of Proserpina/Persephone having to spend half the year in Hades with her husband, Dis Pater/Pluto the ruler of Hades (Orcus is sometime used in place of Dis Pater, Orcus seems to have been a Roman god that NEVER made it into the official gods of the City of Rome, Dis Pater being the god of the Dead in Rome itself, Orcus survived in the rural parts of the Roman Republic and the later Empire. See even I get into irrelevant details that Doyle was attacking in that paragraph he wrote in that Sherlock Holmes Story).

This concept of irrelevant details a lot of people on DU dislike. Details can be important, but is it important to the subject at hand? For a farmer, which story is more relevant to when crops should be planted? The heliocentric theory or the story of Proserpina having to spend half the year with Dis Pater causing her mother Ceres to be so sad that the crops died but when Proserpina returned in the spring, it was time to plant crops for Ceres was happy and the land was made warm by her happiness for Proserpina had come back to her (Yes, I am using the Latin Names for these gods, not the Greek Names).

For most farmer either story will work when it comes to the time to plant their crop. Thus for farmers is one theory better then the other? The answer is NO, both will work, which was the point Doyle was making with his comment he had Sherlock Holmes make to Dr Watson. If a theory is useful, even if based on nothing, as long as it is useful it is good.