Religious children have harder time between fact and fiction

"I really want this bread to be jesus"Is this "essence" quantifiable? Can I get some essence at the store and put it in my beer bread recipe? can I put it in a beaker or on a scale or see it with a microscope? "through my catholic rose lenses, this really looks like jesus"What does a jesus wafer look like that sets it apart from a normal wafer that is made of the same stuff (obviously sans essence, of course)? According to.....? Does its molecular structure change? can you measure what it is that changed?I know you don't actually believe this shit, CS. You're far too smart for that.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

But you (and the catholic church) claim that it actually, really, physically IS the body and blood of christ, correct? You don't openly say "well, we just pretend that it is" or "you just have to believe me that it really, truly is".However, this seems to be the crux of the matter: you admit that it's all metaphysical (ie: you just gotta believe because I have no evidence anything metaphysical exists), yet you teach these kids that this wafer they eat and this sip of wine they have is really christ. That is why religious kids have trouble separating fact from fiction; you tell them fiction is fact. I have no idea what that means. A cracker is not a species, nor is wine. I get that it's a metaphor, but I really don't get it. That's good. For a second there, I thought you believed this crap and were willing to discuss why it is all mumbo jumbo and probably shouldn't be told to impressionable kids. Hopefully you tell the kids in your church that it's just magic and wishful thinking. You and I must have different ideas of what a logical deduction is, then.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

But the Catholic Church doesn't say it is philisophical. Philosophical is not a synonym for metaphysical or magic.

From Message 15then from Message 19Now from this message I am replying to: How can you honestly claim that the catholic church is "Better at not indoctrinating children so that they cannot distinguish between fact and fiction" when a core tenet of the religion is something not based in evidence and is simply wishful thinking? can you not see that it is exactly the sort of thing in question and is more evidence pointing to why religious kids are prone to having trouble distinguishing fact and fiction? Does your church tell it's members (children, specifically) that they are performing a symbolic gesture when eating the wafer? Or are you all told that it is actually turning into jesus? Thanks. I think I understand it now. My understanding was that your (or was the churches?) logical deduction in question is that it "logically follows" that the wafer and wine is jesus since that is what the bible says, so you "logically deduct" that the wafer you are eating turns into jesus. Maybe you could clarify?

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 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.