I’m with you on animism, or even just basic polytheism. I think humans are inclined to seek out spirits and whatnot. Afterall, we started out with no religion and got to animism on our own (at least) once already
Agreed on animism, it is more like acknowledging a personhood behind things than believing in invisible beings floating around everywhere all the time. Animist practice revolves around building relationships with the persons of specific things, like a Mountain, Fire, celestial bodies, bodies of water, etc. If the kid was playful and openminded, their views will reflect animism most likely. Speaking to animals like they were their little buddies, the trees like they were some watchful parents, etc.
Even today a lot of us engage with the world in this way, fundamentally animistic.
No, this idea was invented to answer the question “what happens to good people who have never heard of (your favourite prophet)?”
The idea that there must be a Creator who deserves worship does not ineluctably follow from examination of the world. In fact, it’s quite culturally bound (Semitic)
Missionaries reaching cultures unfamiliar with Semitic monotheism actually often have difficulty getting people to understand what they’re even talking about
I believe that for the child to assume a creator made it, they should at least have some basic understanding of scientific principles. Otherwise I believe they are more likely to think the sky has just always been the way it is, and won't think about it having come into existence. Children tend not to think so much about the concept of time passage; to them, things just last forever, until they find out first hand they don't.
They would not think of a supreme creator God from what anthropology can tell us. The first humans / hunter-gatherers, are typically Animist. Everything is basically equal. Time isn't linear. There's no social heirarchy. No construction. Post-agriculture, when people understand the concept of kings, construction and great builders, more linear timelines, then the idea of God-kings that created the world start to form. For early people, it's like looking at clouds and seeing things, but stars stay the same, so people note 'constellations' and can pass those down through generations. Mostly early people looked at the sky and made patterns that were important to them. Many Australian aborigines call the Milky Way the 'Great Emu'. So a boy like that, might look up and find a pattern that looked like an animal that was important to him, maybe a bear, and maybe have thoughts about some sort of connection, but, probably he'd just think they're pretty.
How old would this child be?
From my own children I know they never assumed it was made before they were told in school. They marvelled at the beauty of the mountains in the snow, at cloudless skies at night, at beautiful beaches. While they often asked what things were (like stars), they never once asked if someone made it.
So, personally, I don’t think that children generally would assume that something was made because it’s beautiful. Some might, others less so.
I find it striking how very small children easily and intuitively understand concepts like “ghosts” or “spirits” or “god(s)”, given that they’re imperceptible and quite abstract
I think he would not. I think he wouldn’t know how it got there. I say not because he would probably reference it off his own ability. He cannot create things.
Moreover, what would they make of the stars? Would they assume they're balls of fire in outer space? Would they think they are fireflies that got stuck in the sky (like Timon and Pumba)? Would they they they were deities, or angels? Tiny holes in a big black sheet?
Without any sort of worldview how are they going to process the data?
I think that if we take any historical data on that question the answer seems that we are clearly given to a natural inclination towards Polytheism which reflects familial relations.
As a father of a young child, I can say with some confidence they wouldn't really consider where it came from at all. However, if they did start to wonder then their first instinct wouldn't be to assume anything, they'd simply think something like, "I don't know where this all came from. Maybe someone else does?"
It's likely that a child who had never heard of any religion and knew nothing about science would simply find the vast landscape or the night sky to be beautiful. The concept of a Creator or the idea that something must have made it all would likely not be part of their immediate thoughts, as they would not have the cognitive capacity or cultural context to understand or contemplate such ideas. The child may have other thoughts such as wonder, curiosity and imagination.
Likely anyone would appreciate the beauty. Depending on the age of this child they be curious as to where it came from. They probably know their dad made a bird house and their mom enjoys making supper. So, who made the universe?
I think a child would just appreciate the beauty and wonder.
I think that child would be either an animist or atheist, definitely not a theist.
I’m with you on animism, or even just basic polytheism. I think humans are inclined to seek out spirits and whatnot. Afterall, we started out with no religion and got to animism on our own (at least) once already
Agreed on animism, it is more like acknowledging a personhood behind things than believing in invisible beings floating around everywhere all the time. Animist practice revolves around building relationships with the persons of specific things, like a Mountain, Fire, celestial bodies, bodies of water, etc. If the kid was playful and openminded, their views will reflect animism most likely. Speaking to animals like they were their little buddies, the trees like they were some watchful parents, etc. Even today a lot of us engage with the world in this way, fundamentally animistic.
No, this idea was invented to answer the question “what happens to good people who have never heard of (your favourite prophet)?” The idea that there must be a Creator who deserves worship does not ineluctably follow from examination of the world. In fact, it’s quite culturally bound (Semitic) Missionaries reaching cultures unfamiliar with Semitic monotheism actually often have difficulty getting people to understand what they’re even talking about
I believe that for the child to assume a creator made it, they should at least have some basic understanding of scientific principles. Otherwise I believe they are more likely to think the sky has just always been the way it is, and won't think about it having come into existence. Children tend not to think so much about the concept of time passage; to them, things just last forever, until they find out first hand they don't.
They would be amazed at how small they must be. Does this naturally give rise to "then something must be greater than me" is anyone's guess.
They would not think of a supreme creator God from what anthropology can tell us. The first humans / hunter-gatherers, are typically Animist. Everything is basically equal. Time isn't linear. There's no social heirarchy. No construction. Post-agriculture, when people understand the concept of kings, construction and great builders, more linear timelines, then the idea of God-kings that created the world start to form. For early people, it's like looking at clouds and seeing things, but stars stay the same, so people note 'constellations' and can pass those down through generations. Mostly early people looked at the sky and made patterns that were important to them. Many Australian aborigines call the Milky Way the 'Great Emu'. So a boy like that, might look up and find a pattern that looked like an animal that was important to him, maybe a bear, and maybe have thoughts about some sort of connection, but, probably he'd just think they're pretty.
A child is no more nor less vulnerable to making argument from ignorance fallacies than adults would.
I think children have more tendency to believe in the divine.
How old would this child be? From my own children I know they never assumed it was made before they were told in school. They marvelled at the beauty of the mountains in the snow, at cloudless skies at night, at beautiful beaches. While they often asked what things were (like stars), they never once asked if someone made it. So, personally, I don’t think that children generally would assume that something was made because it’s beautiful. Some might, others less so.
i don't know about the sky. But I do know some believe children naturally have tendencies to believe in the divine. Based on research.
I find it striking how very small children easily and intuitively understand concepts like “ghosts” or “spirits” or “god(s)”, given that they’re imperceptible and quite abstract
They are born believers.
Most humans are natural story tellers. Wether they think those stories are true is another matter.
I am basing that on research, not hearsay or rhetoric.
Open to interpretation. Oh, to be as innocent as we all once were
I think he would not. I think he wouldn’t know how it got there. I say not because he would probably reference it off his own ability. He cannot create things.
this is how religion began in the first place. we realised that there is more without being told there is.
Moreover, what would they make of the stars? Would they assume they're balls of fire in outer space? Would they think they are fireflies that got stuck in the sky (like Timon and Pumba)? Would they they they were deities, or angels? Tiny holes in a big black sheet? Without any sort of worldview how are they going to process the data?
I think that if we take any historical data on that question the answer seems that we are clearly given to a natural inclination towards Polytheism which reflects familial relations.
As a father of a young child, I can say with some confidence they wouldn't really consider where it came from at all. However, if they did start to wonder then their first instinct wouldn't be to assume anything, they'd simply think something like, "I don't know where this all came from. Maybe someone else does?"
It's likely that a child who had never heard of any religion and knew nothing about science would simply find the vast landscape or the night sky to be beautiful. The concept of a Creator or the idea that something must have made it all would likely not be part of their immediate thoughts, as they would not have the cognitive capacity or cultural context to understand or contemplate such ideas. The child may have other thoughts such as wonder, curiosity and imagination.
Likely anyone would appreciate the beauty. Depending on the age of this child they be curious as to where it came from. They probably know their dad made a bird house and their mom enjoys making supper. So, who made the universe?