Bred in the bone? (Study suggests children have a sense of morality at a very young age)

WORLD ^ | June 19, 2010 | Janie B. Cheaney

[rhema]

Years ago, when our daughter attended a church- sponsored preschool, we were invited to an informal meeting about parenting techniques. After orientation by the school director, we broke into discussion groups. The topic was discipline, a burning issue for preschool parents, swerving naturally to "How do we teach them right from wrong?" One father in our group apparently wanted to stir the pot. Early in the conversation he asked, "But how do we know what's right and wrong? Do those words have any meaning?"

If he was hoping for a Socratic discussion he didn't get it, neither the first time nor the second time he asked. No one even challenged the premise. I didn't know the man: He might have been an amateur student of philosophy, or a Hindu, or just a provocateur. But to parents of preschoolers, the question itself was meaningless. We all had some notion of right and wrong that we sought to inculcate in our young barbarians; the only issue was how.

New research indicates parents may have a little underlying cooperation in that quest. I mean "little" literally. "The Moral Life of Babies," appearing in The New York Times Magazine last month, outlines extensive study by Yale University researchers into the degree that right and wrong is recognized by children as young as a few months. Surprisingly or not, overwhelming evidence points to a sense of morality either inborn or developing very early.

The study involved babies being exposed to mini-dramas, both live and on film. Two puppets or two shapes were shown either helping or hindering a third character, with the babies encouraged afterward to respond. The youngest subjects were capable of nothing but watching, so their response was measured by how long they looked. But 9- to 12-month-olds could register approval or disapproval in a variety of ways, including punishing the bad actors when they had an opportunity. "In the end," writes professor Paul Bloom, "we found that 6- and 10-month-old infants [in a given study] overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy."

The overwhelming response among the public: interesting. Writes Albert Mohler on his blog, "Does the fact that infants have an innate moral sense underline the importance of the fact that human beings are made in God's own image? It would certainly seem so." Meanwhile, a fan of atheist Richard Dawkins, commenting on Dawkins' website, draws quite another conclusion: "This will be a rather bitter blow to the religious who are convinced that humans are born sinful [and] incapable of telling right from wrong without moral guidance from the bible. . . . What a delicious laugh."

Not so fast. Paul says that even those without the Mosaic Law nonetheless have God's law written on their hearts, "while their conscience also bears witness" (Romans 2:14-15). While babies can't acknowledge the first table of the Law (loving God), the second table, about loving their neighbor, seems firmly fixed. Why?

The evolutionary bias assumed by the researchers can only shrug. Conceivably, a strong sense of group sympathy can help an individual survive in a harsh environment, but what explains the babies' apparent sympathy for animal puppets? Dr. Bloom admits that "the morality of contemporary humans really does outstrip what evolution could possibly have endowed us with." And there's another, rather obvious problem: "If children enter the world already equipped with moral notions, why is it that we have to work so hard to humanize them?"

That's the conundrum C.S. Lewis addresses in the first section of Mere Christianity: (a) everyone seems to have a sense of moral law, and (b) everyone breaks it. The little one who shows sorrow for a thwarted puppet will likely knock down a smaller child someday, or snatch a toy, or lie on a resumé, or cheat on his income tax, and natural selection will not justify him. Someone else will have to.

[LomanBill]

>>Texas?? Why are bringing Texas up

 

Because Texan religionists have altered public school curriculum to teach the lie that that the American Founders intended this to be a Christian Nation.

 

They even tried to toss Jefferson himself out of the curriculum.

 

Was Thomas Jefferson a Founder?  Yes he was.
Were the "great Majority" of his contemporaries Founders?  Yes, they were.

 

Did they intend to create a Christian Theocracy?

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

 

http://www.history1700s.com/etext/html/texts/jefferson/jeff1.txt

 

NO.

 

Will they be teaching that FACT in the Texas Curriculum, or just the facts deemed "conservative" by the religionist RINO Theocrats? 

 

 

What about Sharia Law, when the demographics change sufficiently for it to be mandated by the majority?   Allow one, gotta allow all - Just ask the religionists at the Air Force Academy who now have a Wiccan circle on grounds.... thanks to other religionists shoving their foot through the 1st amendment door/wall and creating precedence.

[stuartcr]

Sounds good.

[stuartcr]

I think many people throughout history, consider what’s right, differently.

[stuartcr]

Is that sinful or just our nature?

[stuartcr]

???

[LomanBill]

Nature reflects Biblical law.

[LomanBill]

>>if you’re trying to sell moral subjectivism

Subjectivism - only to the degree that we can observe confirmation in Creation (especially including human societies) that when God’s law and Truth is discarded, there is an inevitable, consequential, result.

[stuartcr]

How is that known? Perhaps biblical law is written to take advantage of certain human traits/nature, in order to present a set of laws or directives.

[LomanBill]

>>How is that known?

 

Not so much known, as believed - I think.  That's where the Faith part comes in.

 

Christian Faith, being the work-product of spiritual interaction with the Creator via our life experiences within His Word.

 

In the Beginning was the Word... and the Word was God.

 

I find it quite compelling that a bunch of sheep herders were able to articulate a simple model of primal creation so congruent to the modern quantum cosmology model or "big bang".

 

There was nothing, and a moment later - all the energy that formed the universe, was.

 

The Genesis account is simpler:  "Let there be Light".

 

I believe a single cell in my hand is vastly more complex than the watch upon my wrist.  For me, the workings and order of the universe compel a belief in a watch-maker; and not one that is blind.

 

Having accepted a Creator, I was then naturally drawn into the process of trying to understand Him better.  For me, the Triune God of Christianity facilitates that process better than any other.

 

Father - the Creator beyond space, time, and the physical nature of the universe.
Son - the Creator in physical form.
Holy Spirit - the Creator facilitating interaction between the physical and non-physical.

 

{yes I know the tale of Osiris is very similar}

 

 

In any event, those are my beliefs - and I could be wrong; so what right could I possibly claim for coercing others into accepting them as irrefutable.... as religionist apparatchiks are so often observably, and dangerously, prone to do? 

 

Let folks see the evidence for themselves, and make up their own Free Minds.  That's what I think Americans were supposed to do.

[stuartcr]

So what is to be done about conflicting beliefs? If laws are based on beliefs, but not knowledge/facts, why should someone with a dfferent belief, be held responsible to a law based on a beliefe he does not hold?

I agree on making up our own minds. Thanks

[LomanBill]

[why should someone with a different belief, be held responsible to a law based on a beliefe he does not hold?]

 

That is an essential element of the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

"...that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of [religious] opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical"

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

 

Beyond the scope of religious belief, however, my answer to your question is that a Republic is a system of governance characterized by the Rule of Law; and when the Law fails - the Republic fails.

 

Our American Republic is a great compromise between a variety of conflicting opinions regarding how to best effect "Government Of the People, By the People, For the People".   The laws that are in place are supposed to be the result of representative legislation under Constitutional governance.   They aren't, always - and the remedy to this is the deliberately SLOW process of judicial appeal - all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

Additionaly, if you don't like a law, you can try to change it by gathering a consensus among your peers through the exercise of free discourse - with a collective voice in the ear of your elected representatives.  

 

It's not perfect, but is there a better system on Earth?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Is that sinful or just our nature?

Both.

[stuartcr]

Not that I know of.

[stuartcr]

That’s good, it covers both those that believe in sin, and those that don’t.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

That’s good, it covers both those that believe in sin, and those that don’t.

It is also an answer that is completely in accord with the doctrine of the sin nature. When man fell, his stewardship over the earth also fell, bringing the entire created world - man's society or natural world - under that same curse. 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc. etc.

[stuartcr]

That’s a good belief.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Well Stuart, you know that everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different, right?

[stuartcr]

Yes, like I said, it covers the bases.

[stuartcr]

Don’t see how it could be different. Thanks, I don’t get quoted often.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Don’t see how it could be different. Thanks, I don’t get quoted often.

Did you like how I artfully weaved your name into the Scooby Doo song the other day?