Translation
BibTex RIS Cite

Çocuklar ‘Sezgisel Tanrıcı’mıdır? Doğada Amaç ve Tasarım Hakkında Akıl Yürütme

Year 2021, , 1291 - 1309, 30.12.2021

Deborah Kelemen Translator: Osman Zahid Çifçi

https://doi.org/10.33420/marife.1037647

Abstract

Farklı araştırma grupları, küçük çocukların amaç bakımından doğal olaylar hakkında akıl yürütmeye yönelik engin bir eğilime sahip olduklarını ve doğal varlıkların kökenlerini bilinç-bazlı açıklama usulüne doğru bir yönelime sahip olduklarını göstermektedir. Bu makale, bilişsel-gelişim araştırmalarının çeşitli alanlarından elde edilen son bulguları bir araya getirerek, aşağıdaki soruyu ele almak için, bu sonuçları daha da derinlemesine incelemektedir. Çocuklar, Piaget’çi terimlerle ‘yapaycı’ olmaktan ziyade, doğal olayları insan dışı bir tasarımın eseri olarak düşünme eğiliminde midirle-r? Çocukların etken algısı, hayali arkadaşlar ve eşyayı kavrama algıları üzerine yapılan bir araştırma incelemesi, onların bu kavramlara getirdikleri tanımların yaklaşık 5 yaşına geldiklerinde açıklayıcı bir değeri ve pratiğe uyumluluğunun olabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

Din Felsefesi Felsefe Din.

References

  • Atran, S. “Causal Constraints on Categories”. Causal Cognition: A Multi-Disciplinary Debate. ed. D. at all Premack. 263-265. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
  • Atran, Scott. In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. USA: Oxford University Press, 2002.
  • Baillargeon, R. “The Object Concept Revisited: New Directions in the Investigation of Infants’ Physical Knowledge”. Visual perception and cognition in infancy. ed. C.E. Granrud. 265-315. NJ: Erlbaum, 1993.
  • Barrett, J. L. vd. “God’s Beliefs Versus Mother’s: The Development of Nonhuman Agent Concepts”. Child Development 72/1 (Şubat 2001), 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00265
  • Barrett, Justin L. “Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4/1 (Ocak 2000), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01419-9
  • Bering, Jesse. “Intuitive Conceptions of Dead Agents’ Minds: The Natural Foundations of Afterlife Beliefs as Phenomenological Boundary”. Journal of Cognition and Culture 2/4 (01 Ocak 2002), 263-308. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685370260441008
  • Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic books, 2001.
  • Carey, Susan. Conceptual Change in Childhood. MA: MIT press, 1985.
  • Casler, K. - Kelemen, D. “Teleological Explanations of Nature Among Romanian Roma (gypsy) Adults”. Unpublished Manuscript.
  • Casler, K. - Kelemen, D. “Tool Use and Children’s Understanding of Artifact Function”. Unpublished Manuscript.
  • Chandler, M. vd. “Small-Scale Deceit - Deception as a Marker of 2-Year-Old, 3-Year-Old, and 4-Year-Olds Early Theories of Mind”. Child Development 60/6 (1989), 1263-1277. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130919
  • Csibra, Gergely - Gergely, György. “The Teleological Origins of Mentalistic Action Explanations: A Developmental Hypothesis”. Developmental Science 1/2 (1998), 255-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00039
  • Defeyter, Margaret Anne - German, Tim P. “Acquiring an Understanding of Design: Evidence from Children’s Insight Problem Solving”. Cognition 89/2 (2003), 133-155.
  • Diesendruck, Gil vd. “Children’s Reliance on Creator’s Intent in Extending Names for Artifacts”. Psychological Science 14/2 (Mart 2003), 164-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01436
  • Evans, E. - Mull, M. “Magic Can Happen in That World (but Not This One): Constructing a Naïve Metaphysics”. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Evans, E. M. “Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation Versus Evolution”. Cognitive Psychology 42/3 (Mayıs 2001), 217-266. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0749
  • Evans, E. Margaret. “Beyond Scopes: Why Creationism Is Here to Stay”. Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children. ed. Carl N. John-son vd. 305-333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571381.012
  • Evans, E Margaret. “The Emergence of Beliefs About the Origins of Species in School-Age Children”. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 221-254.
  • Gelman, S. - Kremer, K. “Understanding Natural Cause - Childrens Explanations of How Objects and Their Properties Originate”. Child Development 62/2 (Nisan 1991), 396-414. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131012
  • Gentner, Dedre. “What Looks Like a Jiggy but Acts Like a Zimbo?: A Study of Early Word Meaning Using Artificial Objects”. Papers and Reports on Child Language Develop-ment 15/ (1978), 1-6.
  • German, T. P. - Defeyter, M. A. “Immunity to Functional Fixedness in Young Children”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7/4 (Aralık 2000), 707-712. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213010
  • German, Tim P. - Johnson, Susan C. “Function and the Origins of the Design Stance”. Journal of Cognition and Development 3/3 (Ağustos 2002), 279-300. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327647JCD0303_2
  • Graham, Susan A vd. “Preschoolers’ and Adults’ Reliance on Object Shape and Object Function for Lexical Extension”. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 74/2 (1999), 128-151.
  • Guthrie, S. “Animal Animism: Evolutionary Roots of Religious Cognition, Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion”. Continuum.
  • Harris, Paul L. “On Not Falling Down to Earth: Children’s Metaphysical Questions”. Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children. ed. Carl N.
  • Johnson vd. 157-178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571381.007
  • Johnson, Carl N. “Putting Different Things Together: The Development of Metaphysical Thinking”. Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children. ed. Carl N. Johnson vd. 179-211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571381.008
  • Johnson, Susan C vd. “Inferring the Goals of a Nonhuman Agent”. Cognitive Development 16/1 (01 Ocak 2001), 637-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00043-0
  • Keil, Frank C. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge: mit Press, 1989.
  • Keil, Frank C. “The Origins of an Autonomous Biology”. Modularity and Constraints in Language and Cognition. ed. M.R. Gunnar. 103-137. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1992.
  • Kelemen, D. “Beliefs About Purpose: On the Origins of Teleological Thought”. The Descent of Mind: Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution. ed. M. Corballis. 278-294. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  • Kelemen, D. “Intention in Children’s Understanding of Artifact Function”, 2001.
  • Kelemen, D. “Why Are Rocks Pointy? Children’s Preference for Teleological Explanations of the Natural World”. Developmental Psychology 35/6 (Kasım 1999), 1440-1452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1440
  • Kelemen, D. - Carey, S. “The Essence of Artifacts: Developing the Design Stance”. The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance. ed. S. Laurence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Kelemen, Deborah. “British and American Children’s Preferences for Teleo-Functional Explanations of the Natural World”. Cognition 88/2 (2003), 201-221.
  • Kelemen, Deborah vd. “Teleo‐Functional Constraints on Preschool Children’s Reasoning About Living Things”. Developmental Science 6/3 (2003), 329-345.
  • Kelemen, Deborah. “The Scope of Teleological Thinking in Preschool Children”. Cognition 70/3 (Nisan 1999), 241-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00010-4
  • Kelemen, Deborah vd. “Why Things Happen: Teleological Explanation in Parent-Child Conversations.” Developmental Psychology 41/1 (2005), 251.
  • Kelemen, Deborah - DiYanni, Cara. “Intuitions About Origins: Purpose and Intelligent Design in Children’s Reasoning About Nature”. Journal of Cognition and Development 6/1 (2005), 3-31.
  • Knight, Nicola vd. “Children’s Attributions of Beliefs to Humans and God: Cross‐Cultural Evidence”. Cognitive Science 28/1 (2004), 117-126.
  • Landau, B. vd. “Object Shape, Object Function, and Object Name”. Journal of Memory and Language 38/1 (Ocak 1998), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2533
  • Markson, LM. “Developing Understanding of Artifact Function”, 2001.
  • Matan, Adee - Carey, Susan. “Developmental Changes Within the Core of Artifact Concepts”. Cognition 78/1 (2001), 1-26.
  • Mead, Margaret. “An Investigation of the Thought of Primitive Children, with Special Reference to Animism”. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 62/ (1932), 173-190.
  • Nelson, D. G. K. vd. “Two-Year-Olds Will Name Artifacts by Their Functions”. Child Development 71/5 (Ekim 2000), 1271-1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00228
  • Nelson, D. G. K. vd. “Young Children’s Use of Functional Information to Categorize Artifacts: Three Factors That Matter”. Cognition 77/2 (16 Kasım 2000), 133-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00097-4
  • Petrovich, Olivera. “Understanding of Non-Natural Causality in Children and Adults: A Case Against Artificialism”. Psyche en Geloof 8/ (1997), 151-165.
  • Piaget, Jean. “The Child’s Concept of the World”. Londres, Routldge & Kegan Paul.
  • Rips, Lance J . “Similarity, Typicality, and Categorization”. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. ed. Andrew Ortony - Stella Vosniadou. 21-59. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.004
  • Siegal, M. - Beattie, K. “Where to Look 1st for Childrens Knowledge of False Beliefs”. Cognition 38/1 (Ocak 1991), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90020-5
  • Springer, K - Keil, FC. “On the Development of Biologically Specific Beliefs - the Case of Inheritance”. Child Development 60/3 (1989), 637-648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb02744.x
  • Taylor, Marjorie. Imaginary Companions and the Children Who Create Them. Oxford University Press on Demand, 1999.

Are Children ‘‘Intuitive Theists’’? Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature

Year 2021, , 1291 - 1309, 30.12.2021

Deborah Kelemen Translator: Osman Zahid Çifçi

https://doi.org/10.33420/marife.1037647

Abstract

Separate bodies of research suggest that young children have a broad tendency to reason about natural phenomena in terms of purpose and an orientation toward intention-based accounts of the origins of natural entities. This article explores these results further by drawing together recent findings from various areas of cognitive developmental research to address the following question: Rather than being ‘‘artificialists’’ in Piagetian terms, are children ‘‘intuitive theists’’—disposed to view natural phenomena as resulting from nonhuman design? A review of research on children’s concepts of agency, imaginary companions, and understanding of artifacts suggests that by the time children are around 5 years of age, this description of them may have explanatory value and practical relevance.

Keywords

Philosophy of Religion Philosophy Religion

References

  • Atran, S. “Causal Constraints on Categories”. Causal Cognition: A Multi-Disciplinary Debate. ed. D. at all Premack. 263-265. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
  • Atran, Scott. In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. USA: Oxford University Press, 2002.
  • Baillargeon, R. “The Object Concept Revisited: New Directions in the Investigation of Infants’ Physical Knowledge”. Visual perception and cognition in infancy. ed. C.E. Granrud. 265-315. NJ: Erlbaum, 1993.
  • Barrett, J. L. vd. “God’s Beliefs Versus Mother’s: The Development of Nonhuman Agent Concepts”. Child Development 72/1 (Şubat 2001), 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00265
  • Barrett, Justin L. “Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4/1 (Ocak 2000), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01419-9
  • Bering, Jesse. “Intuitive Conceptions of Dead Agents’ Minds: The Natural Foundations of Afterlife Beliefs as Phenomenological Boundary”. Journal of Cognition and Culture 2/4 (01 Ocak 2002), 263-308. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685370260441008
  • Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic books, 2001.
  • Carey, Susan. Conceptual Change in Childhood. MA: MIT press, 1985.
  • Casler, K. - Kelemen, D. “Teleological Explanations of Nature Among Romanian Roma (gypsy) Adults”. Unpublished Manuscript.
  • Casler, K. - Kelemen, D. “Tool Use and Children’s Understanding of Artifact Function”. Unpublished Manuscript.
  • Chandler, M. vd. “Small-Scale Deceit - Deception as a Marker of 2-Year-Old, 3-Year-Old, and 4-Year-Olds Early Theories of Mind”. Child Development 60/6 (1989), 1263-1277. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130919
  • Csibra, Gergely - Gergely, György. “The Teleological Origins of Mentalistic Action Explanations: A Developmental Hypothesis”. Developmental Science 1/2 (1998), 255-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00039
  • Defeyter, Margaret Anne - German, Tim P. “Acquiring an Understanding of Design: Evidence from Children’s Insight Problem Solving”. Cognition 89/2 (2003), 133-155.
  • Diesendruck, Gil vd. “Children’s Reliance on Creator’s Intent in Extending Names for Artifacts”. Psychological Science 14/2 (Mart 2003), 164-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01436
  • Evans, E. - Mull, M. “Magic Can Happen in That World (but Not This One): Constructing a Naïve Metaphysics”. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Evans, E. M. “Cognitive and Contextual Factors in the Emergence of Diverse Belief Systems: Creation Versus Evolution”. Cognitive Psychology 42/3 (Mayıs 2001), 217-266. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0749
  • Evans, E. Margaret. “Beyond Scopes: Why Creationism Is Here to Stay”. Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children. ed. Carl N. John-son vd. 305-333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571381.012
  • Evans, E Margaret. “The Emergence of Beliefs About the Origins of Species in School-Age Children”. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 221-254.
  • Gelman, S. - Kremer, K. “Understanding Natural Cause - Childrens Explanations of How Objects and Their Properties Originate”. Child Development 62/2 (Nisan 1991), 396-414. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131012
  • Gentner, Dedre. “What Looks Like a Jiggy but Acts Like a Zimbo?: A Study of Early Word Meaning Using Artificial Objects”. Papers and Reports on Child Language Develop-ment 15/ (1978), 1-6.
  • German, T. P. - Defeyter, M. A. “Immunity to Functional Fixedness in Young Children”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7/4 (Aralık 2000), 707-712. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213010
  • German, Tim P. - Johnson, Susan C. “Function and the Origins of the Design Stance”. Journal of Cognition and Development 3/3 (Ağustos 2002), 279-300. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327647JCD0303_2
  • Graham, Susan A vd. “Preschoolers’ and Adults’ Reliance on Object Shape and Object Function for Lexical Extension”. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 74/2 (1999), 128-151.
  • Guthrie, S. “Animal Animism: Evolutionary Roots of Religious Cognition, Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion”. Continuum.
  • Harris, Paul L. “On Not Falling Down to Earth: Children’s Metaphysical Questions”. Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children. ed. Carl N.
  • Johnson vd. 157-178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571381.007
  • Johnson, Carl N. “Putting Different Things Together: The Development of Metaphysical Thinking”. Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children. ed. Carl N. Johnson vd. 179-211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571381.008
  • Johnson, Susan C vd. “Inferring the Goals of a Nonhuman Agent”. Cognitive Development 16/1 (01 Ocak 2001), 637-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00043-0
  • Keil, Frank C. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge: mit Press, 1989.
  • Keil, Frank C. “The Origins of an Autonomous Biology”. Modularity and Constraints in Language and Cognition. ed. M.R. Gunnar. 103-137. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1992.
  • Kelemen, D. “Beliefs About Purpose: On the Origins of Teleological Thought”. The Descent of Mind: Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution. ed. M. Corballis. 278-294. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  • Kelemen, D. “Intention in Children’s Understanding of Artifact Function”, 2001.
  • Kelemen, D. “Why Are Rocks Pointy? Children’s Preference for Teleological Explanations of the Natural World”. Developmental Psychology 35/6 (Kasım 1999), 1440-1452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1440
  • Kelemen, D. - Carey, S. “The Essence of Artifacts: Developing the Design Stance”. The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance. ed. S. Laurence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Kelemen, Deborah. “British and American Children’s Preferences for Teleo-Functional Explanations of the Natural World”. Cognition 88/2 (2003), 201-221.
  • Kelemen, Deborah vd. “Teleo‐Functional Constraints on Preschool Children’s Reasoning About Living Things”. Developmental Science 6/3 (2003), 329-345.
  • Kelemen, Deborah. “The Scope of Teleological Thinking in Preschool Children”. Cognition 70/3 (Nisan 1999), 241-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00010-4
  • Kelemen, Deborah vd. “Why Things Happen: Teleological Explanation in Parent-Child Conversations.” Developmental Psychology 41/1 (2005), 251.
  • Kelemen, Deborah - DiYanni, Cara. “Intuitions About Origins: Purpose and Intelligent Design in Children’s Reasoning About Nature”. Journal of Cognition and Development 6/1 (2005), 3-31.
  • Knight, Nicola vd. “Children’s Attributions of Beliefs to Humans and God: Cross‐Cultural Evidence”. Cognitive Science 28/1 (2004), 117-126.
  • Landau, B. vd. “Object Shape, Object Function, and Object Name”. Journal of Memory and Language 38/1 (Ocak 1998), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2533
  • Markson, LM. “Developing Understanding of Artifact Function”, 2001.
  • Matan, Adee - Carey, Susan. “Developmental Changes Within the Core of Artifact Concepts”. Cognition 78/1 (2001), 1-26.
  • Mead, Margaret. “An Investigation of the Thought of Primitive Children, with Special Reference to Animism”. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 62/ (1932), 173-190.
  • Nelson, D. G. K. vd. “Two-Year-Olds Will Name Artifacts by Their Functions”. Child Development 71/5 (Ekim 2000), 1271-1288. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00228
  • Nelson, D. G. K. vd. “Young Children’s Use of Functional Information to Categorize Artifacts: Three Factors That Matter”. Cognition 77/2 (16 Kasım 2000), 133-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00097-4
  • Petrovich, Olivera. “Understanding of Non-Natural Causality in Children and Adults: A Case Against Artificialism”. Psyche en Geloof 8/ (1997), 151-165.
  • Piaget, Jean. “The Child’s Concept of the World”. Londres, Routldge & Kegan Paul.
  • Rips, Lance J . “Similarity, Typicality, and Categorization”. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. ed. Andrew Ortony - Stella Vosniadou. 21-59. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511529863.004
  • Siegal, M. - Beattie, K. “Where to Look 1st for Childrens Knowledge of False Beliefs”. Cognition 38/1 (Ocak 1991), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90020-5
  • Springer, K - Keil, FC. “On the Development of Biologically Specific Beliefs - the Case of Inheritance”. Child Development 60/3 (1989), 637-648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb02744.x
  • Taylor, Marjorie. Imaginary Companions and the Children Who Create Them. Oxford University Press on Demand, 1999.
There are 52 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Religious Studies
Journal Section Translation
Authors

Deborah Kelemen

Translators

Osman Zahid Çifçi

Publication Date December 30, 2021
Acceptance Date December 26, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021

Cite

ISNAD Kelemen, Deborah. “Çocuklar ‘Sezgisel Tanrıcı’mıdır? Doğada Amaç Ve Tasarım Hakkında Akıl Yürütme”. Marife Dini Araştırmalar Dergisi. Osman Zahid ÇifçiTrans 21/2 (December 2021), 1291-1309. https://doi.org/10.33420/marife.1037647.

26055

Bu eser Creative Commons Alıntı-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.