Campbell develops his argument from dialogues with children, where children offer their explanations about where things come from. He presents numerous anecdotes of children telling stories or explaining things in ways very similar to those found in religion.

This methodology is flawed because the children interviewed were likely raised in religious households. They are growing up amid these ideas already. Also, stories read or told to children also propose many of the ideas that Campbell presents as products of the children’s minds. In other words, his sample is badly biased. To get a pure sample, one would have to isolate children from parents and culture and let them grow up wild. Even then, an interview process could taint the sample by leading questions (presuming wild children could understand your language). Most of the examples provided by Campbell actually come from an earlier psychologist, Piaget, who conducted his studies c. 100 years ago. Campbell’s argument, which seems reasonable at first, proves to be very bad “science” and logic.