Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Here's a study that shows a kids from families that regularly attend worship services have better social and learning skills than those who do not.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2406
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Get real

 

 

 

                   Any number of studies will tell you;

 

                                       Belief in Santa Claus is good for kids.

 

                                       Belief in the Easter bunny is good for kids.

 

                                       Belief in the tooth fairy is good for kids.

 

                    Luckily kids outgrow the storys when they become adults. Most of them; those that don't live on meds or live in psycho wards.

 

 

                    Any number of studies [prison stats for example] will tell you that being religious doesn't make you more moral then a non believer. In meny ways atheists are more moral,  i.e. you can never add 'religious' hypocrite to our short comings.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                    Any number of studies will tell you;

 

                                       Belief in Santa Claus is good for kids.

 

                                       Belief in the Easter bunny is good for kids.

 

                                       Belief in the tooth fairy is good for kids.

 

                    Luckily kids outgrow the storys when they become adults. Most of them; those that don't live on meds or live in psycho wards.

 

Where are these studies? I'd like to read them.

And the positive correlation was not merely the children attending worship, but with families that attended worship.

Jeffrick wrote:

                    Any number of studies [prison stats for example] will tell you that being religious doesn't make you more moral then a non believer. In meny ways atheists are more moral,  i.e. you can never add 'religious' hypocrite to our short comings.

Here's an article about a seminary that started offering courses in Angola State Penitentiary. The warden says that since the program was started there is been a serious reduction inside the prison.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
without knowing or caring

without knowing or caring about who did the study...

It's obvious that regularly putting children in social situations will improve their social skills. It doesn't have anything to do with what is being discussed in said social situation.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anymouse (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Correlation is not causation

One might point out that correlation is not causation. There are more Christians than any other religious grouping in jail; does that mean that Christianity promotes crime? Obviously (or maybe not), the statement is ludicrous (or maybe not).

The study, of course, only deals with (presumably) Christianity (the reference to "services." ) What you did not point out in the study that argument on religion has a detrimental effect on children. How about the children of Jews? Muslims? Deists? Pagans? Hindus? And what are they comparing them to? The article sayeth not.

Then there is this telling part you did not quote fromt the article: It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation.

Finally, you did not give a link to the study. You gave a link to an article which talks about a 2008 study. The article does not mention the name of the study, mentions Mississippi State but not which department, who did it but not his qualifications [other than a sociologist], how many were involved [16,000, is that an exact number], how long was the study, how did they determine study participants and controls, what religions did they study. In short, it is not a study. It is a piece of journalistic "feel good" fluff.

I would think that if a Christian "really" wanted to support their position (in this case that church service is beneficial in some way), that person would provide an actual study. The studies on prayer being detrimental to health and wellness are well-known and published: why is this journalist afraid to point the reader to at least the name of the study, or who conducted it? Afraid what you might really find if you actually read the real study? Perhaps such a study does not really exist? Perhaps the study does not support the journalist's position at all (in otherwords, he made it up).

A search of Mississippi State University's Website does not show a "John Bartkowski" on any level of its staff, nor does it show such a study. Now it could be that he left (in disgrace?) after the study so he is no longer listed (and MSU disavowed the study), or it could be that such an important researcher and study was "overlooked by MSU," or maybe some journalist picked it up, it got on the Wire services, and they all quoted it without researching themselves. So perhaps it is propaganda and not journalistic fluff.

Virtually every outlet that has this article (mostly Christian Websites and magazines, but Faux News and a few others), have it word-for-word. And none of them cite the actual study.

So I have given you a head start on how to conduct research rather than just bilindly accepting what you read.

James


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Anymouse wrote:One might

Anymouse wrote:

One might point out that correlation is not causation. There are more Christians than any other religious grouping in jail; does that mean that Christianity promotes crime? Obviously (or maybe not), the statement is ludicrous (or maybe not).

The study, of course, only deals with (presumably) Christianity (the reference to "services." ) What you did not point out in the study that argument on religion has a detrimental effect on children. How about the children of Jews? Muslims? Deists? Pagans? Hindus? And what are they comparing them to? The article sayeth not.

Then there is this telling part you did not quote fromt the article: It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation.

Correlation alone does not prove causation...

The observation was a correlation between parents who attended worship services along with kids and behavior... The author thinks that religion has positive effects...He gives three reasons that come from religion.

Quote:

First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills. Children who are brought into such networks and hear parental messages reinforced by other adults may also “take more to heart the messages that they get in the home,” he said.

Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family, Bartkowski told LiveScience. These “could be very, very important in shaping how parents relate to their kids, and then how children develop in response,” he said.

Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance

Anymouse wrote:

Finally, you did not give a link to the study. You gave a link to an article which talks about a 2008 study. The article does not mention the name of the study, mentions Mississippi State but not which department, who did it but not his qualifications [other than a sociologist], how many were involved [16,000, is that an exact number], how long was the study, how did they determine study participants and controls, what religions did they study. In short, it is not a study. It is a piece of journalistic "feel good" fluff.

The article mentions that the study was to be published in the journal, Social Science Research.

The guy that did it is this guy.

Here's the bibliography from his vita if you want to look up the original article:

Bartkowski, John P., Xiaohe Xu, and Martin L. Levin. 2008. Religion and Child Development: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Science Research 37(1): 18-36.

Anymouse wrote:

I would think that if a Christian "really" wanted to support their position (in this case that church service is beneficial in some way), that person would provide an actual study. The studies on prayer being detrimental to health and wellness are well-known and published: why is this journalist afraid to point the reader to at least the name of the study, or who conducted it? Afraid what you might really find if you actually read the real study? Perhaps such a study does not really exist? Perhaps the study does not support the journalist's position at all (in otherwords, he made it up).

The reason why, is that the study hadn't been published in the journal (although it was a available online) at the time the article was written.

Anymouse wrote:

A search of Mississippi State University's Website does not show a "John Bartkowski" on any level of its staff, nor does it show such a study. Now it could be that he left (in disgrace?) after the study so he is no longer listed (and MSU disavowed the study), or it could be that such an important researcher and study was "overlooked by MSU," or maybe some journalist picked it up, it got on the Wire services, and they all quoted it without researching themselves. So perhaps it is propaganda and not journalistic fluff.

Virtually every outlet that has this article (mostly Christian Websites and magazines, but Faux News and a few others), have it word-for-word. And none of them cite the actual study.

So I have given you a head start on how to conduct research rather than just bilindly accepting what you read.

James

A simple Google search will reveal much... Did you do that?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Here's a

Wowzers1 wrote:

Here's a study that shows a kids from families that regularly attend worship services have better social and learning skills than those who do not.

 

 

You can also get your kids to behave by telling them Santa wont bring them presents if they don't.

Religion only does this in the sense of social structure in traditional norms sold by the society of that location. ANY form of dogmatism sold to a kid can produce someone who stays in line. The dogmatism of China's communism makes Bejing a very safe city to live in. But that dogmatism sold is harmful to individuality and oppressive to anyone who wants to criticize the state.

Saying that it is good for kids, is like saying because getting presents is good makes Santa real.

If you want to use a crutch to live your life you can. But for whatever good it does it also causes division with outsiders, people not in your "in group".

Many of us here had to escape our theism. Some however, have grown up never having been raised in religion. Religion doesn't make you do good things, it is society that mistakes natural evolution that leads us to do good things, and twists it to a comic book.

Why is it that a parent in China will have the same reaction to their kid being harmed as a parent in America? Not because of communism or Christianity, but because of evolution.

Religious people CAN do good things, sure, but they are not doing it in reality because of an actual god, they are doing it themselves falsely attributing to a fictional being.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Of the studies that I've

Of the studies that I've read, it's , the coalition of religion, that produces the effects [good or bad], not the beliefs themselves since the beliefs are egocentric anyway.

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Classic case of ignoring a

Classic case of ignoring a common cause. Churches market themselves as social organizations, so parents that are interested in socializing their children are more likely to send them to church.

So all you proven is exposing children to social groups(religious or not) improves their social skills. But so would a music club, science club or sports club.

Is there any evidence that the amount of religiousity improves sociability? No. Do children from less religious societies have worse social skills? No.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, we can't isolate the

Yeah, we can't isolate the beliefs as the cause. It could just be the social environment.

I'm not sure about the reliability of the study either. Their method is asking the parents to rate their kids.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
All I've read about the good

 

 

of godliness in terms of health and longevity can be pinned to the social element of in-group gatherings and support. I don't think we'd argue that god people are wholly bad would we? To wit, my ancient mother, who spends multiple nights a week reading the bible and flirting with jesus as part of a cadre of ancient lamington chefs.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
What a joke!

If I just take the piece at it's word, since I can't read the actual study yet, it doesn't actually study the kids but asks the parents to rate their kids... If you don't see what's wrong with that, then we really don't have anything to talk about. How about actually studying the kids, instead of just taking their parents word on it. It's not like parents could be biased towards their progeny or anything!

Just because a bunch of self-serving lies help create more docile little sheeple, doesn't mean the lies are any less untrue or any less dangerous.

All it seems to show is that children exposed to more social gatherings are more social. Well obviously!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
The researcher for this

The researcher for this particular study was not pegging it on belief insomuch as the values that are from religion: family, love, sacred meaning of parenting, and significance of parenting. These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Bollocks

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

The researcher for this particular study was not pegging it on belief insomuch as the values that are from religion: family, love, sacred meaning of parenting, and significance of parenting. These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings.

 

Religion stole those core human things and trademarked them for its own aggrandisement, seeking also to denigrate humanity and erode its dignity. 

Don't give me your bullshit about love, parenting and family being 'from religion' or I will start swearing at you. 

You are making baseless assertions that constitute typical muslim/christian ad hominem. 

We are older, better, grander than religion will ever be. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
PERFECT!

Atheistextremeist wrote:
Religion stole those core human things and trademarked them for its own aggrandisement, seeking also to denigrate humanity and erode its dignity. 

Don't give me your bullshit about love, parenting and family being 'from religion' or I will start swearing at you. 

You are making baseless assertions that constitute typical muslim/christian ad hominem. 

We are older, better, grander than religion will ever be.

QFT!

Perfect dude!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Religion stole those core human things and trademarked them for its own aggrandisement, seeking also to denigrate humanity and erode its dignity. 

Don't give me your bullshit about love, parenting and family being 'from religion' or I will start swearing at you. 

Religion teaches these things... I never said they originated in religion. Straw man, dude...

Atheistextremist wrote:

You are making baseless assertions that constitute typical muslim/christian ad hominem. 

We are older, better, grander than religion will ever be. 

Ad hominem? Huh? That's non-sequitur


 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Don't

Atheistextremist wrote:

Don't give me your bullshit about love, parenting and family being 'from religion' or I will start swearing at you.

 

Start?

 

Breathe......  Breathe..........  Breathe........... 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:The

Wowzers1 wrote:

The researcher for this particular study was not pegging it on belief insomuch as the values that are from religion: family, love, sacred meaning of parenting, and significance of parenting. These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings.

 

Other than the word "sacred", this is all secular.  Family is secular.  Love is secular.  Parenting is secular.  Even the significance of parenting is secular.  I am not sure why the meaning of parenting is "sacred" because without that one word, the meaning of parenting is secular as well.

And those qualities are imbued by other social settings, dude.  Like, in your birth family?  Even if you aren't church goers (refer back to my family), you are still a family and you love your children, and you parent those children.  I don't get why all this is only imbued by religion.  Do you really think we beat our children?  Hate them?  Throw our grannies off the train?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
If I'm not mistaken

 

 

you said "values that are from religion". Needless to say, many christians claim the best parts of humanity derive from god - they claim humans are lost in sin and devoid of goodness.

In the absence of any supporting evidence for god or a supernatural source of human morality, and in the context of the doctrine of original sin, these claims are ad hominem. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Other than the word

cj wrote:

Other than the word "sacred", this is all secular.  Family is secular.  Love is secular.  Parenting is secular.  Even the significance of parenting is secular.  I am not sure why the meaning of parenting is "sacred" because without that one word, the meaning of parenting is secular as well.

And those qualities are imbued by other social settings, dude.  Like, in your birth family?  Even if you aren't church goers (refer back to my family), you are still a family and you love your children, and you parent those children.  I don't get why all this is only imbued by religion.  Do you really think we beat our children?  Hate them?  Throw our grannies off the train?

No... I didn't say that atheists are throwing "grannies off the train" and the like or they are only imbued from religion. That's a false dichotomy on your part.

Regardless as to whether the values are "secular" or otherwise, the study shows a correlation between kids whose parents attend religious services as having better social skills and study habits than those whose parents do not -- that's the study. The researcher thinks this is because the values taught by religion.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:you

Atheistextremist wrote:

you said "values that are from religion". Needless to say, many christians claim the best parts of humanity derive from god - they claim humans are lost in sin and devoid of goodness.

In the absence of any supporting evidence for god or a supernatural source of human morality, and in the context of the doctrine of original sin, these claims are ad hominem. 

Ad hominems in what respect? I fail to see the connection. Or are you digging for a fallacy where there is none?  If you want to talk about evidence for God, lets start a thread for that... I think there is plenty of evidence for God. And who said anything about Original Sin other than you? If you must know, I don't adhere to the doctrine of original sin... I have a more Eastern Orthodox view of sin. Again... another straw man or some sort of other fallacy of irrelevance.

You left the part off concerning belief... values can shared across a spectrum of beliefs... I included that explicitly to avoid saying that I believe they came from religion. Rather I said "values that are from religion" because religion teaches these things -- borrowed or otherwise. 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ok, then.

 

Moving on from this stumbling block and in the interests of worthwhile discussion, does any former god-person have a memory of good things being taught in a religious context? 

I'd have to say probably yes. They were group things tho' and I probably learned them playing bull-rush or making whirlpools in my mate's para pool in his dad's orchard in Twyford on Every Boy's Rally weekends out of Hastings Baptist Church rather than by beseeching jesus on bended knee not to burn me to a cinder for crimes of chronic masturbation. 

Is it possible to learn about god in a way that is not utterly anthrocentric? When we talk about god's goodness we define it by human goodness, human love, human forgiveness, human charity. We have no other possible yardstick. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Look

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

you said "values that are from religion". Needless to say, many christians claim the best parts of humanity derive from god - they claim humans are lost in sin and devoid of goodness.

In the absence of any supporting evidence for god or a supernatural source of human morality, and in the context of the doctrine of original sin, these claims are ad hominem. 

Ad hominems in what respect? I fail to see the connection. Or are you digging for a fallacy where there is none?  If you want to talk about evidence for God, lets start a thread for that... I think there is plenty of evidence for God. And who said anything about Original Sin other than you? If you must know, I don't adhere to the doctrine of original sin... I have a more Eastern Orthodox view of sin. Again... another straw man or some sort of other fallacy of irrelevance.

You left the part off concerning belief... values can shared across a spectrum of beliefs... I included that explicitly to avoid saying that I believe they came from religion. Rather I said "values that are from religion" because religion teaches these things -- borrowed or otherwise. 

 

if you suggest human values are sacred or "from religion" I will disagree with you, ok? If you didn't actually mean what it sounded like you meant, then fine. 

In my subjective opinion, suggesting human values are in fact divine, is an ad hominem. It puts humans down - it devalues the things humans intrinsically are.

But seeing you say you didn't mean this, then what the fuck. Let's forget about it. 

Your version of 'from religion' is rather oblique but whatever. It seems obvious that we largely agree, after all. As for "digging for fallacy", well I never. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Moving on from this stumbling block and in the interests of worthwhile discussion, does any former god-person have a memory of good things being taught in a religious context? 

I'd have to say probably yes. They were group things tho' and I probably learned them playing bull-rush or making whirlpools in my mate's para pool in his dad's orchard in Twyford on Every Boy's Rally weekends out of Hastings Baptist Church rather than by beseeching jesus on bended knee not to burn me to a cinder for crimes of chronic masturbation. 

Is it possible to learn about god in a way that is not utterly anthrocentric? When we talk about god's goodness we define it by human goodness, human love, human forgiveness, human charity. We have no other possible yardstick. 

 

I'd agree that I don't have any other vantage point other than my own... And existential things like love, forgiveness, charity, etc. are meaningless apart for from experience. I suppose that my understanding is anthropocentric.

But what do you mean by "no other possible yardstick"?

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:if

Atheistextremist wrote:

if you suggest human values are sacred or "from religion" I will disagree with you, ok? If you didn't actually mean what it sounded like you meant, then fine. 

In my subjective opinion, suggesting human values are in fact divine, is an ad hominem. It puts humans down - it devalues the things humans intrinsically are.

But seeing you say you didn't mean this, then what the fuck. Let's forget about it. 

Your version of 'from religion' is rather oblique but whatever. It seems obvious that we largely agree, after all. As for "digging for fallacy", well I never. 

I see.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No other possible yardstick

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Moving on from this stumbling block and in the interests of worthwhile discussion, does any former god-person have a memory of good things being taught in a religious context? 

I'd have to say probably yes. They were group things tho' and I probably learned them playing bull-rush or making whirlpools in my mate's para pool in his dad's orchard in Twyford on Every Boy's Rally weekends out of Hastings Baptist Church rather than by beseeching jesus on bended knee not to burn me to a cinder for crimes of chronic masturbation. 

Is it possible to learn about god in a way that is not utterly anthrocentric? When we talk about god's goodness we define it by human goodness, human love, human forgiveness, human charity. We have no other possible yardstick. 

 

I'd agree that I don't have any other vantage point other than my own... And existential things like love, forgiveness, charity, etc. are meaningless apart for from experience. I suppose that my understanding is anthropocentric.

But what do you mean by "no other possible yardstick"?

 

I mean "I don't have any other vantage point other than my own" multiplied by about 7 billion. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I

Atheistextremist wrote:

I mean "I don't have any other vantage point other than my own" multiplied by about 7 billion. 

I have shared experience, but experiences of which I'm not a part, I have no point of comparison, other than by analogs only. But I think that how I relate to God though.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 According to the link you

 According to the link you provided the study was based of what parents said about their church attendance, and about what they said about how well behaved their children are.  Isn't it possible that at least some of the parents were lying?  When asked certain question people often reply in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others because of a phenomena know as Social desirability bias.  Several studies have pointed to social desirability bias as the reason why many people lie about how often they go to church.  

 

You can learn more about people lying about church attendance at these links:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/church6.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

If people lie about how often they attend church and your study relies upon what people say about their church attendance how do we know if the well behaved children in your study really attend church more often?

also

Aren't the people who would lie about church attendance in order to be looked upon favorable the same kind of people who would lie about how well behaved their children are?


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
EXACTLY!

RatDog wrote:
According to the link you provided the study was based of what parents said about their church attendance, and about what they said about how well behaved their children are.  Isn't it possible that at least some of the parents were lying?  When asked certain question people often reply in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others because of a phenomena know as Social desirability bias.  Several studies have pointed to social desirability bias as the reason why many people lie about how often they go to church.  

 

You can learn more about people lying about church attendance at these links:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/church6.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

If people lie about how often they attend church and your study relies upon what people say about their church attendance how do we know if the well behaved children in your study really attend church more often?

also

Aren't the people who would lie about church attendance in order to be looked upon favorable the same kind of people who would lie about how well behaved their children are?

EXACTLY!

Thank you dude! I was effectively saying the same thing above, but didn't have any links to studies that looked at these kind of things like you posted.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote: According to

RatDog wrote:

 According to the link you provided the study was based of what parents said about their church attendance, and about what they said about how well behaved their children are.  Isn't it possible that at least some of the parents were lying?  When asked certain question people often reply in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others because of a phenomena know as Social desirability bias.  Several studies have pointed to social desirability bias as the reason why many people lie about how often they go to church.  

 

You can learn more about people lying about church attendance at these links:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/church6.pdf

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

If people lie about how often they attend church and your study relies upon what people say about their church attendance how do we know if the well behaved children in your study really attend church more often?

also

Aren't the people who would lie about church attendance in order to be looked upon favorable the same kind of people who would lie about how well behaved their children are?

You're absolutely right: people can lie about their church attendance...

I think we have to be crystal clear that regular church and attendance and weekly church attendance are not the same thing. The links posted are for weekly church attendance surveys... for this reason I think it is not apples to apples. One could more honestly answer a question about "regular" church attendance versus "weekly" church attendance. Even so, the correlation is not just about regular church attendances, but when both parents attend and the religious environment in the household: that is do parents discuss religion with their kids and do parents agree, rather than disagree, on matters of religion. The data for the study referenced in the OP is a cross section across regions in the United States. Assessments were done on children along with interviews of the children's parents and the children's teachers. I think the data itself is pretty robust.

Here's the original study if you want to read it.

And here's an executive summary of another study with similar conclusions...

In any case though, labeling it as a "social desirability bias" is a circumstantial ad hominem....

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:The

Wowzers1 wrote:

The researcher for this particular study was not pegging it on belief insomuch as the values that are from religion: family, love, sacred meaning of parenting, and significance of parenting. These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings.

Bull, this is nothing more than an advertisement. You are confirming this right her in even this post. You are basically claiming that only religion can provide family, love, and WTF is "Sacred meaning of parenting"?

I love my mom and I don't believe. I love my co workers and I dont believe AND I don't go to church.

And why, at least in America, if church was such a cure all, why do we have so much gang violence and why do we have more people in our prison system than any other westernized country?

ONCE AGAIN, this fake study is doing what you are doing. It is mistaking the the REAL evolutionary trait of being social and replacing it with a fictional arbitrary cosmic dictator fan club.

Neither a god or a church is needed to be social. My x-wife was never raised in religion, she has a TWO masters in biology and is going for her PHD. She never went to church. So please, once again, explain to my WHY religion is needed?

I myself have not even had a speeding ticket in 8 years and being 44 have long gotten over my teen and twenties hormones and angst. So I am also proof that you don't need church or religion to do the right thing.

Religion takes reality and bastardizes it with comic book super heros and super villains. A Dungeons and Dragons after school club can keep kids out of trouble too.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:cj

Wowzers1 wrote:

cj wrote:

Other than the word "sacred", this is all secular.  Family is secular.  Love is secular.  Parenting is secular.  Even the significance of parenting is secular.  I am not sure why the meaning of parenting is "sacred" because without that one word, the meaning of parenting is secular as well.

And those qualities are imbued by other social settings, dude.  Like, in your birth family?  Even if you aren't church goers (refer back to my family), you are still a family and you love your children, and you parent those children.  I don't get why all this is only imbued by religion.  Do you really think we beat our children?  Hate them?  Throw our grannies off the train?

No... I didn't say that atheists are throwing "grannies off the train" and the like or they are only imbued from religion. That's a false dichotomy on your part.

Regardless as to whether the values are "secular" or otherwise, the study shows a correlation between kids whose parents attend religious services as having better social skills and study habits than those whose parents do not -- that's the study. The researcher thinks this is because the values taught by religion.

 

You are right, I am exaggerating again.  I probably should cut it out.  (Yay! say the other forum members.  About time.)  But you did say---

Quote:

These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings.

 

It would be just as true to say these things are not necessarily not imbued by other social settings.  That is, it is perfectly possible to imbue these qualities in other social settings.  Religion is not required for their imbuement (now that really can't be a real word, but I hope it conveys my meaning).  My feeble attempt at making a point was that religion does not necessarily imbue these qualities, either.

I confess to not reading the article.  Give me an assist out of the goodness of your heart.  If the data is only from parental reports, just how did the study author measure religious vs non-religious imbuement of these qualities in the children?  What is "better social skills"?  What is "better study habits"?  Did the author count up trips to the principal's office as a measure of social skills?  Number of hours studying correlated with better grades?  Home or public or private schooled?  Was care taken to not conflate (ignore dependencies) in these and any other measures in the study?  Did the parents report truthfully?  How did the study author determine this?

If the study is not published, how would any one know the answers to these questions?  And why should we then take the study as being somehow accurate or even relevant?  If you can't answer these questions, why are you taking the study as being important or worthy of notice?  Because it supports your world view?

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=sr_1_cc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303235497&sr=1-1-catcorr

See the chapter on religion.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Wowzers1 wrote: cj

cj wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

cj wrote:

Other than the word "sacred", this is all secular.  Family is secular.  Love is secular.  Parenting is secular.  Even the significance of parenting is secular.  I am not sure why the meaning of parenting is "sacred" because without that one word, the meaning of parenting is secular as well.

And those qualities are imbued by other social settings, dude.  Like, in your birth family?  Even if you aren't church goers (refer back to my family), you are still a family and you love your children, and you parent those children.  I don't get why all this is only imbued by religion.  Do you really think we beat our children?  Hate them?  Throw our grannies off the train?

No... I didn't say that atheists are throwing "grannies off the train" and the like or they are only imbued from religion. That's a false dichotomy on your part.

Regardless as to whether the values are "secular" or otherwise, the study shows a correlation between kids whose parents attend religious services as having better social skills and study habits than those whose parents do not -- that's the study. The researcher thinks this is because the values taught by religion.

 

You are right, I am exaggerating again.  I probably should cut it out.  (Yay! say the other forum members.  About time.)  But you did say---

Quote:

These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings.

It would be just as true to say these things are not necessarily not imbued by other social settings.  That is, it is perfectly possible to imbue these qualities in other social settings.  Religion is not required for their imbuement (now that really can't be a real word, but I hope it conveys my meaning).  My feeble attempt at making a point was that religion does not necessarily imbue these qualities, either.

I confess to not reading the article.  Give me an assist out of the goodness of your heart.  If the data is only from parental reports, just how did the study author measure religious vs non-religious imbuement of these qualities in the children?  What is "better social skills"?  What is "better study habits"?  Did the author count up trips to the principal's office as a measure of social skills?  Number of hours studying correlated with better grades?  Home or public or private schooled?  Was care taken to not conflate (ignore dependencies) in these and any other measures in the study?  Did the parents report truthfully?  How did the study author determine this?

If the study is not published, how would any one know the answers to these questions?  And why should we then take the study as being somehow accurate or even relevant?  If you can't answer these questions, why are you taking the study as being important or worthy of notice?  Because it supports your world view?

http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=sr_1_cc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303235497&sr=1-1-catcorr

See the chapter on religion.

 

I saw your link to the actual study and I have read it.

Quote:

Parental religiosity is ascertained as an individual measure of the respondent’s (typically, mother’s) self reported frequency of attendance at religious services during the past year. The parent respondent also reported his/her spouse/partner’s religious attendance during the past year. Response categories for frequency of religious attendance of the husband and wife were coded as numbered: (1) never attend, (2) attend several times a year, (3) attend several times a month, (4) attend once per week, (5) attend more than once per week.

 

The following paragraphs show that the authors did not independently confirm the parent's religious participation nor their reported interactions with their children.

The mother's mean age is 34.68 +- 6.57.  So we are looking at an older population - very few teen mothers in the sample.  Some number closer to menopause.

I am never sure about the fascination with biological vs step families.  Supposedly step parents are less involved with the other spouse's children.  But my ex-husband hardly ever interacted with his children - even when we are married.  He never interacted with them after the divorce.  And my current husband was/is a wonderful father with my sons.  Who knows.  Maybe my family was one of those outliers.

Quote:

Still, the benefits of religious attendance are generally more pronounced in the home. What are we to make of this pattern? Two possible explanations emerge. On the one hand, religious supports and controls are more greatly evidenced by parents in the home. The ‘‘direct influence’’ of supervision by religious parents might produce more positive behavior in the domestic realm. On the other hand, religious parents may be more inclined to interpret their children’s behavior at home in positive ways, perhaps because such behaviors indicate that parents are fulfilling their religious responsibility to raise ‘‘good kids.’’  Thus, skewed parental interpretations of children’s behavior are indeed a possibility, inasmuch as religious parents typically provide more positive reports than teachers concerning their children’s dispositions and behavior. However, many of these same positive effects are reported independently by teachers as well, albeit in a slightly less pronounced form. More research is needed to explore if and how religion might shape parental standards for assessing children’s actions, and vignette-based studies of hypothetical (mis)behavior perpetrated by youngsters other than the parents’ own children might provide an ideal means for gauging how parental standards are shaped by religiosity (cf. Ellison, 1996).

Attendance homogamy aside, not all religion measures are consistent predictors across child development domains or institutional contexts. The effects of the family religious environment measures are more circumscribed than are those for religious attendance. For example, the family religious environment has a strong influence on children’s self-control, social competence, and approaches to learning at home, but not at school.  These findings suggest that when religion is a household asset (frequent discussions) or household liability (frequent arguments), the outcomes associated with these interactions are more pronounced at home. Nevertheless, these findings underscore the importance of examining religion as a relational property that produces particular effects (positive and negative) in specific social settings.

 

And the authors then list a number of problems with this particular study and other factors that may be interesting but they don't have the data to analyze.

Not a bad study, but it doesn't come to the conclusion that "these things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings."  There is one - to me - glaring missing piece.  There have been numerous studies that demonstrate a father's involvement with his children reduces teen pregnancy, delinquent behavior, low academic achievement and so on.  This study could be another demonstration that a father's involvement is more important than any other factor for a child's social success.  And they didn't take this into account in their analysis.

I'm still not convinced it is all due to religion.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Anymouse (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Concerning research

Concerning research, I don't really count Google, and I don't use that ad-serving and self-serving service.

I did go to Mississippi State University's Website, as I mentioned, and used AltaVista for searches. As the article listed his university, I felt that would be the most appropriate place to search: surely such an important study would reflect on the college? I could turn up nothing about the researcher or the research there.

In the article I did not see that it said it was yet to be published. Though you have brought that to my attention, to my mind means it is not available, and therefore not yet an accepted study.

I did a search on Google, and found a forum called "Parenting Beyond Belief" (for atheist parents), which noted the article in 2007. How long has this thing been kicking around? It does show up in Google's scholarly section, but I am quite convinced, especially by the study author's own claim that "it could be the other way around; maybe parents of well-behaved kids are the only ones who bring them to church." I also wonder about asking six-year olds to rate their family environment. Are they up to the task?


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Wowzers1

Brian37 wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

The researcher for this particular study was not pegging it on belief insomuch as the values that are from religion: family, love, sacred meaning of parenting, and significance of parenting. These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings.

Bull, this is nothing more than an advertisement. You are confirming this right her in even this post. You are basically claiming that only religion can provide family, love, and WTF is "Sacred meaning of parenting"?

I love my mom and I don't believe. I love my co workers and I dont believe AND I don't go to church.

And why, at least in America, if church was such a cure all, why do we have so much gang violence and why do we have more people in our prison system than any other westernized country?

ONCE AGAIN, this fake study is doing what you are doing. It is mistaking the the REAL evolutionary trait of being social and replacing it with a fictional arbitrary cosmic dictator fan club.

Neither a god or a church is needed to be social. My x-wife was never raised in religion, she has a TWO masters in biology and is going for her PHD. She never went to church. So please, once again, explain to my WHY religion is needed?

I myself have not even had a speeding ticket in 8 years and being 44 have long gotten over my teen and twenties hormones and angst. So I am also proof that you don't need church or religion to do the right thing.

Religion takes reality and bastardizes it with comic book super heros and super villains. A Dungeons and Dragons after school club can keep kids out of trouble too.

No one is saying that religion is the ONLY way that one can receive values. That's not the point. When I say, "These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings" I'm not saying those that don't go to cannot be educated etc. What I mean is that I'm not going to go to Tae Kwon Do classes to learn about family values or altruistic love or soccer practice to learn about parenting. These things can teach social and other skills though.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Anymouse wrote:Concerning

Anymouse wrote:

Concerning research, I don't really count Google, and I don't use that ad-serving and self-serving service.

I did go to Mississippi State University's Website, as I mentioned, and used AltaVista for searches. As the article listed his university, I felt that would be the most appropriate place to search: surely such an important study would reflect on the college? I could turn up nothing about the researcher or the research there.

Many universities that index their own sites (that is, they have an in house search engine) do not pick up everything on every sub domain for universities. The university search didn't pick up his page, but Google did....

Anymouse wrote:

In the article I did not see that it said it was yet to be published. Though you have brought that to my attention, to my mind means it is not available, and therefore not yet an accepted study.

I did a search on Google, and found a forum called "Parenting Beyond Belief" (for atheist parents), which noted the article in 2007. How long has this thing been kicking around? It does show up in Google's scholarly section, but I am quite convinced, especially by the study author's own claim that "it could be the other way around; maybe parents of well-behaved kids are the only ones who bring them to church." I also wonder about asking six-year olds to rate their family environment. Are they up to the task?

That's possible... the study though seemed to indicate the correlation was more than merely religious attendance though.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: The following

cj wrote:

The following paragraphs show that the authors did not independently confirm the parent's religious participation nor their reported interactions with their children.

The mother's mean age is 34.68 +- 6.57.  So we are looking at an older population - very few teen mothers in the sample.  Some number closer to menopause.

I am never sure about the fascination with biological vs step families.  Supposedly step parents are less involved with the other spouse's children.  But my ex-husband hardly ever interacted with his children - even when we are married.  He never interacted with them after the divorce.  And my current husband was/is a wonderful father with my sons.  Who knows.  Maybe my family was one of those outliers.

I think the mean age would reflect the average age of a parent with a first grader... If someone was 15 or 16 when they had their child, they'd be 22 or 23 when their kid was in the first grade. My dad was 30 when I was in the first grade...

cj wrote:

And the authors then list a number of problems with this particular study and other factors that may be interesting but they don't have the data to analyze.

Not a bad study, but it doesn't come to the conclusion that "these things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings."  There is one - to me - glaring missing piece.  There have been numerous studies that demonstrate a father's involvement with his children reduces teen pregnancy, delinquent behavior, low academic achievement and so on.  This study could be another demonstration that a father's involvement is more important than any other factor for a child's social success.  And they didn't take this into account in their analysis.

I'm still not convinced it is all due to religion.

The research, as he notes, is among the first of its kind as there's not much research on the effects of religion on child rearing... I think there is more to be done here, as I don't think this is the definitive study of the subject matter.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: ... there's

Wowzers1 wrote:
... there's not much research on the effects of religion on child rearing...

You don't know much about psychology, then.

There's plenty that's understood and diagnosed on the self esteem issues, particularly suffered by women married to devoutly religious men, as well as plenty of sexual repression and dysfunction, due to 'religiosity'.

Wowzers1 wrote:
I think there is more to be done here...

We're working on it.

I know I've done my share of 'enlightening'...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There are other studies

There are other studies worth looking it in this context, in particular

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies,” carried out by Gregory S. Paul and published in the Journal of Religion and Society.

which shows somewhat the reverse, when looking at the correlations between religiosity and social health more broadly.

It is available in PDF form here

http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There are

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are other studies worth looking it in this context, in particular

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies,” carried out by Gregory S. Paul and published in the Journal of Religion and Society.

which shows somewhat the reverse, when looking at the correlations between religiosity and social health more broadly.

It is available in PDF form here

http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf

 

 

 

The issues with the one in the OP, can be applied to this one.

 

 

 


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There are

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are other studies worth looking it in this context, in particular

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies,” carried out by Gregory S. Paul and published in the Journal of Religion and Society.

which shows somewhat the reverse, when looking at the correlations between religiosity and social health more broadly.

It is available in PDF form here

http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf

You might be surprised that I agree with the study... It seems to be correlating fundamental religion with development, crime, and such things.

I doesn't address the issues in the study that was mentioned in the OP though.

 

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are other studies worth looking it in this context, in particular

"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies,” carried out by Gregory S. Paul and published in the Journal of Religion and Society.

which shows somewhat the reverse, when looking at the correlations between religiosity and social health more broadly.

It is available in PDF form here

http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf

You might be surprised that I agree with the study... It seems to be correlating fundamental religion with development, crime, and such things.

I doesn't address the issues in the study that was mentioned in the OP though.

 

Where did it relate to 'fundamental' religion (did you mean 'fundamentalist'? ). It was mainly related to belief in a creator god, and heaven and hell.

Quote:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

Maybe the kids are so well-adjusted they have less problem with having more unprotected sex?

And are cooler with commiiting murder when they grow up, because they believe that if the person they kill is good, the'll go straight to heaven anyway, and if not they deserved to die and will go to hell.

But seriously:

There are issues with the correlations. When you exclude the US, the correlations aren't quite as strong, suggesting it is more than the high rates of belief that are part of the problem there, and maybe it is other aspects of US culture that lead to both high rates of belief and the problems discussed. I agree that in cases where there is a large difference in social well-being, there is more likely to be strong religious belief as a means for the poor to find some comfort, so making the immediate causality being most likely from the poor conditions to the belief.

That does not mean that it works the other way as well in a longer-term, broader sense, that religious belief reduces the incentive to introduce effective policies to address the poverty.

It does reinforce the idea that it is far more likely to be that attending a social group is the main benefit, rather than the associated religiosity.

Maybe because religious belief is the biggest factor drawing people to regularly gather in such groups in the USA, there is a stronger correlation between religion and happy kids within the US.

When you restrict the comparisons to 'prosperous democracies', the correlations are more problematic for the 'benefits' of belief.

The study I referenced suggests that similar or better outcomes can be achieved by other drivers of social cooperation, which are more common in other countries. It is important to compare how such correlations work out across cultures, as done in the Paul study, to average out local effects.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:no one is

Wowzers1 wrote:

no one is saying that religion is the ONLY way that one can receive values. That's not the point. When I say, "These things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings" I'm not saying those that don't go to cannot be educated etc. What I mean is that I'm not going to go to Tae Kwon Do classes to learn about family values or altruistic love or soccer practice to learn about parenting. These things can teach social and other skills though.

 

If no one is saying religion is the only way one can receive values, then why is it needed?

Your Tae Kwan Do classes most certainly teach you family values. Responsibility, discipline, bonding. You do those things with family too. That kind of class is a better environment than a church, because it is not religious based and anyone can join. And I am quite sure the teacher doesn't threaten you with mythological characters. The worst you are going to get is kicked out if you fail, he wont follow you and stalk you like god threatens to do if you leave him.

You do have a parent in all sports, a coach. A great coach is  going to give every shit about you on and off the field. If all they care about is winning, you might win, but but that would only  make them a bad parent who only cares about glory, not you. A great coach is going to care about what you do AFTER you leave the team, win or lose.


I feel the same love for my mom who believes. I felt the same love for my wife as any believing married couple. I feel the same love for my pets.

Altruistic love? Thats just your hormones talking. Love is nothing magical. It is not a Hollywood movie script.

Love is being there for someone even when they shit in their pants because of physical illness or disability. Love is also knowing when to let someone go their own way if things don't work out.

You are confusing passion with love. You can also find "altruism" in deciding someday that you want to teach Tae Kwan Do. That would really simply mean an extreme passion for doing such.

"Love" and "altruism" are abstract words that mean different things to different people in different contexts and none of those words are magical or a movie script.

Religion takes reality and hijacks it and turns it into a needlessly conflated comic book. People think they need it and that is why they do it. Just like kids really want Santa to be real.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
In other news, the graphic

In other news, the graphic details of Kosher butchery tends to win converts to vegetarianism. 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13827
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:cj wrote:The

Wowzers1 wrote:

cj wrote:

The following paragraphs show that the authors did not independently confirm the parent's religious participation nor their reported interactions with their children.

The mother's mean age is 34.68 +- 6.57.  So we are looking at an older population - very few teen mothers in the sample.  Some number closer to menopause.

I am never sure about the fascination with biological vs step families.  Supposedly step parents are less involved with the other spouse's children.  But my ex-husband hardly ever interacted with his children - even when we are married.  He never interacted with them after the divorce.  And my current husband was/is a wonderful father with my sons.  Who knows.  Maybe my family was one of those outliers.

I think the mean age would reflect the average age of a parent with a first grader... If someone was 15 or 16 when they had their child, they'd be 22 or 23 when their kid was in the first grade. My dad was 30 when I was in the first grade...

cj wrote:

And the authors then list a number of problems with this particular study and other factors that may be interesting but they don't have the data to analyze.

Not a bad study, but it doesn't come to the conclusion that "these things are not necessarily imbued by other social settings."  There is one - to me - glaring missing piece.  There have been numerous studies that demonstrate a father's involvement with his children reduces teen pregnancy, delinquent behavior, low academic achievement and so on.  This study could be another demonstration that a father's involvement is more important than any other factor for a child's social success.  And they didn't take this into account in their analysis.

I'm still not convinced it is all due to religion.

The research, as he notes, is among the first of its kind as there's not much research on the effects of religion on child rearing... I think there is more to be done here, as I don't think this is the definitive study of the subject matter.

You need a study to know what teaching religion does to a child? Someone had to present Bin Ladin a Koran. Someone had to present Scot Roder a bible.

The only way to teach religion that wont cause bullshit indoctrination is to teach it as cultural literature, not fact and do it in comparison with other religions throughout history, then let the kid decide.

You tell a kid that they will burn in hell if they don't believe, and that your way is the only way and that is all they learn as an absolute, you are teaching them that behavior through fear is the only way to lead. In turn after abusing them with fear, they grow up with no credible conflict resolution skills when they run into others who don't believe what they do.

You don't need a study to know what religion does to a kid. All you have to do is watch the adults who were raised religious kill each other in religious wars and sectarian squabbles.

The harm it does is to a child is that it sets up an "in group" "out group" setting and they grow up thinking they are special, at the expense of all others.

A healthy way to raise a kid is to teach them critical thinking skills, conflict resolution skills, and that while they are special to you, and should have self esteem, they are not special to the world.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Where did

BobSpence1 wrote:

Where did it relate to 'fundamental' religion (did you mean 'fundamentalist'? ). It was mainly related to belief in a creator god, and heaven and hell.

Fundamentalist, for the most part, are the ones rejecting evolutionary science and adhere to things like "absolute belief in God" and "Bible literalism". The study correlates the aforementioned religiosity and other aspects (such as worship attendance) to societal dysfunction.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are issues with the correlations. When you exclude the US, the correlations aren't quite as strong, suggesting it is more than the high rates of belief that are part of the problem there, and maybe it is other aspects of US culture that lead to both high rates of belief and the problems discussed. I agree that in cases where there is a large difference in social well-being, there is more likely to be strong religious belief as a means for the poor to find some comfort, so making the immediate causality being most likely from the poor conditions to the belief.

That does not mean that it works the other way as well in a longer-term, broader sense, that religious belief reduces the incentive to introduce effective policies to address the poverty.

It does reinforce the idea that it is far more likely to be that attending a social group is the main benefit, rather than the associated religiosity.

Maybe because religious belief is the biggest factor drawing people to regularly gather in such groups in the USA, there is a stronger correlation between religion and happy kids within the US.

When you restrict the comparisons to 'prosperous democracies', the correlations are more problematic for the 'benefits' of belief.

The study I referenced suggests that similar or better outcomes can be achieved by other drivers of social cooperation, which are more common in other countries. It is important to compare how such correlations work out across cultures, as done in the Paul study, to average out local effects.

The correlation seems to suggest at some level it is the content of the beliefs that correlates... that's what I was getting at. I'm not certain that belief in god in general is what is being correlated....

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You need a

Brian37 wrote:

You need a study to know what teaching religion does to a child? Someone had to present Bin Ladin a Koran. Someone had to present Scot Roder a bible.

Genetic fallacies such as this are fallacies of irrelevance...

Brian37 wrote:

The only way to teach religion that wont cause bullshit indoctrination is to teach it as cultural literature, not fact and do it in comparison with other religions throughout history, then let the kid decide.

Huh? Where did this come from? I think kids should choose his or her own beliefs, but the parents also have to stay true to their conscience too... I don't believe that everything that person do should go unquestioned, but a parent believes a child is best raised up in religion, then that parent should have the right to do so. There are plenty of people who have religious backgrounds that turned out fine.

Brian37 wrote:

You tell a kid that they will burn in hell if they don't believe, and that your way is the only way and that is all they learn as an absolute, you are teaching them that behavior through fear is the only way to lead. In turn after abusing them with fear, they grow up with no credible conflict resolution skills when they run into others who don't believe what they do.

This is a rather baseless assertion.

Brian37 wrote:

You don't need a study to know what religion does to a kid. All you have to do is watch the adults who were raised religious kill each other in religious wars and sectarian squabbles.

But that ignores the other 100 people who were raised in religion that do not act this way. And it also ignores the people create sectarian squabbles and anti-religious wars. A generalized observation as this is as baseless as the last assertion you made.

Brian37 wrote:

The harm it does is to a child is that it sets up an "in group" "out group" setting and they grow up thinking they are special, at the expense of all others.

A healthy way to raise a kid is to teach them critical thinking skills, conflict resolution skills, and that while they are special to you, and should have self esteem, they are not special to the world.

And religion doesn't teach these things? If you think this way, I think you've got some mixed up ideas about what goes on inside the doors of religious institutions.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If no one is

Brian37 wrote:

If no one is saying religion is the only way one can receive values, then why is it needed?

No one said it was "needed"... but what does that have to do with anything? The study showed that there is a correlations between two children whose parents who agree on religion, are both involved with it regularly and talk about it with their children have better social skills and study habits.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Wows

 

Do you believe the bible - the gospel - taught in church really tries to teach children concrete values, conscientiousness, etc as per the OP? Threat and reward, sure, but teach useful values? 

Further, I've been wracking my brain trying to ascertain the moral fundamentals of the bible and for the life of me I cannot find a good deal. The six commandments are as basic as basic could be and extracting morality from the rest of the bible requires the sort of high level moral development only an adult can bring to bear in order to fabricate the necessary context. We would agree there are many things in the bible that are immoral just as we'd agree there are many things in church that are immoral. 

And I struggle with church/gospel contributing anything meaningful to something complex and demanding like parenting. Where in the bible is there a detailed and coherent section on parenting? My parents seemed to only read the spare the rod and spoil the child - there was no leadership or useful instruction tho' obviously this is quite subjective.

I would argue from the basis of a childhood as a preacher's son that kids are brought to church and thrown at the doctrine as if it will do the work that human parents are required to do - as if it will provide consistent and meaningful moral instruction through some sort of osmosis. But it does not and it cannot. 

Children are raised by other human beings including their parents and they crave and seek interaction with them. No young kid can hope to glean the basics of morality from reading the bible. They need example, guidance, direction, discipline, forgiveness, encouragement and hands-on support in real time. This is something the passive, opaque teachings of the bible and the entirely absent god demonstrably do not do.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: You need a

Brian37 wrote:
You need a study to know what teaching religion does to a child?

No sensible person wouldn't be able to deduce how devisive and militant religions are. It's part and parcel of their scriptures, and why religious people simply parrot scripture, and leave no room for discourse.

Brian37 wrote:
Someone had to present Bin Ladin a Koran.

This is a prime example of what religion does. Another prime example is Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptists.

Their positions are both firmly rooted in their scriptures. Not only are they militant to apostates, they are also militant towards the 'moderates' of their own faiths.

Of course there will be apologists in both camps trying to divert attention from the fact that these 'fundies' are just 'better' adhering to the scriptures.

Brian37 wrote:
The only way to teach religion that wont cause bullshit indoctrination is to teach it as cultural literature, not fact and do it in comparison with other religions throughout history, then let the kid decide.

Which is the way I was exposed to religion. In high school. We looked at all the main religions throughout antiquity.

Brian37 wrote:
You tell a kid that they will burn in hell if they don't believe

This is the blatant passive aggressive terrorism aspect of religions, and the psychological abuse that carries on into adulthood.

You can't reason with people who are living out of a fantasy inspired by folklore, as if it's reality.

The other perversion is the dictating of being obligated to love and worship someone, or suffer dire consequences of eternal suffering, which is the clear indication that religion is sadistic.

Brian37 wrote:
You don't need a study to know what religion does to a kid.

That's the great aspect of this forum. To hear from all the former theists, and see how much happier they are since they finally escaped the mind control of religion.

 

The other fascinating aspect is to watch the theists come in here and desperately try and put a positive spin on what is obviously a scam.

Brian37 wrote:
A healthy way to raise a kid is to teach them critical thinking skills, conflict resolution skills, and that while they are special to you, and should have self esteem, they are not special to the world.

Religion erodes self esteem, and attempts to replace it entirely with external validation, and by external of the highest magnitude. One that is invisible, and non cooperative, and non negotiable.

A 'master/slave' codependency.

A tyranny.

Ya, great lesson for kids.

If you're a tyrant...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Do

Atheistextremist wrote:

Do you believe the bible - the gospel - taught in church really tries to teach children concrete values, conscientiousness, etc as per the OP? Threat and reward, sure, but teach useful values? 

Further, I've been wracking my brain trying to ascertain the moral fundamentals of the bible and for the life of me I cannot find a good deal. The six commandments are as basic as basic could be and extracting morality from the rest of the bible requires the sort of high level moral development only an adult can bring to bear in order to fabricate the necessary context. We would agree there are many things in the bible that are immoral just as we'd agree there are many things in church that are immoral. 

And I struggle with church/gospel contributing anything meaningful to something complex and demanding like parenting. Where in the bible is there a detailed and coherent section on parenting? My parents seemed to only read the spare the rod and spoil the child - there was no leadership or useful instruction tho' obviously this is quite subjective.

There's the law -- and the law contains many things more than just commandments. But there is also the Proverbs too, which I think are in effect a commentary on the law. The Proverbs contain a great deal about warnings against immorality, how to handle money, good work ethics, when to speak, when not to speak, familial relationships, etc.

The church I attend has classes, seminars, etc. for family issues: marriage, parenting, child rearing, moral development for teenagers, money management, among other topics. These are not necessarily being taught by the church staff, as they bring in people who have performed research and have practical knowledge in these areas and they believe what they teach to not be contradictory to the Bible. They also offer counseling services from licensed counselors too. There are a great number of older people I admire there too. I hope that when I'm their age I can look back and have a legacy like theirs. The church has programs for children and teenagers to interact in fun social ways -- sports, music, camps, time to just have fun -- but they also teach values that are pertinent to kids too. I say all this because many perceive the church as a Sunday-morning-only ritual -- I think as a whole, religion as this has a lot to offer. While many Christians believe the Bible is authoritative (I do too), this does not preclude that one can use other resources too: experts, experience, etc.

Atheistextremist wrote:
I would argue from the basis of a childhood as a preacher's son that kids are brought to church and thrown at the doctrine as if it will do the work that human parents are required to do - as if it will provide consistent and meaningful moral instruction through some sort of osmosis. But it does not and it cannot. 

Children are raised by other human beings including their parents and they crave and seek interaction with them. No young kid can hope to glean the basics of morality from reading the bible. They need example, guidance, direction, discipline, forgiveness, encouragement and hands-on support in real time. This is something the passive, opaque teachings of the bible and the entirely absent god demonstrably do not do.

I somewhat sympathize with Brennan Manning's quote "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."  While I do not know if this is what causes atheism or share your opinion about the Bible, I have met number of people who do not like church because it is full of "hypocrites" -- those who preach one thing and do another. For this reason and IMHO, preaching morality is not enough to instill morality -- it has to be modeled. Morality should be modeled by parents such that they do "practice what they preach" and wisdom should come from people who have more experience than the children do. I don't think the normal course of teaching children is not done by reading a book, but by modeling good examples.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal