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


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

Wowzers1 wrote:

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.

Life, and reality, is not a script.

There's no legitimate reason to condemn people for not living life according to a script.

Wowzers1 wrote:
While I do not know if this is what causes atheism

That's a non sequitur.

You're being intentionally obtuse.

Humans are born oblivious to the world.

Therefore they are atheists by birth, until such time that they deviate and become a 'theist'.

A Christian is just as much an atheist, towards other religions, as a theist is.

Therefore, you already know the answer to what 'causes' atheism.

 

It's simply not adopting a belief in a particular religion.

All of you Christians, Muslims, Jews, are just 1 religion away from being a total atheist.

 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Brian37

Wowzers1 wrote:

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.

 

AS A PLACEBO, not as a whole when dealing with "outsiders".

What is really going on is the socializing, nothing more.

Groups in other species socialize too. The religion is the excuse, the socializing is the nature, and is why people do it.

The study is trying to make the argument, that if you have religion, your kids will grow up more well adjusted. You are trying to down play it as merely "look what I found".

And if we are going to get into private religious schools vs public schools, people who can afford private schools have more resources, and they are more selective about who they let in. So the sample rate is skewed.

The reality is this is more about resources, not religion.

And if you compare America which is much more religious than Europe and Canada, we have much more problems with poverty and crime and a much higher ratio.

So what you and this study are doing is cherry picking and data mining.

People with resources, can, without religion, are going to always have better chances at putting their kid in a structured environment.

So once again, the study is coming to a false conclusion because it is only looking at one group of people because it wants religion to be relative, ignoring all the non religious less religious societies.

 

 

"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
Brian37 wrote:AS A PLACEBO,

Brian37 wrote:

AS A PLACEBO, not as a whole when dealing with "outsiders".

What is really going on is the socializing, nothing more.

Groups in other species socialize too. The religion is the excuse, the socializing is the nature, and is why people do it.

Even if it is merely socializing, family oriented socializing around religion correlates better to social skills and learning skills.

Brian37 wrote:
The study is trying to make the argument, that if you have religion, your kids will grow up more well adjusted. You are trying to down play it as merely "look what I found".

What does that have to do with anything?

Brian37 wrote:

And if we are going to get into private religious schools vs public schools, people who can afford private schools have more resources, and they are more selective about who they let in. So the sample rate is skewed.

The reality is this is more about resources, not religion.

Who said anything about private vs public schools?

Brian37 wrote:

And if you compare America which is much more religious than Europe and Canada, we have much more problems with poverty and crime and a much higher ratio.

So what you and this study are doing is cherry picking and data mining.

People with resources, can, without religion, are going to always have better chances at putting their kid in a structured environment.

So once again, the study is coming to a false conclusion because it is only looking at one group of people because it wants religion to be relative, ignoring all the non religious less religious societies.

I never said that America did not have higher crimes, etc. The study that Bob posted correlates it with religion -- particularly religion that rejects evolution, has unmovable beliefs bout God, and holds to biblical literalism.... To me, this sounds a problem with education, and I would think therein lies the problem.

The data the report I posted was gather by secular agnecies, not religious ones. And the data was a cross section of many regions and students. It's good statistical data. Saying it is "data mining" and "cherry picking" is a rather baseless claim in light of that. Not all religious people stiffle education, and it would appear that the study I posted in the OP would show that this is possible.

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
Wowzers1 wrote:Even if it is

Wowzers1 wrote:

Even if it is merely socializing, family oriented socializing around religion correlates better to social skills and learning skills.

 

The study totally ignores other studies that correlate father involving himself directly with the children do better at socializing their children regardless of religion.  Which is exactly what their study shows for people who profess religious beliefs.

If father involvement with the children regardless of professed faith correlates with better socialized children, how does this study tell us anything new?

 

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

 

I never said that America did not have higher crimes, etc. The study that Bob posted correlates it with religion -- particularly religion that rejects evolution, has unmovable beliefs bout God, and holds to biblical literalism.... To me, this sounds a problem with education, and I would think therein lies the problem.

The data the report I posted was gather by secular agnecies, not religious ones. And the data was a cross section of many regions and students. It's good statistical data. Saying it is "data mining" and "cherry picking" is a rather baseless claim in light of that. Not all religious people stiffle education, and it would appear that the study I posted in the OP would show that this is possible.

 

Brian - the study references a larger study that they took their data from - I assumed it was public school attendees only, but I may be wrong.

Wowzers - they may be a secular agency, but it was clear from the wording that the authors were biased towards a positive religious outcome.  One's personal viewpoints always skew how we view the world around us - even scientists have this problem which is the why behind having peer review before publishing.  Which was one of the points of the questions as to why it took so long to publish and why it was discussed on religious forums before publishing.  Good scientists who are trying to forward scientific knowledge welcome and encourage comments.  No one wants to spend 20 years with an incorrect conclusion due to sloppy statistical analysis floating around in their vitae.

I am not saying all religious people are against education.  I would be willing to say all religious people have a religious bias towards viewing the world - including education, including scientific findings.

Including you.

And my bias is towards dismissing religious outcomes.

 

-- 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.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I think this topic is a good

I think this topic is a good illustration of bias and selectively reading studies.

 

The key here is to not reject it based on conclusions.

 

It's true that people lie about religious attendence, but I think this fact gets selectively applied.

 

If it's true for when religion has a positive effect, then it's true for when religion has a negative effect. People didn't just lie in Wowzer1's study and then suddenly tell the truth in Gregory Paul's study.


Both authours would have to take that into account, and act accordingly.

 

Another thing that gets my gears is the claim religion only has one effect. That is Wowzer saying that religion can only produce positive effects, and atheists saying religion can only produce negative effects.

 

If religion influences behavior, there is pretty much no way it can only produce one effect.  There are some instances of it having a positive effect, and some of it having a negative effect.

 

We can all look at examples from our lives and others. Some people are better after getting rid of religion and some people are worse after getting rid of religion.

 

We can throw around studies and anecdotes till the cows come home.

 

"I killed that guy because of religion!"

 

"I got out of gangs because of religion!"

 

What we need is a consistent measure of whether religion influenced the behavor or not.  The people who do positive things quote the Bible? Well, so do the people who do negative things. So why should I accept one on their word, but not the other? Atheists kill. Atheists get out of gangs and turn their lives around.


 

What REALLY gets my panties in a twist though, is when people just point to a correlation and not bother to do follow up and take other factors into account. Or only take the other factors into account if it doesn't show what they want it to show, and then ignores the other factors when it does show what they want.

 

 

 

 

 


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

cj wrote:

The study totally ignores other studies that correlate father involving himself directly with the children do better at socializing their children regardless of religion.  Which is exactly what their study shows for people who profess religious beliefs.

If father involvement with the children regardless of professed faith correlates with better socialized children, how does this study tell us anything new?

The study "totally ignores"... What there to prevent me from saying the adverse... "the other studies 'totally ignore' studies such as this" or something to the like? And where are these studies?

This study does not preclude that fathers are spending time independently of religion. In correlates homogeneous beliefs, regular attendance by both parents, and discussion with children on matters of religion with better social skills and learning skills. From the study in the OP it would seem that religion does it better than other entities -- that would be new.

cj wrote:

Wowzers - they may be a secular agency, but it was clear from the wording that the authors were biased towards a positive religious outcome.  One's personal viewpoints always skew how we view the world around us - even scientists have this problem which is the why behind having peer review before publishing.  Which was one of the points of the questions as to why it took so long to publish and why it was discussed on religious forums before publishing.  Good scientists who are trying to forward scientific knowledge welcome and encourage comments.  No one wants to spend 20 years with an incorrect conclusion due to sloppy statistical analysis floating around in their vitae.

I am not saying all religious people are against education.  I would be willing to say all religious people have a religious bias towards viewing the world - including education, including scientific findings.

Including you.

And my bias is towards dismissing religious outcomes. 

So any study in favor of religion, you count as a wash?

The study was published online (December 2007) through publishing sites for scientific papers. It was included in print some time later -- I don't know the details of this particular studies inclusion in the journal.

 

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


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
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.

A regular, sane, non-fundamentalist church? Sure I can agree with that. It can be a good way to meet new people. I sometimes go to churches - unfortunately this is the Bible Belt so it's hard to find a good church, a lot of them are evil-gelical cults.

 

A fundie Baptist cult church that teaches that anyone who's not a member of their cult is a hellbound infidel who deserved to die in Hurricane Katrina, that aborting a cell smaller than a fly's brain is "murder", but murdering and raping children in the name of God is "moral" because the Bible says so (Leviticus, Numbers, etc), and teaches that the earth was created by magic 6,000 years ago and Ted Turner is in a huge conspiracy with the NWO and Lady Gaga to cover up the scientific proof of Noah's Ark? Um, nope. You'd have an easier time raising a serial rapist in a church like that than you would a normal kid.

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Did the study compare the

Did the study compare the against other 'control' groups, otherwise similar but involving other faiths, no religious faith, or groups in different cultural contexts?

Because if not, it is of very limited significance. It says nothing about the unique benefits of Religious belief and practice, per se.

The Paul study was NOT concentrating on the more dysfunctional faiths.

At best, your objection, Wowzers1, amounts to pointing out that some variants of Christian families can be more positive than other groups. D'uh.

Whereas he Paul study shows that overall, higher degrees of religiosity generally correlate negatively with other measures of social well-being, which is not what the followers would like to believe, or expect. Are you going to use the old bit that those 'faiths' that came out not so good were not 'True Christians"?

Completely non-religious families in highly secular societies such as in Western Europe seem to produce at least as well-adjusted kids as the families studied in that research, possibly even better.

It seems to me you have been fishing for a study that casts religion in more positive light than others have.

 

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

Did the study compare the against other 'control' groups, otherwise similar but involving other faiths, no religious faith, or groups in different cultural contexts?

Because if not, it is of very limited significance. It says nothing about the unique benefits of Religious belief and practice, per se.

The Paul study was NOT concentrating on the more dysfunctional faiths.

At best, your objection, Wowzers1, amounts to pointing out that some variants of Christian families can be more positive than other groups. D'uh.

Whereas he Paul study shows that overall, higher degrees of religiosity generally correlate negatively with other measures of social well-being, which is not what the followers would like to believe, or expect. Are you going to use the old bit that those 'faiths' that came out not so good were not 'True Christians"?

The Paul study did not concentrate on dysfunctional faiths as you said... rather on aspects of particular beliefs -- namely the rejection of evolution, biblical literalism, and unmovable beliefs in God. The correlation he was making was with countries that have higher percentages of such things. What I was saying is these issues related are educational rather than pragmatic as the study I posted suggested. Given that, the two studies are not contradictory, as they are correlating to different things. I have no problem accepting both studies...

If you're interested in the control variables of this study, look at the section on control variables on the original study .

BobSpence1 wrote:

Completely non-religious families in highly secular societies such as in Western Europe seem to produce at least as well-adjusted kids as the families studied in that research, possibly even better.

It seems to me you have been fishing for a study that casts religion in more positive light than others have.

No one is saying that that non-religious families cannot be well adjusted... I'm not looking for a study that casts religion in a positive light. There are many that do... I just found this one more interesting because the control variables were not just how often one attends religious gatherings.

 

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
BobSpence1 wrote:It seems to

BobSpence1 wrote:

It seems to me you have been fishing for a study that casts religion in more positive light than others have.

He must have missed this one...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29391

 

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


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

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It seems to me you have been fishing for a study that casts religion in more positive light than others have.

He must have missed this one...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29391

 

 

errrrr

 

 

Quote:

No differences in cheating were found between self-described believers in God and non-believers

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It had several separate

It had several separate correlations.

Rates of attendance at religious services and rates of prayer, as well as levels of biblical literalism, absolute belief in God and levels of acceptance of evolution,  were looked at, and percentage of atheists and agnostic, were compared to homicide rates, youth suicide rates, under five mortality rates, life expectancy, STD rates, teenage abortions, and teenage pregnancy rates, in a range of countries. So this study also was NOT "just (about) how often one attends religious gatherings.", and not about "aspects of particular beliefs" - it addressed basic measures of religiosity. The only more specific variable was acceptance of evolution, and that was just one of the factors, and they were all separately compared, so it was not in any way restricted to faiths which had strong attitudes to evolution. Or for that matter to faiths with strong literalism, or absolute belief, etc.

It was not comparing families within one country, as was the study you referred to, so it is not strictly comparable, this is true.


It was showing how these correlated, if at all, by looking a range of generally comparable countries.

The strongest correlation of the study you referenced seemed to be that when the parents and the children all attended a regular service together, the children seemed to be better adjusted.

It would be useful to compare the results of shared attendance and participation in various other activities to establish how significant the religious aspect was.

The Paul study is much more directly relevant to the overall benefits of religious attitudes to longer-term social health, IMHO.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In case you haven't found a

In case you haven't found a link to the original Gregory Paul paper, which included graphs, here it is:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

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


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

Wowzers1 wrote:

cj wrote:

The study totally ignores other studies that correlate father involving himself directly with the children do better at socializing their children regardless of religion.  Which is exactly what their study shows for people who profess religious beliefs.

If father involvement with the children regardless of professed faith correlates with better socialized children, how does this study tell us anything new?

The study "totally ignores"... What there to prevent me from saying the adverse... "the other studies 'totally ignore' studies such as this" or something to the like? And where are these studies?

This study does not preclude that fathers are spending time independently of religion. In correlates homogeneous beliefs, regular attendance by both parents, and discussion with children on matters of religion with better social skills and learning skills. From the study in the OP it would seem that religion does it better than other entities -- that would be new.

 

There is a collection of cross referenced studies available in any library.  Science Citation Index.  You can look by topic or by author.  Or google it anymore. 

I once watched a scientist's career go up in smoke.  I attended a seminar in another department at my husband's request. The visiting researcher had done a lot of study in a particular field.  And everyone was excited about his research - including how he had compensated in his own research for a phenomena that had first been documented in the 1930s.  When asked about this at the end of his presentation, he got the deer in the headlights look.  You know, sort of stunned.  He had not taken the previous research into account and so his 20 year body of work was worthless.

So, in this study, the authors did not take into account previous research that has been done and has been posted - and actually got headlines on the internet news sites.  When they examined families that were not religious did they separate out families with participating fathers from those without?  No telling, as this paper does not say.  Did they define and compare other types of participation - sports, school plays, fishing, etc?  This paper does not say.  Since those families with fathers who participated in religious activities scored highest of all, I think it is natural for me to wonder if this is religion or the actions of the father that is having an impact on their children. 

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

cj wrote:

Wowzers - they may be a secular agency, but it was clear from the wording that the authors were biased towards a positive religious outcome.  One's personal viewpoints always skew how we view the world around us - even scientists have this problem which is the why behind having peer review before publishing.  Which was one of the points of the questions as to why it took so long to publish and why it was discussed on religious forums before publishing.  Good scientists who are trying to forward scientific knowledge welcome and encourage comments.  No one wants to spend 20 years with an incorrect conclusion due to sloppy statistical analysis floating around in their vitae.

I am not saying all religious people are against education.  I would be willing to say all religious people have a religious bias towards viewing the world - including education, including scientific findings.

Including you.

And my bias is towards dismissing religious outcomes. 

So any study in favor of religion, you count as a wash?

The study was published online (December 2007) through publishing sites for scientific papers. It was included in print some time later -- I don't know the details of this particular studies inclusion in the journal.

 

I'm only trying to be as truthful as possible.  My bias is there and it is responsible of me to acknowledge this. 

See my anecdote above - the researcher had articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals.  His bias was missed by the reviewers and caught out by other researchers who had not been asked to review his articles.  The more eyes, the better as our biases always surface in our work.  In this article, given the wording used by the researchers, they have - what appears to me - an obvious bias in favor of positive religious outcomes.

It is very likely you don't perceive this bias as you share it with the researchers.  I am not trying to put you down, I am only pointing out what is very obvious to me.

 

-- 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.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Both I and cj probably have

Both I and cj probably have a significant bias against that research, but that bias actually allows us to identify potential objective flaws that someone with a different 'bias' may not see.

We try to compensate for our own views, but it is the objective flaws which need to addressed.

Which is precisely why science is crucially dependent on as much peer-review and independent evaluation as possible.

You can justifiably discount our bias, but you need to objectively address any flaws or holes we can point to.

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I didn't look at the link

I didn't look at the link but I actually believe it. If they are taking the kids to church and all then they are interacting with the kids and the kids are interacting with other people at least. I really doubt however it has anything to do with "jesus" or the religion in general. Just the fact that they take their kids and apparently have some "care" matters though. You have some religious folk who take their kids to church, you have some self proclaimed religious folk who do not, you have some ..folks.. who don't and don't really give a shit about their kids and don't interact or try to teach them anything. Of course a study will reveal this, it's common sense. But again, it really doesn't have anything to do with the religion. I like to think an atheist parent would be intelligent enough to teach their kids and do things with them as well, got any studies on that?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I didn't look

robj101 wrote:

I didn't look at the link but I actually believe it. If they are taking the kids to church and all then they are interacting with the kids and the kids are interacting with other people at least. I really doubt however it has anything to do with "jesus" or the religion in general. Just the fact that they take their kids and apparently have some "care" matters though. You have some religious folk who take their kids to church, you have some self proclaimed religious folk who do not, you have some ..folks.. who don't and don't really give a shit about their kids and don't interact or try to teach them anything. Of course a study will reveal this, it's common sense. But again, it really doesn't have anything to do with the religion. I like to think an atheist parent would be intelligent enough to teach their kids and do things with them as well, got any studies on that?

The study is a joke.

Even by 'single case' study 'standards'.

This is a quote from the *cough* 'paper'...

Quote:
...a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers.

 

 

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
cj wrote:There is a

cj wrote:
There is a collection of cross referenced studies available in any library.  Science Citation Index.  You can look by topic or by author.  Or google it anymore. 

I once watched a scientist's career go up in smoke.  I attended a seminar in another department at my husband's request. The visiting researcher had done a lot of study in a particular field.  And everyone was excited about his research - including how he had compensated in his own research for a phenomena that had first been documented in the 1930s.  When asked about this at the end of his presentation, he got the deer in the headlights look.  You know, sort of stunned.  He had not taken the previous research into account and so his 20 year body of work was worthless.

So, in this study, the authors did not take into account previous research that has been done and has been posted - and actually got headlines on the internet news sites.  When they examined families that were not religious did they separate out families with participating fathers from those without?  No telling, as this paper does not say.  Did they define and compare other types of participation - sports, school plays, fishing, etc?  This paper does not say.  Since those families with fathers who participated in religious activities scored highest of all, I think it is natural for me to wonder if this is religion or the actions of the father that is having an impact on their children.

The study does not say, but the study does not preclude that. What it does say is that when the father and mother are homogenous in their beliefs and attend services regularly together then there is a stronger correlation. It is reasonable to believe then that if religion was not a significant factor, you would have seen no statistical difference between those who were not religious, but that did not happen. The study does mention something about when they parents do see eye to eye on religion that is is actually detrimental.

I don't think the author of  the study is a slouch.. he's well published in numerous journals and has a couple of books out. Google his name and see what you find. The sort of research he is doing is correlating many things, and why I think he said the research was rather novel. It is reasonable to believe that anyone with his background and that had done the research as he did would know about these issues. Until he is shown to be a quack, I have no reason to believe that he. Just because one person's career went up in smoke does not mean another's will.

cj wrote:
I'm only trying to be as truthful as possible.  My bias is there and it is responsible of me to acknowledge this. 

See my anecdote above - the researcher had articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals.  His bias was missed by the reviewers and caught out by other researchers who had not been asked to review his articles.  The more eyes, the better as our biases always surface in our work.  In this article, given the wording used by the researchers, they have - what appears to me - an obvious bias in favor of positive religious outcomes.

It is very likely you don't perceive this bias as you share it with the researchers.  I am not trying to put you down, I am only pointing out what is very obvious to me.

I do not deny that I am a Christian and that I have a particular bias, but at the same time, I do know this and I attempt to be objective as possible. I don't look only at the evidence that supports my particular worldview -- demonstrably in that I agree in part with the study Bob posted.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Brian37

Wowzers1 wrote:

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.

Who the hell is claiming fundies are a result of genetics?

Lack of education and lack of exposure to pluralism combined with childhood indoctrination OF ANYTHING can turn what would be more accepting child into an intolerant adult.

Anyone teaching those things attributing it to ANY religion simply, like you fails to understand that those skills are not inventions of their labels, but a result of our evolution in the ability to think pragmatically.

What goes on in ALL religious institutions is the sale of myth. The fact that they might teach some facts along side it misses the point that the myth is not needed.

God is not required to explain entropy. Buddha is not needed to explain mitosis. Vishnu is not needed to measure the distance between stars. Allah is not needed to know what DNA is.

Religions are nothing but social clubs and the socializing can be done without them. And learning things like math and science are often bastardized or held back in history by these needless social clubs.

Religion cannot co opt reality and claim it as it's own. It can only pretend to.

 

 

 

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Unless the study controlled

Unless the study controlled for families which had similar patterns of participation but outside a religious context, they have no warrant for concluding that religion as such was important. Their failure to preclude that is indeed that - a failure.

The Paul study does address church attendance as a factor in itself, ie not as part of specific faiths, and finds a negative correlation with child "adjustment", at least in terms of sexual behaviour in their teenage years, as indicated by STD rates, abortions and pregnancies in that age group. I think the same pattern is observed within the US when states are compared..

Taking those observations together, your study is very weak, and maybe has picked up on a temporary effect in young children, at best.

As a separate observation, the Pascal quote in your sig confirms my assessment of him as more of a dishonest Christian apologetic that a serious philosopher.

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:Unless the

BobSpence1 wrote:

Unless the study controlled for families which had similar patterns of participation but outside a religious context, they have no warrant for concluding that religion as such was important. Their failure to preclude that is indeed that - a failure.

The Paul study does address church attendance as a factor in itself, ie not as part of specific faiths, and finds a negative correlation with child "adjustment", at least in terms of sexual behaviour in their teenage years, as indicated by STD rates, abortions and pregnancies in that age group. I think the same pattern is observed within the US when states are compared..

 

And what other factors besides religion did Paul take into account?

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Also, I think Wowzer1 would

Also, I think Wowzer1 would be interested in the finings of this study

 

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Shariff_Norenzayan.pdf

Quote:

Although religions continue to be powerful
facilitators of prosociality in large groups, they
are not the only ones. The cultural spread of reliable
secular institutions, such as courts, policing
authorities, and effective contract-enforcing mechanisms,
although historically recent, has changed
the course of human prosociality.

 

Also as you can see in the chart, secular primes promoted prosociality as much as religious primes.

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Unless the study controlled for families which had similar patterns of participation but outside a religious context, they have no warrant for concluding that religion as such was important. Their failure to preclude that is indeed that - a failure.

The Paul study does address church attendance as a factor in itself, ie not as part of specific faiths, and finds a negative correlation with child "adjustment", at least in terms of sexual behaviour in their teenage years, as indicated by STD rates, abortions and pregnancies in that age group. I think the same pattern is observed within the US when states are compared..

And what other factors besides religion did Paul take into account?

It was a different scope - he took four indicators of religious practice and belief: strength of belief in God, attendance at religious services, prayer, and rates of biblical literalism, plus rates of non-belief in the society (atheism/agnosticism), plus the levels of acceptance of evolution. By comparing across different societies, that was a much of a control as available.

The problem with the other study is it seems to have only looked at variations of behaviour within a religious context. So in the absence of non-religious controls, the conclusions are only valid within that context, not as applicable as in the Paul study, which took into account the total rates of the beliefs and practices across the whole of society.

Both were only correlations, but the Paul study at least looked at the whole societies.

He did acknowledge that it was only a start, and more research would be needed to pick apart the correlations. I think he would acknowledge most of the objections you might raise, based on reading the discussion in the article.

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


Recovering fund...
atheistSuperfan
Recovering fundamentalist's picture
Posts: 196
Joined: 2011-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:cj

Wowzers1 wrote:

cj wrote:
There is a collection of cross referenced studies available in any library.  Science Citation Index.  You can look by topic or by author.  Or google it anymore. 

I once watched a scientist's career go up in smoke.  I attended a seminar in another department at my husband's request. The visiting researcher had done a lot of study in a particular field.  And everyone was excited about his research - including how he had compensated in his own research for a phenomena that had first been documented in the 1930s.  When asked about this at the end of his presentation, he got the deer in the headlights look.  You know, sort of stunned.  He had not taken the previous research into account and so his 20 year body of work was worthless.

So, in this study, the authors did not take into account previous research that has been done and has been posted - and actually got headlines on the internet news sites.  When they examined families that were not religious did they separate out families with participating fathers from those without?  No telling, as this paper does not say.  Did they define and compare other types of participation - sports, school plays, fishing, etc?  This paper does not say.  Since those families with fathers who participated in religious activities scored highest of all, I think it is natural for me to wonder if this is religion or the actions of the father that is having an impact on their children.

The study does not say, but the study does not preclude that. What it does say is that when the father and mother are homogenous in their beliefs and attend services regularly together then there is a stronger correlation. It is reasonable to believe then that if religion was not a significant factor, you would have seen no statistical difference between those who were not religious, but that did not happen. The study does mention something about when they parents do see eye to eye on religion that is is actually detrimental.

I don't think the author of  the study is a slouch.. he's well published in numerous journals and has a couple of books out. Google his name and see what you find. The sort of research he is doing is correlating many things, and why I think he said the research was rather novel. It is reasonable to believe that anyone with his background and that had done the research as he did would know about these issues. Until he is shown to be a quack, I have no reason to believe that he. Just because one person's career went up in smoke does not mean another's will.

cj wrote:
I'm only trying to be as truthful as possible.  My bias is there and it is responsible of me to acknowledge this. 

See my anecdote above - the researcher had articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals.  His bias was missed by the reviewers and caught out by other researchers who had not been asked to review his articles.  The more eyes, the better as our biases always surface in our work.  In this article, given the wording used by the researchers, they have - what appears to me - an obvious bias in favor of positive religious outcomes.

It is very likely you don't perceive this bias as you share it with the researchers.  I am not trying to put you down, I am only pointing out what is very obvious to me.

I do not deny that I am a Christian and that I have a particular bias, but at the same time, I do know this and I attempt to be objective as possible. I don't look only at the evidence that supports my particular worldview -- demonstrably in that I agree in part with the study Bob posted.

Here's a simple way to solve the this delima - Ask yourself where Muslim terrorists learned to to blow themselves up in the name of God to slay infidels. Do you think they were just sitting around playing with toys like normal kids, and suddenly this idea just popped into their head? Do you think these kids would have grown up to be terrorists had they been raised in a normal, non-fundamentalist Muslim household?

That should tell you all you need to know about the social benefits of religion. It does for me anyway. And whatever good things children happen to learn in a religious environment, they would have learned just as well (or better) in a non-religious one. The religion aspect is just a hindrance, since no aspects of social interaction are exclusive to any religion or religion as a whole.

 

Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I accidently linked to the

I accidently linked to the wrong study

 

The study I was refering to is here

 

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Norenzayan&Shariff_Science.pdf

These are the same two people who did the study Atheist Extremist created a topic about.

He does a lot of research on the psychology of religon and has lots of articles about such

 

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/research.htm

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Recovering fundamentalist

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:
whatever good things children happen to learn in a religious environment, they would have learned just as well (or better) in a non-religious one. The religion aspect is just a hindrance, since no aspects of social interaction are exclusive to any religion or religion as a whole.

The do seem to have the market cornered on sexual hangups, by a landslide...

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
BobSpence1 wrote:It was a

BobSpence1 wrote:

It was a different scope - he took four indicators of religious practice and belief: strength of belief in God, attendance at religious services, prayer, and rates of biblical literalism, plus rates of non-belief in the society (atheism/agnosticism), plus the levels of acceptance of evolution. By comparing across different societies, that was a much of a control as available.

The problem with the other study is it seems to have only looked at variations of behaviour within a religious context. So in the absence of non-religious controls, the conclusions are only valid within that context, not as applicable as in the Paul study, which took into account the total rates of the beliefs and practices across the whole of society.

Both were only correlations, but the Paul study at least looked at the whole societies.

He did acknowledge that it was only a start, and more research would be needed to pick apart the correlations. I think he would acknowledge most of the objections you might raise, based on reading the discussion in the article.

The study I posted shows a stronger correlation with religious behavior than it does with those who answered otherwise, so it does take into account the non-religious. In other words, if religion was no different than non-religion, then one would expect there to be no statistical difference between to the two.

I have no problem with the findings of the Paul study, as I think the problem he is pointing out is a educational problem concerning belief rather than particular behaviors, although it does account for that some. I would tend to think that this would be a dependent variable though rather than an independent variable because it is behavioral rather than cognitive, as most of the other control variables are. It may be misplaced.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It was a different scope - he took four indicators of religious practice and belief: strength of belief in God, attendance at religious services, prayer, and rates of biblical literalism, plus rates of non-belief in the society (atheism/agnosticism), plus the levels of acceptance of evolution. By comparing across different societies, that was a much of a control as available.

The problem with the other study is it seems to have only looked at variations of behaviour within a religious context. So in the absence of non-religious controls, the conclusions are only valid within that context, not as applicable as in the Paul study, which took into account the total rates of the beliefs and practices across the whole of society.

Both were only correlations, but the Paul study at least looked at the whole societies.

He did acknowledge that it was only a start, and more research would be needed to pick apart the correlations. I think he would acknowledge most of the objections you might raise, based on reading the discussion in the article.

The study I posted shows a stronger correlation with religious behavior than it does with those who answered otherwise, so it does take into account the non-religious. In other words, if religion was no different than non-religion, then one would expect there to be no statistical difference between to the two.

I have no problem with the findings of the Paul study, as I think the problem he is pointing out is a educational problem concerning belief rather than particular behaviors, although it does account for that some. I would tend to think that this would be a dependent variable though rather than an independent variable because it is behavioral rather than cognitive, as most of the other control variables are. It may be misplaced.

It is flawed because the sample rate DOES NOT take into account less religious societies. Europe and the UK have much less crime and higher education rates and DO NOT take religion as seriously as America.

And again, if religion were a cure all then why do we have 2 million people in prison? Why is America at the bottom of the list in terms of education rates?

This is data mining and nothing more.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, super hero worship has a placebo affect much like belief in Santa has. You give people a structured environment and they are more likely to become adjusted. Japan and China do not believe in your god, and their cultures have their own social superstitions they center around and THEY do not have the same crime and education problems we do.

The socializing and structure are what provide the stable environment, not the religion or superstition. This is a result of evolution, not Vishnu, Buddha or Jesus.

 

"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
Brian37 wrote:It is flawed

Brian37 wrote:

It is flawed because the sample rate DOES NOT take into account less religious societies. Europe and the UK have much less crime and higher education rates and DO NOT take religion as seriously as America.

That's not the scope pf the study. Saying it is flawed for this reason is like saying a Cesna is flawed because it is not a 747 or vice versa.

Brian37 wrote:
And again, if religion were a cure all then why do we have 2 million people in prison? Why is America at the bottom of the list in terms of education rates?

Have you not been following my comments? I said that I think Bob's study is good is... And for the very reason you cited... the issues it is addressing are cognitive issues, and is that not the very reason I said I think it is right?

Brian37 wrote:
This is data mining and nothing more.

Data mining? I think you mean quote mining or cherry picking. But in any case, I don't think so. The data represents the population from which it was taken. That's not cherry picking, it's good statistics.

Brian37 wrote:
The socializing and structure are what provide the stable environment, not the religion or superstition. This is a result of evolution, not Vishnu, Buddha or Jesus.

That's not what the studied showed though. If religion was not significant, then the study should have showed that. There would have been no statistical difference between religion and non-religion if it was merely social and not religious.

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:robj101 wrote:I

redneF wrote:

robj101 wrote:

I didn't look at the link but I actually believe it. If they are taking the kids to church and all then they are interacting with the kids and the kids are interacting with other people at least. I really doubt however it has anything to do with "jesus" or the religion in general. Just the fact that they take their kids and apparently have some "care" matters though. You have some religious folk who take their kids to church, you have some self proclaimed religious folk who do not, you have some ..folks.. who don't and don't really give a shit about their kids and don't interact or try to teach them anything. Of course a study will reveal this, it's common sense. But again, it really doesn't have anything to do with the religion. I like to think an atheist parent would be intelligent enough to teach their kids and do things with them as well, got any studies on that?

The study is a joke.

Even by 'single case' study 'standards'.

This is a quote from the *cough* 'paper'...

Quote:
...a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers.

 

 

It still wouldn't suprise me one bit if going to social events regularly had a positive impact on kids, but I don't think it's any evidence that "religion" actually has anything to do with it. Religion would more than likely stunt a kids actual learning capability since they would think a god did everything. Common sense.

If we had some kind of regular atheist meeting and everyone brought the kids it would garner the same results.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi OPIE

Hi OPIE,

Wow. Do you guys not learn? Well, couple of things, religion is no longer a term. And the term exist is also not a term. Thus the term exist no longer exists.

So, logically religion is bad and causes ADD ADHD along with the atheist model of reading via whole language vs. the Christian method of reading via coded language.

So, since nobody knows what you or the article is takling about, and thus since this article and your post is a huge ambiguity with legs, this was a total waste of time among the educated.

The athests who are uneducated (all atheists are uneducated), I suppose would enjoy this.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

He did acknowledge that it was only a start, and more research would be needed to pick apart the correlations. I think he would acknowledge most of the objections you might raise, based on reading the discussion in the article.

 

I've read the study and he acknowledges that correlation=/=causation in the intro.

 

I also notice that the purpose of the study [and the only way it can be scientifically used IMO] is that a lack of belief in god won't cause a moral cesspool of a society. That's what he was testing for and that's what he showed. In order to draw conclusions other than that would require more research.

 

People can't just hide behind "more research is required"

 

Wowzer1 can use this study as a starting point to studying religion and child development and he can use it to call into question the supposed negative effects of church attendence, but he can't use it as a slam dunk case that religion is good.

 

 

As for bias etc... What I like to ask myself "What if it showed the opposite conclusion?"

 

That is if the study by Wowzer showed the opposite effect, would I, Bob or cj bring up the same objections?

If it showed the opposite would Wowzer still come to the conclusion that the study is valid and religion teaches negative values about parenting?

 

To be honest I doubt it.

 


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

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As for bias etc... What I like to ask myself "What if it showed the opposite conclusion?"

 

That is if the study by Wowzer showed the opposite effect, would I, Bob or cj bring up the same objections?

If it showed the opposite would Wowzer still come to the conclusion that the study is valid and religion teaches negative values about parenting?

 

To be honest I doubt it.

 

To be totally honest, I would doubt it, too.  Though I would hope I wouldn't base an entire study just on what the mother says is so.  Which is what this study does. 

Yes, they also asked the teacher's about the children's behavior.  But they made no effort to verify what mom said about religious participation.  And I would hope I would criticize this no matter the outcome of the study.

 

-- 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.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi OPIE,

Wow. Do you guys not learn? Well, couple of things, religion is no longer a term. And the term exist is also not a term. Thus the term exist no longer exists.

So, logically religion is bad and causes ADD ADHD along with the atheist model of reading via whole language vs. the Christian method of reading via coded language.

So, since nobody knows what you or the article is takling about, and thus since this article and your post is a huge ambiguity with legs, this was a total waste of time among the educated.

The athests who are uneducated (all atheists are uneducated), I suppose would enjoy this.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Hey Fido, got tired of sniffing your tyrant's ass I see.

 

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The study was so narrow in

The study was so narrow in scope, so shallow, and basically came up with the totally unsurprising conclusion that more family participation in a common activity can help kids psychologically. The fact that, especially in the USA, attendance at religious services is probably the most common opportunity for such activity makes the whole thing pretty trivial.

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
I missed this post for some

I missed this post for some reason.

 

 

 

Recovering fundamentalist wrote:

Do you think these kids would have grown up to be terrorists had they been raised in a normal, non-fundamentalist Muslim household?

 

 

 

The research says yes. Few suicide bombers are raised in a religious environment.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Enemy-Brotherhood-Making-Terrorists/dp/0061344907/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303671855&sr=8-1

 

As I posted before, coalition was a better predictor of action than religion good or bad.  Suicide bombers are not the exception and studies back this up.

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Religion is a very poor

Religion is a very poor basis for morality, having nothing remotely objective as justification, based as it is on unfounded claims backed up by subjective feelings.

With only the recorded beliefs and attitudes of a particular set of tribes living in the Middle East living a few thousand years ago, it simply perpetuates their codes, taboos, etc.

It is a distorted derivative of the innate attitudes and cultural codes that evolved, both memetically and genetically, in the interests of maximizing social cooperation and cohesion. That includes the obvious fact that parents serve as role models for their children. The problem is that religion is a distraction from this, by pointing to a 'super-parent', whose model of behavior, as far as we can determine by the writings in the Bible and observation of world he is claimed to have created, is very questionable, in any decent moral sense.

EDIT: The other problematic aspect of the Religious model of regulating moral behaviour, is that by tying the source, judge, and enforcer to a creator being, you risk having the morality of a society torn down when the creation myth is exposed as deeply flawed by the progress of actual knowledge.

There are plenty of more direct and comprehensible arguments for decent moral interaction with other people, without tying it to a potentially debunkable concept like God.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Teaching kids how to

Teaching kids how to interact with others in a positive way, in a religious context, is clearly more likely to have benefits in the context of a strongly religious society, but unfortunately perpetuates an ultimately less functional moral code.

This is what is the Paul study seems to point to, and can only be revealed by comparing different societies.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:Brian37

Wowzers1 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It is flawed because the sample rate DOES NOT take into account less religious societies. Europe and the UK have much less crime and higher education rates and DO NOT take religion as seriously as America.

That's not the scope pf the study. Saying it is flawed for this reason is like saying a Cesna is flawed because it is not a 747 or vice versa.

No.

Because single case studies, without proper controls, are merely anecdotal, and prone to false positives.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
This is data mining and nothing more.

Data mining? I think you mean quote mining or cherry picking. But in any case, I don't think so. The data represents the population from which it was taken. That's not cherry picking, it's good statistics.

This is a study about 5 and 6 yr olds, who are under 24/7 supervision by adults, and disciplined by religiously dogmatic parents.

They have practically no autonomy.

Get fucking real...

Wowzers1 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The socializing and structure are what provide the stable environment, not the religion or superstition. This is a result of evolution, not Vishnu, Buddha or Jesus

That's not what the studied showed though. If religion was not significant, then the study should have showed that. There would have been no statistical difference between religion and non-religion if it was merely social and not religious.

Study some 16000 5 and 6 yr old children of atheists in a number of European countries, as a control, and follow up the study of the same children in 20 yrs, when they've evolved, and do a comprehensive meta-analysis on their history, and a psychological analysis, and there might be something to talk about.

Till then, the study you linked to is an absurdly weak religious propaganda.

And everybody here knows what 'worship' of the god of the bible means.

It means that they are taught that the bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic, hateful, vengeful god is the arbiter of what is 'right', and 'wrong', and the sole being who decides what is worthy of contempt and scorn, and what is punishable by torture and death.

So STFU about how 'good' religion is for kids...

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
BobSpence1 wrote:The study

BobSpence1 wrote:

The study was so narrow in scope, so shallow, and basically came up with the totally unsurprising conclusion that more family participation in a common activity can help kids psychologically. The fact that, especially in the USA, attendance at religious services is probably the most common opportunity for such activity makes the whole thing pretty trivial.

If it applies to Americans only, then that would constitute 300,000,000+ people. That's not trivial if the scope is America... The data was taken from a cross section of regions, not just places were religion is particularly strong. The Pacific Northwest and urban centers in America reflect attributes more akin to those found in Europe.

 

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
BobSpence1 wrote:Religion is

BobSpence1 wrote:

Religion is a very poor basis for morality, having nothing remotely objective as justification, based as it is on unfounded claims backed up by subjective feelings.

With only the recorded beliefs and attitudes of a particular set of tribes living in the Middle East living a few thousand years ago, it simply perpetuates their codes, taboos, etc.

It is a distorted derivative of the innate attitudes and cultural codes that evolved, both memetically and genetically, in the interests of maximizing social cooperation and cohesion. That includes the obvious fact that parents serve as role models for their children. The problem is that religion is a distraction from this, by pointing to a 'super-parent', whose model of behavior, as far as we can determine by the writings in the Bible and observation of world he is claimed to have created, is very questionable, in any decent moral sense.

EDIT: The other problematic aspect of the Religious model of regulating moral behaviour, is that by tying the source, judge, and enforcer to a creator being, you risk having the morality of a society torn down when the creation myth is exposed as deeply flawed by the progress of actual knowledge.

There are plenty of more direct and comprehensible arguments for decent moral interaction with other people, without tying it to a potentially debunkable concept like God.

I might agree with this if and only if the morality reflected in society was inconsistent with the morality taught by religion, particularly the New Testament (although, I think the Old Testament teaches these too). Altruistic love and a principle of conscience are what Jesus taught and what should govern moral decision making. Jesus himself violated numerous cultural taboos to show this very thing. Now, these principles are not unique to Christianity nor do they require Christianity to be executed. However, I think one could argue that Western societies that embrace these principles grew out of Christianity.

What "more direct and comprehensible arguments" are you proposing?

 

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: Altruistic

Wowzers1 wrote:

 Altruistic love and a principle of conscience are what Jesus taught

That's a nice attempt at obfuscating and obscuring the unconscionable insanity and psychopathy of the Old Testament god.

 

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:I might agree

Wowzers1 wrote:

I might agree with this if and only if the morality reflected in society was inconsistent with the morality taught by religion,

Religions are comprised of the people of the society; for the most part, religions absorbs their values from the society, not the other way around. A religion which possessed values that were too inconsistent with the populace would evolve or become weak and possibly extinct.

Of course the values of our society are inconsistent with the Bible, because the Bible reflects the preferences of a society that existed thousands of years ago. Christians nowadays don't follow essentially any of the morals codes in the Old Testament and many of the rules in the New Testament because they feel that they are bad rules. You just think it's consistent with the values of our society because you cherry pick, reinterpret, and rationalize to get what you want, then ignore the rest.

 

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


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

butterbattle wrote:

Religions are comprised of the people of the society; for the most part, religions absorbs their values from the society, not the other way around. A religion which possessed values that were too inconsistent with the populace would evolve or become weak and possibly extinct.

It would seem that if religion absorbed values from society then religions would more mirror the values of the societies, but that does not seem to be the case.

butterbattle wrote:

Of course the values of our society are inconsistent with the Bible, because the Bible reflects the preferences of a society that existed thousands of years ago. Christians nowadays don't follow essentially any of the morals codes in the Old Testament and many of the rules in the New Testament because they feel that they are bad rules. You just think it's consistent with the values of our society because you cherry pick, reinterpret, and rationalize to get what you want, then ignore the rest.

So you're saying that religions stop absorbing values from society as some point?

I don't believe I'm cherry picking at all... rather trying to understand the picture as a whole. I fear that atheists do this more so than theists do in that more often than not, they toss out theism in light of what I believe to be a misunderstanding of the Old Testament and with no regard for the New Testament. Correct me if I'm wrong 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: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The study was so narrow in scope, so shallow, and basically came up with the totally unsurprising conclusion that more family participation in a common activity can help kids psychologically. The fact that, especially in the USA, attendance at religious services is probably the most common opportunity for such activity makes the whole thing pretty trivial.

If it applies to Americans only, then that would constitute 300,000,000+ people. That's not trivial if the scope is America... The data was taken from a cross section of regions, not just places were religion is particularly strong. The Pacific Northwest and urban centers in America reflect attributes more akin to those found in Europe.

The numbers are not that relevant beyond a minimum level.

From what I recall, several surveys that have been more along the lines of the Paul study, but comparing regions or states within theUS, have come up with similar findings, that the more highly religious states have generally poorer social measures, especially in those measures related to teenage pregnancies, STD's and abortions.

Follow up those kids in another 10 years or so and get back to us, before claiming too much.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: I don't

Wowzers1 wrote:
I don't believe I'm cherry picking at all...

What you 'believe', is redundant. 

 

What's been objectively demonstrated over and over, is that you are in fact not being objective at all, and that the single case study that you linked to, is about the weakest form of anecdotal evidence.

Studies like that could lead one to believe that those who drive Ford instead of Chevy have better odds of (X).

Wowzers1 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Not only are you wrong, you're intentionally being obtuse, obnoxious, and just plain stupid, if you can't comprehend and accept what is so logically laid out for you.

Not that it's suprising.

 

You come across much like a carbon copy of Mr_Metaphysics.

I wouldn't be suprised that you're a sock puppet...

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: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:BobSpence1

Wowzers1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Religion is a very poor basis for morality, having nothing remotely objective as justification, based as it is on unfounded claims backed up by subjective feelings.

With only the recorded beliefs and attitudes of a particular set of tribes living in the Middle East living a few thousand years ago, it simply perpetuates their codes, taboos, etc.

It is a distorted derivative of the innate attitudes and cultural codes that evolved, both memetically and genetically, in the interests of maximizing social cooperation and cohesion. That includes the obvious fact that parents serve as role models for their children. The problem is that religion is a distraction from this, by pointing to a 'super-parent', whose model of behavior, as far as we can determine by the writings in the Bible and observation of world he is claimed to have created, is very questionable, in any decent moral sense.

EDIT: The other problematic aspect of the Religious model of regulating moral behaviour, is that by tying the source, judge, and enforcer to a creator being, you risk having the morality of a society torn down when the creation myth is exposed as deeply flawed by the progress of actual knowledge.

There are plenty of more direct and comprehensible arguments for decent moral interaction with other people, without tying it to a potentially debunkable concept like God.

I might agree with this if and only if the morality reflected in society was inconsistent with the morality taught by religion, particularly the New Testament (although, I think the Old Testament teaches these too). Altruistic love and a principle of conscience are what Jesus taught and what should govern moral decision making. Jesus himself violated numerous cultural taboos to show this very thing. Now, these principles are not unique to Christianity nor do they require Christianity to be executed. However, I think one could argue that Western societies that embrace these principles grew out of Christianity.

What "more direct and comprehensible arguments" are you proposing?

Show me where slavery, rape, or torture are explicitly labelled as 'sins', in and of themselves.

Especially in the OT, women and servants/slaves are property. Women are the property of their father until they are married, when they become the property of their husband, which to me is immoral and primitive crap. What references to and prohibitions related to what we would call rape that we find in the Bible are actually treating it as a property crime, only sinful insofar as you are abusing someone else's property, ie the woman. That is fucked up.

Almost every pronouncement connected in some way with sexual activities is similarly screwed up, such as with respect to homosexuality.

Secular , ie real morality, is based on empathy for others, involving a concern for avoiding actual harm to them, and imposing anything on them against their will without adequate justification. Conscience and love is all very well, as long as they drive the more specific guidelines I outlined. I went into this in more detail in another recent thread.

Christian principles grew out of tribal taboos and ideas, which did include some of the more obvious natural 'wrongs', such as murder and theft. But it added a whole lot of crap connected with religious observance, and sexual hangups, that has take centuries to wind back in modern societies, insofar as it has been.

Womens' rights have had to fought for in the teeth of opposition from many religious authorities, as well as other interests. Even the use of anaesthetics to relieve the pain of childbirth has been objected to by some people inspired by scripture.

Some prominent established churches actually ran slave plantations.

'Morality' is the biggest negative for religion.

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

Show me where slavery, rape, or torture are explicitly labelled as 'sins', in and of themselves.

Slavery in the context of OT times was rather different from what the common perception is today -- more along the lines of debtor/debt-holder responsibilities, and the provisions made for slaves and their freedom are documented. But even so, God is the great emancipator. I would contend that general attitude toward slavery is negative, as with divorce, polygamy among other things. While these things are not explicitly prohibited they are allowed.

Rape is another issue. There's no word in Hebrew for "rape", so to label it "sin" where words as such do not exist is not possible, but given that, and that there is a general negative attitude toward fornication or sex of any kind outside of marriage, it is reasonable to think that rape is sin too. Somethings were unspeakable... and this may very well be one of those things.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Especially in the OT, women and servants/slaves are property. Women are the property of their father until they are married, when they become the property of their husband, which to me is immoral and primitive crap. What references to and prohibitions related to what we would call rape that we find in the Bible are actually treating it as a property crime, only sinful insofar as you are abusing someone else's property, ie the woman. That is fucked up.

Almost every pronouncement connected in some way with sexual activities is similarly screwed up, such as with respect to homosexuality.

That is arguably the secular norm of the day, rather than the religious norm of the day. Womanizing was not a result of anything God instituted, but man violating God's design in marriage between a man and a woman. The New Testament teaches something radically different that anything of this sort. In fact, polygamy rose up out of Cain's descendants in Genesis, and if one follows the two lines, the was one line that was sinful and the other that was godly, and the abuse of woman came from the sinful line.

I'm not proponent of homosexuality either, but I also think that homosexuals are marginalized in some societies because they are easy prey... the bigger problem IMHO is not homosexuality be sexual misconduct all around.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Secular , ie real morality, is based on empathy for others, involving a concern for avoiding actual harm to them, and imposing anything on them against their will without adequate justification. Conscience and love is all very well, as long as they drive the more specific guidelines I outlined. I went into this in more detail in another recent thread.

This is the ethic I think Jesus taught, and the reason that it exists in "secular" society

Do you care to provide the thread so I can read it?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Christian principles grew out of tribal taboos and ideas, which did include some of the more obvious natural 'wrongs', such as murder and theft. But it added a whole lot of crap connected with religious observance, and sexual hangups, that has take centuries to wind back in modern societies, insofar as it has been.

If anything, Christianity removed religious observance. And to what sexual hangups are you referring?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Womens' rights have had to fought for in the teeth of opposition from many religious authorities, as well as other interests. Even the use of anaesthetics to relieve the pain of childbirth has been objected to by some people inspired by scripture.

I'd agree with you on this.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Some prominent established churches actually ran slave plantations.

'Morality' is the biggest negative for religion.

I have no problem accepting the fact that religion has abused morality, but I don't know that it is "negative" for religion. Indicting the whole of religion because of this is a genetic fallacy.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:It would seem

Wowzers1 wrote:

It would seem that if religion absorbed values from society then religions would more mirror the values of the societies, but that does not seem to be the case.

More mirror? Does not seem to be the case? Could you make a more wussy, ambiguous, and unsupported assertion?

Wowzers1 wrote:
So you're saying that religions stop absorbing values from society as some point?

No. Try actually reading what I'm writing. Then you might know what I wrote.

Wowzers1 wrote:
they toss out theism in light of

Lol, you mean toss out the Bible? Oh, I'm sorry; you exercise out-group homogeneity bias, so theist=Christian.

Wowzers1 wrote:
what I believe to be a misunderstanding of the Old Testament and

Did I "misunderstand" all the parts where your narcissistic genocidal murderer orders his sheep to slaughter innocent women and children? Oh, maybe the part where he decides to flood the entire world and kill almost every living thing to make himself feel better?

Wowzers1 wrote:
with no regard for the New Testament.

No regard? The fictional character Jesus wants me to follow him like a mindless drone or I'll be tortured for all of eternity. He can go screw himself. Is that enough regard for you?

Wowzers1 wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong though.

You're wrong.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
"And if a man smite his

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Exodus 21:20-21

I like to beat up my "debtors" with a rod too.

 

 

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