New Study Contradicts Religious Bias

[ok doser]

I'm getting a general tendency toward judgment and punishment associated with religion both from the study and from the people, here.

that's because you're looking for it

and are adamantly refusing to recognize it in your own behavior :nono:

for example:

Lon, anyone with eyes and a shred of common sense will not doubt this study because they already know the results are accurate.

gosh, that sounds awfully judgmental

 

[kmoney]

I'm getting a general tendency toward judgment and punishment associated with religion both from the study and from the people, here.

Aren't you reading these posts?

Yes, I've read these posts. That post of yours talked about maximum and excessive punishment. Did the study phrase it that way? Did anyone else in this thread say that we needed max/excessive punishment?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Further, in the dictator game used in this study, the child who was allocating the resource had no reason to believe that by “winning” the game he’d be hurting the other child. So any competent sociologist would know that the dictator game could not be used as a viable proxy for real world altruism -- a child sharing their lunch with another child who forgot theirs for example.

A child sharing their lunch is an example of charity, not altruism.
Altruism is about redistribution of wealth so that everyone has the same amount as everyone else.

 

[kmoney]

Problems with the study:

The first major problem is that the study says nothing about atheists. The study compares people who say they aren’t religious with people who say they are. However, it turns out that when Pew surveyed Americans on their religions 68%, of those who identified as non-religious believed in God. Pew also found that only 2.4% of Americans identify as atheists that means that the majority of those “nones” who don’t say they believe in God believe in something else in the spiritual domain. The reality is that people who say they are non-religious are making a statement about their lack of affiliation with a given organized religion not about their belief in some higher power.


Further, in the dictator game used in this study, the child who was allocating the resource had no reason to believe that by “winning” the game he’d be hurting the other child. So any competent sociologist would know that the dictator game could not be used as a viable proxy for real world altruism -- a child sharing their lunch with another child who forgot theirs for example.



Which leads us to another problem with the paper. The authors are neuroscientists, not sociologists. That’s like a structural engineer writing a biology paper -- the engineer is one smart guy, but he doesn’t really know much about biology.

It also makes one wonder about why neuroscientists would conduct a sociology experiment -- a bit of bias or an axe to grind, perhaps? Further, the article was published in Current Biology, which appears to be a biology subject matter journal not a sociology journal, raising the question of who were the peer reviewers and what is their competence vis a vis sociology?

It’s fairly clear from the study that the authors had an ideological axe to grind. They state:

More generally, they [the results] call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that the secularization of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness -- in fact, it will do just the opposite

That alone indicates the difference between the credibility of this study and say a study such as “Evolution: Anti-speciation in Walking Sticks” where the authors are unlikely to have any ideological axe to grind.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...kids_arent_less_altruistic.html#ixzz3r4iyvyfu


Plus they used almost twice the number of Muslim kids as Christian ones. Maybe atheists can't tell the difference, but Christians sure can.

Good thoughts.

 

[PureX]

Are there any religious Christians here who are actually willing to acknowledge the conclusions of this study, rather that immediately looking for ways to dismiss it as bogus?

I'm just curious.

 

[Lon]

Are there any religious Christians here who are actually willing to acknowledge the conclusions of this study, rather that immediately looking for ways to dismiss it as bogus?

I'm just curious.

Sure BUT I just told you in 'my' experience, the opposite is exactly true. What does one experience (from pagans) over another's (a Christian) have to do with the other? --> confirmation bias - we both find what we are looking for.

I STRONGLY believe/have seen that Christian kids are incredibly better than their pagan counterparts. When is the last time you saw a Christian kid shoot up a school? Answer: You haven't, those are pagan kids doing that. WHAT 'study' on God's green earth could convince you against what your own eyes are capable of seeing????

Lon, anyone with eyes and a shred of common sense will not doubt this study because they already know the results are accurate.

A bunch of "no's" here, starting with this one. "My sense"(observation) is that the Christian kids are the good kids, and the non-Christian kids are often 'pagan' in behavior, as well as religion.

Religions encourage judgmentalism and retribution.

No. Paul says no one who obeys laws needs to worry, only the law-breaker so 'yes' on judgmental, but 'no' on retribution. Rather, correction and/or justice are the goal.

Religious parents tend to be obsessed with obedience

???

and therefor likewise obsessed with punishing disobedience

:nono:

Five minutes on TOL will provide AMPLE evidence of this.

:nono: To even 'guess' that is ignorant confirmation bias.

Even this thread is a shining example of it. And if religious parents behave this way, it's only natural that their kids will behave this way as well. Which is what this study is pointing out.

Again, confirmation BIAS. You are seeing what you want to see, regardless if it is true or not. You don't even know how old most of these posters are, let alone if they were parents.

So no one is falling into any bias, here.

You are.

They're simply stating what is easily observable to anyone with eyes.

Again, then why am I, positioned in what I think a good vantage point, seeing just the opposite as fact??? :think:

Religionists think they are kind and merciful toward others, because of their religion.

Well, I'm glad you think so. That's a relief actually, if you think we on TOL are kind and merciful in our expressions, if not actions.

When in fact, they tend to be less kind and less merciful toward others because of their religion.

Do you really mean "less tolerant?" We are 'in the world, but not of it." See Romans 1:32

And the reason is because religions stress obedience as a means of influence and control.

Not sure what you are getting at. Certainly we want to influence our culture for Christ....

They tend to become authoritarian above all else.

I think you are projecting...

Adherence to their rules becomes their most important condition.

Example here on TOL? Are you talking about some of the cultists on here? If so, that'd make a bit more sense, or are you talking about the general TOL population?

Not mercy, or forgiveness, nor kindness toward others.

I DO think there is a connection between words and actions often but not always. Sometimes, I think some on TOL are given to exaggerations and I try NOT to let it cloud my thinking. I hope some of you are going to church and other places and seeing how Christianity looks in your local areas that are trying to do it right.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I've read these posts. That post of yours talked about maximum and excessive punishment. Did the study phrase it that way? Did anyone else in this thread say that we needed max/excessive punishment?

What the study said was that the kids raised with religion tended toward the more punitive responses, and toward the less altruistic responses, toward other kids.

Is this unclear to you?

By less altruistic, the study means that the religious kids tended not to care that every kid gets a sticker (whatever that is). Not surprising, given the attitudes in that regard of their religious parents.

And by more punitive, the study means that the religious kids tended to want to see the people they judged as 'bad', punished. Again, not surprising given the attitudes in that regard of their religious parents.

TOL is populated by religious Christians who abhor the idea of spreading the wealth, and who are obsesses with exacting maximum punishments, without exceptions, for perceived "evil-doers". So is it really any surprise that their children, here or anywhere, would reflect these same attitudes?

What, exactly are you objecting to in this study's conclusions? Especially when what it's saying is evident right here on this thread!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Are there any religious Christians here who are actually willing to acknowledge the conclusions of this study, rather that immediately looking for ways to dismiss it as bogus?

I'm just curious.

So, what is it you want Christians to acknowledge?
The study shows that Muslim children are the least likely to agree with liberals, followed by Christian children.
That is all.

The study does not show that altruism (giving away stickers to an authority who promises to distribute them to random strangers) equals kindness.

The study does not show that letting offenders go unpunished equals kindness.

You are mistaken if you think the study shows that religious children are meaner than secular children.

 

[PureX]

Sure BUT I just told you in 'my' experience, the opposite is exactly true.

Well, that's why we have these studies: because personal perception is biased. Are you following the responses on this thread? If you are, then you will surely have noticed the very strong objections to the assertion that Christians tend to be judgmental and punitive, while these objections themselves are justifying an obsessively punitive attitude. And anyone who's been around TOL any length of time will also have surely noted the distinct abhorrence to the idea of "sharing the wealth" (altruism). So although you have not managed to perceive any of this, it is nevertheless all around you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

By less altruistic, the study means that the religious kids tended not to care that every kid gets a sticker (whatever that is).

And by more punitive, the study means that the religious kids tended to want to see the people they judged as 'bad', punished.

So, religious kids tend to want to keep rewards and see offensive behavior punished.

This is not surprising, considering that religious kids are taught to seek rewards and not do things that deserve to be punished.

What is surprising is how moronic the people doing the study seem to be in assuming that keeping rewards and punishing offenders is anything to be ashamed of.

 

[Huckleberry]

Are there any religious Christians here who are actually willing to acknowledge the conclusions of this study, rather that immediately looking for ways to dismiss it as bogus?

I'm just curious.

Are you seriously bemoaning the fact that the Christians around here aren't blindly accepting the conclusions of a bogus study?

 

[genuineoriginal]

anyone who's been around TOL any length of time will also have surely noted the distinct abhorrence to the idea of "sharing the wealth" (altruism).

Altruism, in the study, is giving up something you have to an authority that promises to distribute it to random strangers.
That is communism.

 

[gcthomas]

A child sharing their lunch is an example of charity, not altruism.

They are not mutually exclusive.
If the charity was driven by a desire to impress the other child, or to encourage future charity when the first child might need it, then it is driven by egoism.
If, however, it was genuinely an act driven by concern for the other without any expectation of return now or in the future, then that is pure altruism.
Charity can be either due to egoism or altruism.

Altruism is about redistribution of wealth so that everyone has the same amount as everyone else.

That would be a form of egoism, where you can guarantee you will not be worse off than others in the future at the possible cost of wealth today. As it is a trade off, it is most certainly not altruism you describe.

 

[PureX]

So, what is it you want Christians to acknowledge?
The study shows that Muslim children are the least likely to agree with liberals, followed by Christian children.

The study didn't say a word about liberals or conservatives. That is entirely your own projections.

What the study says, is that religionists tend to be less altruistic and more judgmental and punitive than non-religionists, and that these characteristic show up in their children.

That is all.

The study does not show that altruism (giving away stickers to an authority who promises to distribute them to random strangers) equals kindness.

That would be, however, and example of altruism acted upon.

The study does not show that letting offenders go unpunished equals kindness.

The study said absolutely nothing about letting anyone go unpunished. Or about anyone wanting to let anyone go unpunished. You people are so obsessed with punishment that you can't even see strait!

 

[genuineoriginal]

The study didn't say a word about liberals or conservatives. That is entirely your own projections.

What the study says, is that religionists tend to be less altruistic, and more punitive, than non-religionists, and that these characteristic show up in their children.

That is all.

As has been pointed out to you, redistribution of wealth and not punishing offenders are liberal ideals.

The study was conducted by liberals, and all it proved is that the liberal ideals of the people conducting the study are not held by religious kids.

If you think the study did anything more than prove that religious kids are less likely to agree with liberals, then you are a moron.

 

[kmoney]

What the study said was that the kids raised with religion tended toward the more punitive responses, and toward the less altruistic responses, toward other kids.

Is this unclear to you?

What was unclear is if the study said anything about Christians and Muslims wanting 'maximum' and 'excessive' punishments or if that was just your language. Based on what I saw the study didn't talk about what types of punishment were to be used at all.

TOL is populated by religious Christians who abhor the idea of spreading the wealth, and who are obsesses with exacting maximum punishments, without exceptions, for perceived "evil-doers". So is it really any surprise that their children, here or anywhere, would reflect these same attitudes?

Do you think TOL is representative of the world?

What, exactly are you objecting to in this study's conclusions? Especially when what it's saying is evident right here on this thread!

I put more general thoughts on the study in post 50, if you are interested. Here it is again:

For the part of the study about punishment, something I'm curious about is if answers would change if the children were answering about being harmed themselves instead of watching strangers. I'd like to think that if the Christian children were answering about that then they'd be more likely to give mercy. But when it's someone else? Some kind of punishment is understandable. The part about altruism is disappointing. I mean, it's only stickers so I'm not sure how easily you can extrapolate that to more serious situations, but it's still something.

 

[Lon]

Well, that's why we have these studies: because personal perception is biased. Are you following the responses on this thread? If you are, then you will surely have noticed the very strong objections to the assertion that Christians tend to be judgmental and punitive, while these objections themselves are justifying an obsessively punitive attitude. And anyone who's been around TOL any length of time will also have surely noted the distinct abhorrence to the idea of "sharing the wealth" (altruism). So although you have not managed to perceive any of this, it is nevertheless all around you.

Naw, I think using 1) the internet, and 2) a microcosm for a random sampling is bias. I "don't" think going all over a city and finding expectations fitting opposite facts is a 'lack of perception.' Simply, I think the study isn't sufficient to really give anything BUT confirmation bias. Why? Because a) it wasn't extensive enough for the sampling b) it wasn't as 'clear' over what was actually being measured, etc. etc. Shoddy work, is shoddy work BUT gives the opportunity to gripe, I suppose. I see the opposite, as I said, so there you go.

 

[gcthomas]

As has been pointed out to you, redistribution of wealth and not punishing offenders are liberal ideals.

The study was conducted by liberals, and all it proved is that the liberal ideals of the people conducting the study are not held by religious kids.

If you think the study did anything more than prove that religious kids are less likely to agree with liberals, then you are a moron.

Redistributing wealth when it has become very badly distributed is a liberal idea. But not punishing is not. Liberals want punishments to work in deterring crime and rehabilitating offenders, conservatives want to punish offenders as retribution. Liberals see that both have their place, while conservatives are blinkered and see only the one function of their 'justice'.

 

[bybee]

Redistributing wealth when it has become very badly distributed is a liberal idea. But not punishing is not. Liberals want punishments to work in deterring crime and rehabilitating offenders, conservatives want to punish offenders as retribution. Liberals see that both have their place, while conservatives are blinkered and see only the one function of their 'justice'.

That is a specious generalization.

 

[gcthomas]

That is a specious generalization.

Partly, yes, to balance the hugely unbalanced antiliberal inventions in the earlier post.