New Study Contradicts Religious Bias

[Ktoyou]

Again, are you reading the journal article, or the research?

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

To examine the influence of religion on the expression of
altruism, we used a resource allocation task, the dictator
game, in a large, diverse, and cross-cultural sample of children
(n = 1,170, ages 5–12) from Chicago (USA), Toronto (Canada),
Amman (Jordan), Izmir and Istanbul (Turkey), Cape Town (South
Africa), and Guangzhou (China). Consistent with literature in the
development of generosity, age in years was predictive of the to-
tal resources shared (
r
= 0.408, p < 0.001) [
4, 6
], but the religious
rearing environment fundamentally shaped how their altruism
was expressed.
In our sample, 23.9% of households identified as Christian (n =
280), 43% as Muslim (n = 510), 27.6% as not religious (n = 323),
2.5% as Jewish (n = 29), 1.6% as Buddhist (n = 18), 0.4% as
Hindu (n = 5), 0.2% as agnostic (n = 3), and 0.5% as other (n =
6). Results from an independent samples t test, comparing
altruism in children from religiously identifying (
M
sharing
= 3.25,
SD = 2.46) and non-religiously identifying (
M
sharing
= 4.11, SD =
2.48) households indicated significantly less sharing in the
former than the latter (p < 0.001). To further investigate these
effects within specific religions, three large groupings werreligious identification on meanness rating (
F
(2, 767) = 6.521, p =
0.002,
h
2
= 0.017;
Figure 3
). Post hoc Bonferroni-corrected
paired comparisons showed that children in Muslim households
judged interpersonal harm as more mean than children from
Christian (p < 0.005) and non-religious (p < 0.001) households,
and children from Christian households judged interpersonal
harm as more mean than children from non-religious households
(p < 0.01). Moreover, children from religious households also
differ in their ratings of deserved punishment for interpersonal
harm (
F
(2, 847) = 5.80, p < 0.01,
h
2
= 0.014); this was qualified
by significantly harsher ratings of punishment by children from
Muslim households than children from non-religious households
(p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between chil-
dren from Christian households and non-religious households.
Religiousness positively predicted parent-reported child
sensitivity to injustice and child empathy, even after accounting
for age, SES, and country of origin (
b
standardized
= 0.194, p <
0.001;
b
standardized
= 0.89, p < 0.01, respectively). Results from
a univariate analysis of variance, with parent-reported justice
sensitivity as the dependent variable and religious identification
as the independent variable and age, SES, and country of origin
as the covariates, revealed a significant main effect of religious
identification on children’s justice sensitivity (
F
(2,795) = 15.44,
p < 0.001,
h
2
= 0.04;
Figure 4
). Children from Christian house-
holds were significantly higher in parent-rated justice sensitivity
than children from Muslim households (p < 0.001) and non-reli-
gious households (p < 0.001).

 

[aikido7]

You continue to ignore the fact that the study has already been ripped to shreds. And not only here, you should know, but even in the comments section of the original story the OP draws from. The study is bogus. Continuing to pretend it has some merit doesn't help you.

Likewise, continuing to go on and on about child abuse, as if that were in any way relevant to the bogus study or the thread itself. You might as well go ahead and say, "Yeah, but religious people abuse their children, therefore the bogus study is right even though it's wrong."

You guys succeed only in revealing yourselves to be prejudicial bigots which, while entertainingly ironic, is something you'd be better off not being.

Child abuse is responsible for most of the problems in the world. The more I study it the more I am convinced that it is simply common sense notions applied to all of humankind.

Without realizing that the past is constantly determining our present actions, we usually avoid learning anything about our history.

Do you really want to continue to live in your repressed childhood and family situation, ignoring the fact that is no longer exists, continuing to fear and avoid dangers that, although once real, have not been real for a long time?

 

[Nick M]

I am going to stand up for good parenting.

So you are going to finally rebuke the wicked? Cool! :thumb:

 

[Huckleberry]

Child abuse is responsible for most of the problems in the world. The more I study it the more I am convinced that it is simply common sense notions applied to all of humankind.

Without realizing that the past is constantly determining our present actions, we usually avoid learning anything about our history.

What the hell are you talking about?

What does this have to do with the study? Are you really still trying to impute child abuse to religious people by droning on about it, as if it had anything to do with this study, which is itself already been completely discredited? Are you that far gone?

Seriously, are you on drugs?

Do you really want to continue to live in your repressed childhood and family situation, ignoring the fact that is no longer exists, continuing to fear and avoid dangers that, although once real, have not been real for a long time?

:AMR:

Yeah, I guess you really are that far gone. Wow.

 

[Ktoyou]

Watch what you say and how you say it Huckleberry.

 

[Huckleberry]

Watch what you say and how you say it Huckleberry.

Well, I'm a little stymied at aikido7 haring off on the subject of child abuse, as if it has anything to do with anything. And then there's this...

Do you really want to continue to live in your repressed childhood and family situation, ignoring the fact that is no longer exists, continuing to fear and avoid dangers that, although once real, have not been real for a long time?

That was addressed to me. I don't know whether to be insulted at this or worry about his mental health.

 

[Ktoyou]

I was giving you a heads-up as we may slip and then face a ban. aikido7 seems to be more a case than usual.
I need to say it now
goodnight.

 

[serpentdove]

Human understanding has advanced in the three thousand years since that was written. And we are no longer ancient Jews living in a desert with sheep and sticks as our companions. So I see no reason for us to dwell on such outdated and outmoded advice from people who are now long dead...

You're wiser than all of those ancient goat headers :freak: put together. :idunno: Eccl. 7:25

 

[serpentdove]

Sadly, my guess would be that they are, themselves, the victims of mean-spirited religious authoritarians...

Never man's authority--just God's (Mt 7:29, Mk 7:21–23). :Shimei:

 

[PureX]

Why does letting a child get away with hurting others constitute compassion while holding children accountable for thier behavior constitute being "mean?"

Like most religionists, you don't seem to grasp the difference between stopping abuse, and punishing the abuser. All the kids wanted the abuse to stop. The difference is that the religious kids wanted the abuser punished more often and more severely than the non-religious kids. Thus, the conclusion that religion increases punitive thought and desire. And as part-and-parcel of this punitive thinking, comes the judgment and condemnation prerequisite of that punitive desire. So that the picture being created, here, is that the effect of religion on children tends to be more authoritarian than it is empathetic, as the religionists wrongly tend to presume. And we can see this false presumption, AND it's obsession with authoritarianism right here on this thread. And all over TOL in general.

Religionists think their behavior toward others is based on their superior kindness, when it is in fact based on their obsession with moral authority

This sounds very much like the "your the meanest mom in the world" objection by a child who got caught and held accountable for wrong behavior.

Then your bias is blinding you to the evidence and conclusions of the study. As well as the corroborating evidence and conclusions that are equally apparent right here on this thread.

And if the children of "religious" parents had been more permissive, the interpretation of that data would have been used to suggest that "religious" kids have a weaker sense of justice.

So now you're just going to make up stuff so you can disparage the people who did the study, to yourself?

I am pretty sure the religious kids didn't have a fair shot on this question.

There wasn't any question. They were presented with a condition and their reactions were observed. If the same experiment had been set up for the adults on this thread, we would have seen the same results. Because we ARE seeing them in the responses, here. The religionists can't even conceive of the idea that it's possible to stop abuse without punishing the abuser. This idea doesn't even occur to them, because they are that entrenched in their obsession with judgment, condemnation, and punishment. That's what authoritarian-based religion is all about: judgment, condemnation, and punishment. And children raised in this authoritarian environment, naturally, will reflect it in their behavior toward others.

That's all the study is showing.

Well, that and the fact that the religionists refuse to recognize their own obsession with moral authoritarianism.

Maybe that's the whole problem, these researches are trying to quantify what they don't understand.

The conditions, the observations, and the conclusions are very simple. You just don't want to see them, so you're struggling to find ways of dismissing them, for yourself. And I'm sure you will succeed. And thereby learn nothing.

I don't think this overrides the verifiable reality that "religious" adults are far more generous than non religious adults in terms of charitable giving.

Actually, they are not. Because they don't give without attaching demands, which isn't really giving. It's buying.

Third, what this study overlooks, and I think you may be also, is that religion is about the existence of God, and what He has said about Himself and about us.

Actually, no. You are confusing religion with spirituality. Religion is about people controlling themselves and each other through the idea of God. Spirituality is about an individual's idea of and relationship to "God".

If there is no God, then there is no need for sharing stickers, no need to see any actions as unjust and no cause for mercy towards anyone for anything.

Well, that's just nonsensical.

 

[serpentdove]

The study is useless. Religion is useless. linger: Jesus told the

religious leaders: You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and every impurity (Mt 23:27).

 

[PureX]

That was addressed to me. I don't know whether to be insulted at this or worry about his mental health.

Well, hurl some more insults, maybe that will increase your understanding. :yawn:

 

[Huckleberry]

Like most religionists, you don't seem to grasp the difference between stopping abuse, and punishing the abuser.

Just as you don't seem to grasp that punishing the abuser stops the abuse. The assumption that the study, and you, make is that punishing bad behavior is "mean" and therefore wrong.

All the kids wanted the abuse to stop. The difference is that the religious kids wanted the abuser punished more often and more severely than the non-religious kids. Thus, the conclusion that religion increases punitive thought and desire. And as part-and-parcel of this punitive thinking, comes the judgment and condemnation prerequisite of that punitive desire. So that the picture being created, here, is that the effect of religion on children tends to be more authoritarian than it is empathetic, as the religionists wrongly tend to presume. And we can see this false presumption, AND it's obsession with authoritarianism right here on this thread. And all over TOL in general.

All you're saying is that you disagree. And that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[PureX]

Just as you don't seem to grasp that punishing the abuser stops the abuse.

No, actually it doesn't. As often as not, it increases the abuse. Spend some time in prison and see how punishment is stopping the abuse.

 

[serpentdove]

On the Cow Protection Squad Update:

India's Hindu cow mobs rule as religious debate rages Jn 14:6

 

[Huckleberry]

No, actually it doesn't. As often as not, it increases the abuse. Spend some time in prison and see how punishment is stopping the abuse.

When did we start talking about prison? Maybe that's not the best way to punish bad behavior.

 

[Lon]

Again, are you reading the journal article, or the research?

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7.pdf

Thanks for reading and posting parts of this link, K2U

... but the religious
rearing environment fundamentally shaped how their altruism
was expressed.

Of course it did. Without further investigation, they have no idea why that was so AND they immediately went flying off the handle "As we suspected!!!"
of course I quote them later as admitting that, but then they lie about it. *CLEARLY being raised in a Christian home DOES INDEED create exponentially better altruistic patterns then their secular or other religion counterparts.

this was qualified by significantly harsher ratings of punishment by children from Muslim households than children from non-religious households

There were no significant differences between children from Christian households and non-religious households.
Religiousness positively predicted parent-reported child
sensitivity to injustice and child empathy

Concerning which? If none at all, then the report that Christians are 'less' altruistic would also be insignificant :doh:

Here were a couple of other tell-tale signs the report must be scrutinized:

Across all countries, parents in religious households
reported that their children expressed more
empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life​

than non-religious parents.

-scrutinized without their sense of 'altruism' I might add, we are not happy with mistruth or shoddy reporting....
Note that the artcle is 'trying' to equate 'justice' empathy to 'classmate' empathy. That's just not going to fly. Look at the next invective breath:

However, religiousness
was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and
positively correlated with their punitive tendencies.
Together these results reveal the similarity across
countries in how religion negatively influences children’s
altruism, challenging the view that religiosity​

facilitates prosocial behavior.

Note:
1) "inverse altruism" As is faulty thinking in society at large, a view of 'tolerance' is NOT altruism! :doh:
2) Does Christianity encourage against 'prosocial behavior?' Yes, especially when instructing children Romans 12:2 John 17:16 2 Corinthians 6:17​

but no in the sense that we are 'in but not of' and to love even enemies.

More generally, [the results of this study]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

:doh: Yeah, if the former USSR has taught us anything, it is that atheism produces altruism :doh: :doh: :doh:

What we have here is a bogus atheist propaganda. *Christians by far and exponentially away, out-give all contenders.

That NECESSARILY nullifies this study, because even if a shred of it 'were' true (which is not my experience at all as a substitute teacher who had ample opportunity to witness those acts in relation to the faith of kids in multiple settings), it is of no consequence when they become the very adults their parents are and who their parents were who out-give other religious and non-religious by a LONG shot.

By the way, this reflects on abortion threads as well where secular society accuses us of "not" caring for babies and children not aborted. We most certainly do and have put our money where our mouth is over-and-against a lying tongue accusation. It is brain-dead bigotry simply because we are seen as 'bigots' yet contribute to the needs of those we supposedly 'hate.' :dizzy:

 

[Dialogos]

...And I think Lon's post puts the nail in the proverbial coffin on this one.

:e4e:

Well done.

 

[ok doser]

i'm sure purex will remain unpersuaded

 

[aikido7]

Here is a famous study that shows the danger of believing that others are in authority over you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

It is a classic example that proves why believers consider death and violence to those deemed “the other."