Ship of Fools: Religion makes children nasty

Thread: Religion makes children nasty Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029567

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

This Guardian article reports on a study that shows a religious upbringing (Christian or Muslim--other religions were too sparsely represented for statistical significance) makes children more judgmental and punitive, less empathetic than a secular upbringing. I don't think it's true of my kids, but maybe Quakerism doesn't count as Christianity (so I've been told on occasion). What do you think?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If the description of the study in the article is at all accurate, that's a pretty slender thread to hang a very heavy weight on. They asked them to pass out stickers, and they watched them react to a video of people pushing and shoving? Seriously?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I would be fascinated to know how they controlled for other factors e.g. class, parental political opinion, parental education, number of siblings and so on. My suspicion is that they didn't bother.

The crowing of the BTL atheist crowd on the Guardian article is pretty loud.

[ 07. November 2015, 05:57: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I don't understand the experiment. I can understand how a sharing stickers experiment could demonstrate altruism, but I don't understand the second experiment.

The children were shown a film of children pushing and bumping into each other. Muslim children, followed by Christian children "judged interpersonal harm as more mean." I interpret that as concluding that Muslim / Christian children were more critical of the children doing the pushing and bumping, and more sympathetic to the children who were pushed and bumped. Which seems to me to be empathic rather than judgemental.

But perhaps it was the other way around - perhaps the judgement was the some children deserved to be pushed / bumped? In that case, I would agree with the conclusion. Unfortunately, the linked article doesn't say.

Personally, if someone told me that because I'd raised my children as Christians, they regarded "interpersonal harm" as "mean" I'd be pleased.

[ 07. November 2015, 07:45: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

This is the bit I just don't understand:

quote:
Muslim children judged “interpersonal harm as more mean” than children from Christian families, with non-religious children the least judgmental. Muslim children demanded harsher punishment than those from Christian or non-religious homes.

At the same time, the report said that religious parents were more likely than others to consider their children to be “more empathetic and more sensitive to the plight of others”.

I feel I'd be one of those parents who regarded my children as "empathic" rather than "judgemental."

This is all semantics, surely? It implies that the same experimental results, could also be interpreted to give the headline "Secular children care less about the plight of others than their religious counterparts" study finds.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
This Guardian article reports on a study that shows a religious upbringing (Christian or Muslim--other religions were too sparsely represented for statistical significance) makes children more judgmental and punitive, less empathetic than a secular upbringing. I don't think it's true of my kids, but maybe Quakerism doesn't count as Christianity (so I've been told on occasion). What do you think?

Um. I don't think your summary is quite right. The study says religious children are more sensitive to interpersonal harm.

That's a good thing.

The full text of the study is available from cell.com by the way. The ship wouldn't let me link to the url for some reason.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

x-posted with North East Quine.

You're spot on NEQ. That's what I was pointing out too. The study simply glosses over this.

If Christian children are the same as non-religious in being punitive, then you can hardly call all religious kids more punitive.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I've now read the study. What I think it says is that children from a secular background focus on the shover / bumper, distinguishing between a deliberate shove and an accidental bump, whereas children from religious homes focus on the shovee / bumpee and the harm they experience.

Whether identifying with the victim is "judgemental" or "empathic" appears to be a matter of semantics.

[ 07. November 2015, 08:02: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would be fascinated to know how they controlled for other factors e.g. class, parental political opinion, parental education, number of siblings and so on. My suspicion is that they didn't bother.

Glancing across the study, they performed the study in six different countries. There is no attempt to break down the figures by country that I can see. That's a pretty basic failure of statistical competence.

[ 07. November 2015, 08:04: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
I would be fascinated to know how they controlled for other factors e.g. class, parental political opinion, parental education, number of siblings and so on. My suspicion is that they didn't bother.

It does say

quote:
As a metric for socioeconomic status, parents were asked to specify the level of education of the mother.

But yes, number of siblings and family position is surely relevent. Younger siblings may be all too aware of the "accidental" bump that was no accident at all [Biased]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nasty religion blatantly makes nasty adherents. What a surprise.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The first thing I noticed was that they talked to 1200 children over 6 countries. That is a small sample for such a widespread study. Presuming 100 or so excluded for being members of other religions, this is less than 200 per country (and county which will impact culture is critical). If we split these between atheist, Christian, Muslim this does not give many per group. That is crucial to making big claims.

90 children of Christians in the UK - I know single churches who have that many. I would be reluctant to draw big conclusions from that many across one city, never mind wider.

To start to draw some conclusions, you would need at least 10 times that number. That would potentially produce some suggestions of a connection, which would need to be investigated further.

So I think the study does not warrant the conclusions that the Guardian is drawing from it. There are far too many leaps - some in the study, it appears, but some in the report too.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Gotta a feeling this is going to boil down to a definition of the word 'nasty'.

Just thinking take an average Saturday evening, like this one. All the yobs and, what have you, who get hauled in for various offences. Hands up who went to church as a kid?

I see this article as more evidence that religion is currently under attack. And understandably so it could easily be argued.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nasty religion blatantly makes nasty adherents. What a surprise.

Or nasty religion provides a focal point for nasty people?

I'm a firm supporter of the suggestion that good people do good things and bad people do bad things irrespective of any religious beliefs.
One of the ways in which good people can be, and have been, persuaded to do bad things is through the (mis?)use of religion.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I agree with North East Quire and Evensong. It looks as though Dr Decety has imposed her own ethical preferences on the children so as to get the result she wanted.

I for one, would prefer my children to rate being “more empathetic and more sensitive to the plight of others” as better and more important than being abstractly altruistic.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think there is probably the PK effect, where children who have been brought up in families where "being good" is the ultimate virtue, tend to rebel. So this is just about children rebelling against their upbringing, something we have known about for ever.

Of course, there is also no distinction made between faith as belief and faith as culture. Children who are in aspiration-middle-class-church-going families may well be trouble. They are challenging their cultural upbringing, not their faith upbringing.

I am sure a similar thing occurs among Muslim families, especially in non-Muslim-majority countries. The cultural expectations may be the important factor here. Rather like in Northern Ireland the divisions were made along religious lines (Protestant and Catholic), this was not the driver behind their divisions.

This seems to be research generating that does no more than demonstrate the pre-conditions of the experiments.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

The experimenter takes it for granted that all children consider stickers highly desirable. My observation is that some like them very much, and some are indifferent.

There's nothing altruistic about giving away something you don't want.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I agree with North East Quire and Evensong. It looks as though Dr Decety has imposed her own ethical preferences on the children so as to get the result she wanted.

And some of you are filtering your view through your own ethical preferences.
Whilst there might be methodology issues with the study in question, the basic premise is sound. Humans tend towards grouping and excluding. It is easily observable that the more defined the "us", the more defined the "them".

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Humans tend towards grouping and excluding. It is easily observable that the more defined the "us", the more defined the "them".

The study claims to exclude that effect, roughly on the grounds that the children didn't behave any more altruistically towards people in the in-group.

More importantly:
I see that the study mentions in passing that one predictor of altruistic behaviour was country of origin. I couldn't see whether it stated how far it was controlled in across national boundaries.
Can anyone else see?

Basically, one of the six countries in the study is China. Now China is, as I understand it, both less individualistic than the US, and rather more secular. That means that a much larger proportion of the secular children in the study will have come from China, which is less individualistic for independent reasons. So the secular children will be skewed towards being less individualistic anyway. I can't see anything in the study stating that effect has been allowed for.

(Also, it's a study on social psychology in a journal called 'Current Biology'. That raises eyebrows.)

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Our children, whether we like it or not, pick up all of our behaviors and attitudes. Think about how true it feels when you hear yourself say something and then think "Oh my god, that is exactly what my (Mother/Father) used to say. I swore I would never say that to my kids."

If the parents' religion is all about an angry judgmental god the children will be comfortable with an angry judgmental attitude towards life and others.

Regardless of religion, if parents are judgmental towards others it follows that their children will be judgmental towards others.

Whether the study is accurate and reliable is not the point to me. To me there are two points:

First, as parents we need to understand that our behavior, not just our words, is what our kids take in.

Second, to the extent our places of worship condone and appreciate judgment of others we can be an example of acceptance, love and compassion. I say example, not words. Telling someone they are wrong rarely, in my experience, makes them smack their forehead and go "Darn, you are right!!!! What fool I have been."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Humans tend towards grouping and excluding. It is easily observable that the more defined the "us", the more defined the "them".
The study claims to exclude that effect, roughly on the grounds that the children didn't behave any more altruistically towards people in the in-group.

That, too, is basic psychology. Give people, especially children, a rigid set of rules and they will judge by them. Besides, "us" and "them" is fluid and situational. I think the flaw in the conclusion is that religion itself is the main factor. In my observation and opinion religion doesn't make worse, or better, people. How we define "us", and how we frame behaviour, does.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst there might be methodology issues with the study in question, the basic premise is sound. Humans tend towards grouping and excluding. It is easily observable that the more defined the "us", the more defined the "them".

But the premise isn't the issue, it's the conclusion. Do the data support the conclusion? That's the only question about a (purportedly) scientific study. Not if you or anybody else agrees about what they claim to have found.

Questions about motivations, on the other hand, can easily be seen as Bulverism. Whichever "side" is making them.

[ 07. November 2015, 14:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

mt:

RE the question about the conclusion is valid. My motivation for posting was my impression that the study was being questioned for reasons other than proper methodology.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
mt:

RE the question about the conclusion is valid. My motivation for posting was my impression that the study was being questioned for reasons other than proper methodology.

I apologize for misreading you. I think we agree.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye lilBuddha, religion, not least Christianity, is very good at the first step to tyranny: otherizing, creating us and them; who's included, who's excluded; who's in, who's out; who's saved, who's damned.

[ 07. November 2015, 17:00: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Nasty religion blatantly makes nasty adherents. What a surprise.
Or nasty religion provides a focal point for nasty people?

I'm a firm supporter of the suggestion that good people do good things and bad people do bad things irrespective of any religious beliefs.
One of the ways in which good people can be, and have been, persuaded to do bad things is through the (mis?)use of religion.

Aye HWR, but as the Holocaust; the vast, overwhelming majority, the dominant record of history; the slave trade and everything that followed (US Civil War, Jesse Washington etc, etc), the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments, Rwanda etc, etc, ... etc, show, 'good people' are in VERY short supply.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

I'm a firm supporter of the suggestion that good people do good things and bad people do bad things irrespective of any religious beliefs.
One of the ways in which good people can be, and have been, persuaded to do bad things is through the (mis?)use of religion.

I would say that it's equally, if not more, true that one of the ways that bad people can be persuaded to do good things is through the use of religion.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Rubbish. It is a strong ideology, irrespective of religious foundation, which skews behaviour so. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature to focus on religion, or lack thereof, as inherently "better".

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Amen.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

I'm a firm supporter of the suggestion that good people do good things and bad people do bad things irrespective of any religious beliefs.
One of the ways in which good people can be, and have been, persuaded to do bad things is through the (mis?)use of religion.
I would say that it's equally, if not more, true that one of the ways that bad people can be persuaded to do good things is through the use of religion.

I modify Steven Weinberg's original comment precisely because I disagree with his contention that but for good people to do evil – that takes religion." there are other influences such as poverty and fear which can be irresistible. Having said that - poverty and fear often arise naturally from unavoidable circumstances of human existence whereas religions IMO are unnatural impositions upon human existence.

Is the fact that religion can be used to make bad people do good things a justification for religion?

a) is it truly good if behaviour is amended by an unreasonable fear or an unsupported promise of reward? Isn't this the same a "lying for Jesus"? The end justifies the means?

b) a lot of what some religious people see as good is of questionable goodness - in the name of "good" religious groups and their money have been at the forefront of campaigns that seek to deny people marriage, freedom of belief/unbelief and affordable healthcare; in addition to misleading children upon whom humanity's future may depend by teaching that science is wrong when it disagrees with a story in their holy book.

c) wouldn't it be better to give people reasons for doing good based on valuing their fellow man, other living beings and the planet upon which we live; plus the hope that good will be returned with good (at least sometimes) rather than citing the whim of some unevidenced supernatural incompetent?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Having said that - poverty and fear often arise naturally from unavoidable circumstances of human existence whereas religions IMO are unnatural impositions upon human existence.

This is an interesting claim. Where did religions come from, then? It's not like they could be imposed from outside human experience, unless you believe in God/gods imposing things from the outside. They must arise naturally from within the human race, in which case they are certainly not unnatural in any meaningful sense.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
a) is it truly good if behaviour is amended by an unreasonable fear or an unsupported promise of reward? Isn't this the same a "lying for Jesus"? The end justifies the means?
...
c) wouldn't it be better to give people reasons for doing good based on valuing their fellow man, other living beings and the planet upon which we live; plus the hope that good will be returned with good (at least sometimes) rather than citing the whim of some unevidenced supernatural incompetent?

This is making some assumptions.

1) "Do good things to others so that you won't go to Hell!" - a religious reason that I find wholly unconvincing
2) "Do good things to others so that you WILL go to Heaven!" - a religious reason that I find wholly unconvincing
3) "Do good things to others because it's the right thing to do!" - a non-religious reason that I find wholly unconvincing
4) "Do good things to others so that we can build a society where doing good things is the norm and people will do good things to you!" - a non-religious reason that I find wholly unconvincing
5) "Do good things to others because they are part of the Imago Dei, and by honouring them, you are honouring God!" - a religious reason that I find VERY convincing

Possibly, were I a better person, I would be sufficiently influenced by 3 and 4. As it is, I am not; I tend to react to them either with apathy, or (on my better* days) with resentment.

I need a religious reason to be nice. That religious reason is not, however, anything to do with fear or reward.

* Yes, I said "better". I think the part of me that resents being told to be nice is responding to the inate knowledge that I probably SHOULD be ...except that I don't wanna.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by St. Deird:

quote:
4) "Do good things to others so that we can build a society where doing good things is the norm and people will do good things to you!" - a non-religious reason that I find wholly unconvining

How about the cynical version?
"Do good things to others so that we can build a society where doing good things is the norm and maybe we kill fewer of each other"
I am not a good person. But I try to do good things because it is right, not for reward. Not that I do not enjoy recognition of the good I sometimes manage.

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :

When I was at secondary school, the Christian Union contained the self-righteous prigs. Perhaps that's who the children in this study grow into, and in many cases it's just a phase.

I hope.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

The more I read of this study the more ridiculous it is.

Muslim and Christian kids are being called judgemental because they believe bullying ( pushing and bumping others ) is a bad thing. The punitive measures on such a thing aren't explicit in the study but if religious kids are saying bullying should be punished, would anyone rally disagree?

If your kid is pushed or shoved at school, you're going to want a reprimand at the very least.

Standard school ( even non-religious schools) ethics.

[ 10. November 2015, 09:10: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

This is an interesting and well-thought-through rejoinder, echoing much of what Tortuf says above: Kindness begets kindness.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Chorister. I just sobbed reading that. I have been unkind.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I loved the piece you linked to Chorister.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0