Religion (Christianity or Islam anyway) makes kids meaner

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
31,514
Location
Haverhill, UK
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

So much for religion teaching "good values". Why outsource to "God" (or his corporate spokesmen) what you should be teaching your child yourself? Oh right, mental & emotional laziness, the reason religion took hold in the first place.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

Religious belief appears to have negative influence on children’s altruism and judgments of others’ actions even as parents see them as ‘more empathetic’

Harriet Sherwood Religion correspondent
@harrietsherwood

Friday 6 November 2015 12.10 EST
Last modified on Tuesday 10 November 2015 06.26 EST

Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.

Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.

They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology.

“More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that secularisation of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness – in fact, it will do just the opposite.”

Almost 1,200 children, aged between five and 12, in the US, Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey and South Africa participated in the study. Almost 24% were Christian, 43% Muslim, and 27.6% non-religious. The numbers of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic and other children were too small to be statistically valid.

They were asked to choose stickers and then told there were not enough to go round for all children in their school, to see if they would share. They were also shown film of children pushing and bumping one another to gauge their responses.

The findings “robustly demonstrate that children from households identifying as either of the two major world religions (Christianity and Islam) were less altruistic than children from non-religious households”.

Older children, usually those with a longer exposure to religion, “exhibit[ed] the greatest negative relations”.

The study also found that “religiosity affects children’s punitive tendencies”. Children from religious households “frequently appear to be more judgmental of others’ actions”, it said.

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”.

The report pointed out that 5.8 billion humans, representing 84% of the worldwide population, identify as religious. “While it is generally accepted that religion contours people’s moral judgments and pro-social behaviour, the relation between religion and morality is a contentious one,” it said.

The report was “a welcome antidote to the presumption that religion is a prerequisite of morality”, said Keith Porteous Wood of the UK National Secular Society.

“It would be interesting to see further research in this area, but we hope this goes some way to undoing the idea that religious ethics are innately superior to the secular outlook. We suspect that people of all faiths and none share similar ethical principles in their day to day lives, albeit may express them differently depending on their worldview.”

According to the respected Pew Research Center, which examines attitudes toward and practices of faith, most people around the world think it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. In the US, 53% of adults think that faith in God is necessary to morality, a figure which rose to seven of 10 adults in the Middle East and three-quarters of adults in six African countries surveyed by Pew.
 
I'm not a fan of blanket statements. I've met mean religious people and I've met mean non-religious people.

One thing I'm wondering about this "study" is if there is a difference between cultures and religions. All cultures and religions are lumped into the same group as if they all behave the same and they don't. It also doesn't say how many people were from each country. Seems like a very weird way to do a study.

"Almost 1,200 children, aged between five and 12, in the US, Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey and South Africa participated in the study. Almost 24% were Christian, 43% Muslim, and 27.6% non-religious. The numbers of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic and other children were too small to be statistically valid."
 
It's a valid counter-point, but remember to distinguish between self-serving donations and pro-others charity. An incredible number of charities are best classified as a 'club good', where you're actually paying for something that directly benefits you. Paying for church maintenance is usually slapped there.

That said, our church often had earmarked donations for specific causes and specific mission groups. Those would be non club good donations.

It's harder to find such studies. Religious (and Conservatives) are vastly more likely to donate to club-good charities. But, iirc, they also had higher levels of 'true charity' giving.
 
An incredible number of charities are best classified as a 'club good', where you're actually paying for something that directly benefits you. Paying for church maintenance is usually slapped there.

A lot of the time that money goes into the local community. How is that any different than donating to any other cause you support? All charities cost money to run.
 
A lot of the time that money goes into the local community. How is that any different than donating to any other cause you support?

There's a subset. Like I said, my church often earmarked donations for specific causes. But most of the tithing went to church maintenance and staff salaries, etc.

They can be very different things. It's important to watch out for it. It's a good thing to keep a critical eye on.

People will often donate to a club good, but call it a charity in their own heads. It's important to not let ourselves get deceived. It's easiest to see when the efforts are wholly benefiting those 'outside' the community. Harder to discern once there's overlap.
 
There's a subset. Like I said, my church often earmarked donations for specific causes. But most of the tithing went to church maintenance and staff salaries, etc.

All charities do that, even not-for-profit.

Not-for-profit charities pay workers salaries and all of their operation costs.

People will often donate to a club good, but call it a charity in their own heads.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

If my church is donating to someone in the local community who needs money for cancer treatment, how is than any worse than donating for disaster relief in Haiti, or to military veterans that need prosthetics, or wheelchair ramps build onto their houses?
 
Okay, suppose there's a dance theatre you regularly attend. They then run an auction and a donation drive. You give, and you take the tax write-off.

It's a club good. You're donating to a 'charity', but you're actually a consumer of the charity's output. It's obviously a self-benefiting donation.

But the person will give, and then walk away with the idea that they've given to 'charity'. But it's better earmarked as a club-good.

On the far end of the spectrum is a charity that uses the fund in order to benefit some far-off people with a very different religious mandate. Donations to that group don't self-benefit, except in the most circuitous of feedback cycles. We'd more obviously earmark that as a non club good donation. Funding Red Crescent to hand out HIV treatments in parts of Pakistan, for example.

('club good' is an economics term)

So, a donation to a church is very often on the 'club good' side. It's paying for the heat and the chairs that we sit in. It's paying for the social events and it's paying the pastor's salary.

Now, sometimes people will collect in order to donate to the 'in group', and then it gets harder to slot it. Is getting clothes for the local single mother 'charity'? Sure. Is donating to the missionary group currently in Cambodia? Sure. And then we keep a critical eye on the relative ratio. How much of the church's budget is easily seen as 'self-benefiting' (heat, rent, etc.), how much of it is 'in group' (funding the college scholarships of some of the members), and how much of it leaves the group (the care packages you send the orphanages, etc.)
 
I think it's all about an individual's friend/foe recognition system. And the NRB>C inequation, where letters stand for quantity of recipients (N), their (R)elative closeness to the giver, the amount of (B)enefit and the (C)ontribution understood as some losses suffered by the giver.

"I would sacrifice my life for 2 brothers or 8 cousins." (c) J. B. S. Haldane

The less you are asked for, the more friendly you take the recipients (recognize them as friends rather than foes, ones of your flock), the more they'll benefit through that and the more people you'll help at once with the same sacrifice, the likelier you are to actually commit that sacrifice.

That's it.

The only variable left here is how friendly religious kids are about others. And that may vary depending on many factors, most of which basically come from who those others are. That brings the diversity in the studies results.
 
Okay, suppose there's a dance theatre you regularly attend. They then run an auction and a donation drive. You give, and you take the tax write-off.

It's a club good. You're donating to a 'charity', but you're actually a consumer of the charity's output. It's obviously a self-benefiting donation.

But the person will give, and then walk away with the idea that they've given to 'charity'. But it's better earmarked as a club-good.

So how would I be a benefactor of my church raising funds for someone's cancer treatment?

So, a donation to a church is very often on the 'club good' side. It's paying for the heat and the chairs that we sit in. It's paying for the social events and it's paying the pastor's salary.

That doesn't make the donations "bad," or "less good." If you cannot run the church, you cannot collect donations to give to charity.

You talk about this as if not-for-profits don't have operations costs and workers they pay with the donations they receive. It's the exact same thing.
 
I'm not a fan of blanket statements. I've met mean religious people and I've met mean non-religious people.
As we can all see...:rolleyes:

So how would I be a benefactor of my church raising funds for someone's cancer treatment?
Is the cancer patient a member of your church?
 
So how would I be a benefactor of my church raising funds for someone's cancer treatment?
You wouldn't be (other than through zany feedback loops). If they were members of the church, it would be 'in group' donations, sure. But it wouldn't be a club good.

Look way up, I *did* say that churches did both.
You talk about this as if not-for-profits don't have operations costs and workers they pay with the donations they receive. It's the exact same thing.

Oh no, it's not. We've gotten some type of slip in our communication. It's not a function of operations costs. It's a function of who's benefiting from the donation. The example of the dance company is a good one. The benefactor is also a consumer. The nicer the theatre is, the better it is for him and his coterie.

My initial comment is that religious people are more likely to give to 'club good' charities AND (iirc) more likely to give real charity. This isn't an offensive thing to say. It's just important to discriminate between the two, since most people will call both 'charity' in their own heads
 
Oh no, it's not. We've gotten some type of slip in our communication. It's not a function of operations costs. It's a function of who's benefiting from the donation. The example of the dance company is a good one. The benefactor is also a consumer. The nicer the theatre is, the better it is for him and his coterie.

My initial comment is that religious people are more likely to give to 'club good' charities AND (iirc) more likely to give real charity. This isn't an offensive thing to say. It's just important to discriminate between the two, since most people will call both 'charity' in their own heads

So what's you're point?

That it's better to donate to say "The Caner Foundation" and pay their operations costs too, than it is to donate to a charity in your church and pay your church's operation costs as well?

To suggest that one option is inherently better, or does "more good" than the other is ridiculous. So, so what if they give to the church charity and not the not-for-profit?
 
Ugh. It's not a function of operation costs. It's a function of who benefits. Am I really miscommunicating this?
 
Ugh. It's not a function of operation costs. It's a function of who benefits. Am I really miscommunicating this?

So the not-for-profit "benefiting" by paying operation costs is inherently better than the church "benefiting" by paying operation costs?

Because that's what I'm getting from your argument.
 
No, not inherently better. It's just more truly charity (distinguished from club good). If you go to the church, and make use of their services, then the money you're spending is actually being spent on you and yours. The chairs, the heat, the salaries are not 'operational costs', except when we're fully rationalizing. Those are being provided for the members of the church.

Again, think of the difference between donating to a opera house you attend and donating to a library in another district. One's a club good, the other isn't.
 
No, not inherently better. It's just more truly charity (distinguished from club good). If you go to the church, and make use of their services, then the money you're spending is actually being spent on you and yours.

You are still not obligated to donate any money, so what difference does it make? What's your point?

That it's inherently better to donate so some obscure charity because you don't use their facilities? I think that is asinine.
 
Back
Top Bottom