Children from religious homes less tolerant, meaner than kids from secular homes.

Red

New
http://www.higherperspectives.com/religious-children-are-meaner-1470763643.html

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

This does not surprise me at all unfortunately. I think the basis of religion (compassion, the golden rule etc) too often takes secondary importance to personal salvation and the delineation of 'in-groups' and 'out-groups.' When strict social rules and attributes are applied to religious 'belonging' the results can get nasty resulting in an array of violent acts. One could speculate that the answer would be for every religion to give the same rights and respect to all thus eliminating the inevitable creation of the 'other.' But how?

Is it even possible for one religion to differentiate itself from another without creating such divides? What is the future of religion when its central tenets of compassion and sharing cannot even be passed to it youngest members successfully.

Can tolerance prevail without secularization?
 
Can tolerance prevail without secularization?

I totally agree with your post, and the article you link to.

To answer your last question, my view is that we need to secularise, but be careful to encourage spritual movements of various sorts to replace what religion should be about.

Having seen hoe religions behave over my lifetime (and since I ceased to be a Christian at age 20) I don't think they can reform. Every time they try, a new hard-line group pops up to preach the old, hate filled version!

David
 
Last edited:
This does not surprise me at all unfortunately.

Yikes!!! How can you still be so easily suckered? It's just more BS pseudoscience in the service of the physicalist campaign.

I know many people who grew up in religious homes and they most certainly aren't any less tolerant than those from non-religious homes.
 
I know many people who grew up in religious homes and they most certainly aren't any less tolerant than those from non-religious homes.

Yikes!

I know many people who grew up in religious homes and they were very intolerant compared to the people I knew from non-religious homes.

See how silly your argument sounds???
 
Yikes!!! How can you still be so easily suckered? It's just more BS pseudoscience in the service of the physicalist campaign.

I know many people who grew up in religious homes and they most certainly aren't any less tolerant than those from non-religious homes.

Saiko that most certainly has not been my experience. In fact, my partner recently contacted the mother of a girl who was excluding and bullying my daughter and some other friends of theirs. The mother's answer was that her daughter does do that but only to "vulgar" people, and therefore it's OK with her since my daughter must have deserved it. It is worth noting that social control in their fundamentalist Baptist church is attained by ex-communicating those who do not conform.

Saiko, are you saying that this study is so worthless that you don't wish to address it or are you saying that religion does not create in-groups and out-groups that can lead to violent conflicts?

This thread is not meant as an attack on religion, it is my intention to discuss how religions may retain their essence whilst becoming more tolerant of difference.
 
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. Physicalist. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Physicalism.

Am I to assume that you were raised in a religious household FFH, since you do seem to be an outstanding example of the findings of the study in question :eek:

(or is there a hint of irony or sarcasm in there)?

edit: or did I just walk into a bar fight between you and Saiko :D
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with your post, and the article you link to.

To answer your last question, my view is that we need to secularise, but be careful to encourage spritual movements of various sorts to replace what religion should be about.

Having seen hoe religions behave over my lifetime (and since I ceased to be a Christian at age 20) I don't think they can reform. Every time they try, a new hard-line group pops up to preach the old, hate filled version!

David

Is it possible to have a "spiritual movement" without defining it as a religion since, as with any "movement" is must have basic rules, rituals and tenets?

Maybe scientific developments such as Parnia's AWARE study, or Hameroff and Penrose and all those scientists who can see past the limitations of materialist academic culture hold the key. However, their voices are lost not only to religious doctrines that do not seek new knowledge, but they are confounded by their own groups many of which don't/won't accommodate spirituality even in the face of evidence.
 
Is it possible to have a "spiritual movement" without defining it as a religion since, as with any "movement" is must have basic rules, rituals and tenets?
Possibly not - I was imagining something inspired by this very site - a gathering of people dedicated to exploring the truth in an open-minded sort of way.

David
 
Yes. This site is a great blueprint for tolerance, free from "in-group"/"out-group" nitwittery.

Really? This is beyond satire :eek:
Well nobody here is preaching hell and damnation to others who are different, nor are they picking on minorities, such as the gays.

David
 
http://www.higherperspectives.com/religious-children-are-meaner-1470763643.html

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

This does not surprise me at all unfortunately. I think the basis of religion (compassion, the golden rule etc) too often takes secondary importance to personal salvation and the delineation of 'in-groups' and 'out-groups.' When strict social rules and attributes are applied to religious 'belonging' the results can get nasty resulting in an array of violent acts. One could speculate that the answer would be for every religion to give the same rights and respect to all thus eliminating the inevitable creation of the 'other.' But how?

Is it even possible for one religion to differentiate itself from another without creating such divides? What is the future of religion when its central tenets of compassion and sharing cannot even be passed to it youngest members successfully.

Can tolerance prevail without secularization?

Can't answer your final question, but the headlines could also perhaps read...

"The Positive Association between Religion and Children’s Sensitivity to Negative Outcomes for Other Children across the World"

"The Negative Association between Socioeconomic Status and Children’s Altruism across the World" (p < 0.001)

Among other things I picked up from briefly scanning the paper, it seems reasonable to question...

...whether this version of The Director Game really measures generosity (i.e. children from lower SES might value the stickers more, older children in the study may simply place less value on the stickers and so share more etc).
...the researchers unconscious cueing/behavior on the child;
....whether the socioeconomic status criteria used was particularly valid (number of years education of mother?);
...the effect of age on the results of the game as regards age distribution of subjects across cultures (older children may have been selected from less religious cultures, and younger children from more religious cultures etc.)

Anyway just some thoughts...
 
Max, I agree that measuring kids' generosity is pretty near impossible - for all the reasons you mention. Also, I suspect people involved in experiments like this, try to figure out what the heck it is all for while it is in progress - which may make the result meaningless!

Nevertheless, I would bet the result is actually true, in the sense that religion fosters an us and them mentality - as, for example, in Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants came to blows for a while. This is the real problem with religion - each group has to be right, and the others wrong!

David
 
This is the real problem with religion - each group has to be right, and the others wrong!

Certainly it is a problem if one group thinks they are uniquely right and others wrong. Not sure this has anything to do with religion. Maybe you are thinking about fundamentalism.
 
Certainly it is a problem if one group thinks they are uniquely right and others wrong. Not sure this has anything to do with religion. Maybe you are thinking about fundamentalism.
I don't know if you would describe the opponents in Northern Ireland as fundamentalist - possibly, but they they came from mainstream religion - particularly the Catholics.

David
 
Yikes!!! How can you still be so easily suckered? It's just more BS pseudoscience in the service of the physicalist campaign.

I know many people who grew up in religious homes and they most certainly aren't any less tolerant than those from non-religious homes.

Jesus christ are you that paranoid, Senator McCarthy? Not everything that speaks against religion is coordinated attack by physicalist lackeys.
 
Back
Top