Religious children less altruistic than atheist children?

[38carrots]

I found the results of this study quite intriguing and counter intuitive. Why do you think that's the case?

 

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

[Laura Corin]

It's only counter-intuitive if you think that atheists are immoral.  Why would you think that?

[HomeAgain]

Very simply, I think it may have something to do with carrot/stick mentality.  Religion is very carrot/stick.  You do well, so you can be rewarded.  You deserve the reward.  If you do not do well, you deserve to be punished.  Those are the end results.  There are no other, no inbetween. Heaven, or hell. If the only option is a reward, of course you deserve it more than someone else.

 

Athiests are more fluid.  There is no end result except a void.  The only thing that matters is right now, and how your actions affect others. 

[unsinkable]

I don't find it counter-intuitive, because I don't believe heathen children lack empathy, ethics, morals...whatever you want to call it. And the mechanism proposed in the study seems logical.

 

But I expect this thread to be filled with reasons why this study MUST be flawed.

I expect it to be filled with people agreeing with it.

[bolt.]

The test and analysis seems fairly... I don't know... Oddly specific and minor (?) to warrant a full conclusion.

 

So, I'm not convinced it is the case that religious children in general are less altruistic.

 

Plus "religious" covers so much territory and variety. And just how significant was the statistical difference between the groups?

 

I'm not really sure how to process it, other than it makes me feel defensive and I'm just not wanting to count my "religious" children under this ruling. They may or may not be altruistic in every situation, but I don't think the difference is likely to be theological.

 

Maybe it is?

 

Maybe in the absence of theology (worldview information about supernatural beliefs) atheists spend proportionally more time teaching about values, ethics and behaviour more directly? Maybe they explain 'good reasons' for ethics, without the fallback of 'Because -- God.'?

 

Maybe people who 'opt out' of a majority are more thoughtful than the subset of religious people who aren't very thoughtful about it?

 

Maybe the subset of religious people who 'hellfire and brimstone' at their children are skewing the results away from more normal religious parents? Maybe I'm not a 'normal' religious parent?

 

It's just too vague right now. Too little info for anything conclusive.

 

(I never did believe that atheists lack morals. But I did/do believe that mostly kids are just kids, and they vary.)

[Slache]

Very simply, I think it may have something to do with carrot/stick mentality. Religion is very carrot/stick. You do well, so you can be rewarded. You deserve the reward. If you do not do well, you deserve to be punished. Those are the end results. There are no other, no inbetween. Heaven, or hell. If the only option is a reward, of course you deserve it more than someone else.

 

Athiests are more fluid. There is no end result except a void. The only thing that matters is right now, and how your actions affect others.

This does not describe my religion at all. In my religion I'm a sinner worthy of Hell and nothing more. Salvation is a gift I don't deserve, but was given to me anyway because my Father is more gracious than I. I, in turn am learning graciousness and trying to be good, following His example.

[bolt.]

Very simply, I think it may have something to do with carrot/stick mentality. Religion is very carrot/stick. You do well, so you can be rewarded. You deserve the reward. If you do not do well, you deserve to be punished. Those are the end results. There are no other, no inbetween. Heaven, or hell. If the only option is a reward, of course you deserve it more than someone else.

 

Athiests are more fluid. There is no end result except a void. The only thing that matters is right now, and how your actions affect others.

I don't think religions actually "are" that way, but I suppose I can see maybe that children could get those ideas via over-simplification.

[Amy in NH]

I think there must be a difference between the children of parents who teach morality through the lens of having compassion for the suffering of others vs. those who teach morality through fear of religious punishment and who may be more likely to also teach that people only deserve what they get for following/not following a Godly lifestyle as laid out in their holy book.

[Ms.Ivy]

I've read several articles on this study and I'm very confused.  It seems like what they did was have kids watch cartoons of kids pushing each other ("mundane interpersonal harm").  And then they asked kids how "mean" they thought the actions were.  And the researchers said that the kids who were religious were more likely to say that interpersonal harm is "mean" and the atheist kids were more likely to brush it off as insignificant, with the conclusion being that religious kids are not sympathetic to those who CAUSE "mundane interpersonal harm."  What am I missing?  Am I reading this wrong?  

 

My other thought about this is that I am not really too surprised.  I sometimes think that parents use religion as a way to shirk responsibility for teaching morality and love.  As if going to church is what makes your kid a good person.  And I say this as a very conservative Christian.  

[mtomom]

I think it's surprising not because I would expect non-religious kids to be less altruistic/kind, but because I would have expected similar ranges on those measures among all the groups, secular and religious.

 

I'm a Christian. I do think Christianity, over-all, in the US tends to emphasize the individual and individual outcomes. Sad--because Christians are supposed to be allowing God's spirit to work through them to love and serve others, all others. We have somehow gotten so off track that the emphasis is, often, do x and y (or don't do z) so you can get to heaven someday. Sad.

 

I'm still surprised, though, that there were big differences in the kids.

 

 

[38carrots]

It's only counter-intuitive if you think that atheists are immoral.  Why would you think that?

 

I actually didn't think there would be a difference based on this variable.  How does it follow that atheists are immoral??

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think there must be a difference between the children of parents who teach morality through the lens of having compassion for the suffering of others vs. those who teach morality through fear of religious punishment and who may be more likely to also teach that people only deserve what they get for following/not following a Godly lifestyle as laid out in their holy book.

 

Might depend on the religion.  That is not something I was taught.  That I should be nice for fear of being punished by a deity.

[SparklyUnicorn]

How does it follow that atheists are immoral??

 

It doesn't, but some people think it does.

[sewingmama]

I've always thought this about most religeous people compared to atheists...not just children. I know so many religeous people who do things for others because they are "supposed to" and then act all matyr about it. I've always thought those who do nice things for others because they want to and don't expect a reward for it to be way more altruistic.

[SproutMamaK]

As a conservative Christian, I can absolutely believe this. As a group, there is often a lot of focus on sin, right and wrong, etc. Yes, there is also a lot of emphasis on grace and redemption and compassion and understanding, etc etc.... but to child it often boilds down to "blah blah blah this is sin and BAD and this other thing is GOOD." It's a very simple step from there to a church full of little legalists. Hopefully that's not where their understanding gets stuck and they never move beyond, and it's something that we actively try to counter with our own children, but I can certainly see how much of modern religious parenting would have this effect... and I certainly have seen it all blow up in people's faces when their children become teenagers and start to question things. It's not pretty for anyone at any stage.

[Tanaqui]

I actually didn't think there would be a difference based on this variable.  How does it follow that atheists are immoral??

 

Well, when you say "These results are counter-intuitive", it sounds like you're saying "The intuitive results are that the religious children are more kind and moral". That second sentence sounds more like the opposite of the first than "The intuitive results is that it doesn't matter how you're raised" does, at least to me.

[Tsuga]

I am skeptical of the overall study, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.

 

Religious people have their religion to bolster their self-esteem. Atheists and agnostics must evaluate each action on its merits.

 

I don't think it's legalism that does people in but selfishness + having a pass into the "good team" is definitely not a recipe for good behavior.

 

Both my partner's ex-wife and my ex-husband have dated and married multiple people since our divorces. Both sincerely, deeply, and strongly believe in monogamy and vote for protection of marriage laws. But God understands their circumstances, of course, and they do pray every day, so obviously the fact that all of our kids are exposed to a string of boyfriends, girlfriends, and spouses CLEARLY is okay because God is such a forgiving God and they would not do this if it weren't His will.

 

Whereas I was like, okay, what has the best outcomes for kids... don't meet anyone until after a year, don't introduce the kids for another year, don't move in, blah blah blah... let's look at all the details... Now we two atheists have been together as many years, as they have had spouses since the divorce. Awesome. If you can believe it, they both still specifically judge us for "shacking up." Yep. Fundamentally, to them, it is religious membership and approval that makes actions acceptable, NOT whether or not those actions hurt others. They don't have to do that careful evaluation because being religious makes the activity okay. I really think that is the logic on some level, because otherwise their actions are totally insane.

 

We don't have a piece of paper, we don't have a label, and we don't have god on our side.

 

Who do you think is more careful about behavior in front of the kids?

[MercyA]

I've read several articles on this study and I'm very confused.  It seems like what they did was have kids watch cartoons of kids pushing each other ("mundane interpersonal harm").  And then they asked kids how "mean" they thought the actions were.  And the researchers said that the kids who were religious were more likely to say that interpersonal harm is "mean" and the atheist kids were more likely to brush it off as insignificant, with the conclusion being that religious kids are not sympathetic to those who CAUSE "mundane interpersonal harm."  What am I missing?  Am I reading this wrong?  

 

No, I don't think you're reading it wrong. From the article linked above: "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."  You know what? I'm okay with children "judging" mean children and expecting consequences for children who aren't kind.

 

The test and analysis seems fairly... I don't know... Oddly specific and minor (?) to warrant a full conclusion.

 

So, I'm not convinced it is the case that religious children in general are less altruistic.

 

I agree. The procedure for testing altruism was odd: "In this task, children were shown a set of 30 stickers and were told to choose their ten favorite. They were then told 'these stickers are yours to keep.' Children were instructed that the experimenter did not have the time to play this game with all of the children in their school, so not everyone would be able to receive stickers." I think they may have seen a different result [ETA: more sharing by kids of all religious persuasions] if some children instead didn't receive lunch or some other necessity. 

 

Interesting study, though.

[Mergath]

I can see this being true when comparing to religions that are punishment/reward oriented. We don't have a holy book to fall back on for rules about right and wrong, so I spend a lot of time helping dd imagine herself in another child's place to understand why we do/don't do things. And imo, empathy encourages a person to be more generous and altruistic than does obedience.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that the term 'religious' is so general that the study doesn't really say much of anything.

 

Generosity tends to be modeled as well as explicitly taught, and as a parent it has been interesting to try to do that.

 

I like the idea of bringing kids along to do charitable stuff, but even as homeschoolers it was surprisingly difficult to do so.  There are all kinds of legal limitation on regular volunteer work by kids under 14 or 16, depending, even with a parent along.  For example, Dd and I attended a volunteer orientation night at a local marine bio place, and found that she would be ineligible for any volunteer work there until she was 14.  It was very disappointing, especially having read books like 'And the Skylark Sings with Me' that featured just that kind of experience for homeschoolers.

 

One thing I found was that we could be creative about it.  For instance, although Habitat for Humanity has an age minimum that is mid-teen, DD could make cookies for the workers and we could bring them over at lunch time, and the time spent on that counted toward the work hours for the houses.  That was pretty nice.  I also found her a Roots and Shoots group (Jane Goodall style) that did volunteer work for the local SPCA and Sunday Friends, neither of which had age limits.  Although a food bank outreach program did not allow her to give out food, she was allowed to help with behind the scenes projects there, like packing gently used toys into bags, or finding food boxes for people at Christmas time.  If we saw someone in need on the street, sometimes we would go and buy a meal or groceries and bring it back to them.  These have no age limits.

 

Another thing I saw was that fraternal benefit societies and churches often have volunteer opportunities that are less formalized and more accepting of young kids.  These are worth seeking out.

 

I never wanted my example to consist only of, "Say good-bye to Mommy, she is going to Do Good." :)

 

In terms of financial generosity when we started an allowance she was encouraged to divide it in to 'spend, save, and church' like we do with our own funds.  So that way she saw it and participated from the start. 

 

YMMV.  There are a lot of ways to approach this, but I think it's good to be intentional about it.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Additionally, I think it's important for kids to honestly see and experience a range of socio-economic conditions.

We are pretty stratified here. 

There are a lot of kids who never see anyone in need, and others who never see anyone who is not in need.  Neither are good.

[Ms.Ivy]

From the study: 

"[Christian children] also believe that interpersonal harm is more ‘‘mean’’ and deserving of harsher punishment than non-religious children."

 

This is reported as a "bad thing" and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe this is why we have these weird school policies I don't understand -- where victims of bullying get suspended if they get caught being "involved" in a fight, even if the "involvement" was just the fact that they were a victim.  

 

Anyway, it seems the researchers have the assumption that the way to teach kids to turn the other cheek is to teach that pushing isn't mean.   I don't think that in order to teach forgiveness, we have to teach that there is nothing offensive.  So I will continue to teach my children that pushing is mean, but that if someone pushes them, they should forgive, just as they have been forgiven.  And I will continue to teach my children that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.  And I will continue to teach that there is good and evil, and that our God is just God, who punishes every sin.  Whether that sin is punished by God pouring his wrath out on Christ, or by their own eternal death is up to each of my children to choose.  But children are imitators, and if parents show their children forgiveness along with justice, they will be able to tell right from wrong and know what forgiveness means.  I guess what I'm saying is that I believe in forgiveness, not in tolerance.  The study researchers apparently believe only in tolerance, so forgiveness wasn't "studied."  

[Carol in Cal.]

If you read the linked study, religious in this study means Christian/Muslim. It isn't actually general, though the article makes it sound that way. Blame the journo, not the researchers :)

Right, but there is such a range of teachings and practices amoung Christians and Muslims that those designations are not terribly deterministic.

[MercyA]

 lol, I bet you don't mean it to sound this way, but it sounds like you are saying Christian/Muslim kids are more discerning and save their altruism for important things, whereas the atheist kids had no discernment and wasted their empathy on stickers.

 

That's not what you're saying. is it ?

 

No, not at all. That thought never crossed my mind, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I meant that I thought (hoped?) all the kids would share more if something like lunch was at stake. I applaud any kids who generously shared their stickers.  :)

[bettyandbob]

Based on my own experiences, this does not surprise me at all. I am a Christian and was a regular church attendee and participant the church community until a couple of years ago. I've seen terrible things happen within both liberal and conservative Christian groups. At the same time some of the most community involved, empathetic people I know are atheists. It's a situation that has really caused me to question my beliefs. 

[JenniferB]

A while ago I saw a story come across my Facebook.  It was about Christian children in the Middle East who pray for their persecutors.  I couldn't help but wonder about their home lives and what faith they were living in and with their families and within their communities.  It's a wonder.  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

[Greta]

Well, here's my take, for what little it's worth.

 

I know Christians who I would call "love based" who love God and love people because they see everyone as an image of God. They believe that Christ became man out of his profound love for all humanity, to help us and to heal us. They look toward the Kingdom of Heaven, and they rejoice.

 

I know Christians who I would call "fear based" who worship God out of obligation, who see the people around them as possible threats to their salvation. They believe that Christ became man to pay an unpayable debt for "us", not for "them". They constantly look toward hell/armageddon/whatever with fear and terror.

 

Obviously I am exaggerating two ends of a possible spectrum, and most people are somewhere in the middle. But my point is that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that the fear-based believers are less altruistic than non-believers (and love-based believers), because I've seen that dynamic at play so many times. And unfortunately, I think that many, many churches in America emphasize a fear-based theology. So as a believer myself, I am saddened, but not surprised, by the study.

[HomeAgain]

 I'm quite sure there are atheist bullies, and I know there are kind and loving people of faith....but my personal experience of bullying has come from people who self-identify as Christians in the homeschool community :(

 

Same.  We have been locked out of various things because we won't say homosexuality is wrong or that the bible is the ONLY word of God.  We watched Apologia use their voice to denounce the LDS.

Secular options we use keep their voices on education, not on who is and who isn't a good enough Christian.

[Pam in CT]

The study reminded me of the mantra that religious historian Karen Armstrong has been coming back to for decades, that religion has the power to call us to our best selves, and also to provide a justification to our worst selves.  

 

 

She sees the positive power in the call to love and compassion and care for the needy that is embedded in all the world's great faith traditions.

 

She sees the negative power in the way religious affiliation tends to bring us to an Us-Them orientation that can lead to dehumanizing the Other.

 

 

Her repeated schtick is that whatever our faith tradition, it is incumbent upon us to seek and develop the aspects of it that lead us to compassion and ethics, and be wary of how it can lure us towards judgment and rejection of people different from us.  

 

(I  :001_wub: her and count her as a life teacher...)

 

 

 

 

[MercyA]

That's why I wondered whether political affiliation was a confound.

 

I wondered about that, too. I think too often Christians conflate their conservative political leanings with their conservative theology. I know I did. Over time, however, I realized some of my life philosophies were the result of traditional "American thinking" rather than the result of studying and understanding Scripture. I am still politically conservative when I believe that position is supported by Scripture, but am politically liberal on other issues for the same reason.

[MercyA]

A while ago I saw a story come across my Facebook.  It was about Christian children in the Middle East who pray for their persecutors.  I couldn't help but wonder about their home lives and what faith they were living in and with their families and within their communities.  It's a wonder.  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

Jennifer, have you seen

? Beautiful.

[bettyandbob]

Additionally, I think it's important for kids to honestly see and experience a range of socio-economic conditions.

We are pretty stratified here. 

There are a lot of kids who never see anyone in need, and others who never see anyone who is not in need.  Neither are good.

 

 

I grew up in a diverse place and am now raising my dc in the same place, which has become more diverse. Honestly, I think both my dc and I would be very uncomfortable in a place where everyone looked like us (racially, economically, educationally, socially). It would just be too weird. My dc have always known people who have had "no needs" and people who have had "very high needs". I'm not sure what would be attractive about a place where everyone was the same. 

[Amy in NH]

I don't have time to read the study because I'm actually supposed to be doing my homework right now, but I wonder if the study accounted for the cultural differences between those groups that don't actually have anything to do with religion but may be a factor in childraising? 

[marbel]

I can see this being true when comparing to religions that are punishment/reward oriented. We don't have a holy book to fall back on for rules about right and wrong, so I spend a lot of time helping dd imagine herself in another child's place to understand why we do/don't do things. And imo, empathy encourages a person to be more generous and altruistic than does obedience.

 

Of course you teach that, and Christian parents, teachers, and preachers do too.  (Perhaps not all, of course. I don't know about everyone.)   Obedience to Christ is important, naturally.  And what did he say were the greatest commandments?  We also teach that everyone is made in the image of God and thus is worthy of respect, love, and care. 

 

There will always be people who fail to do this, or who do it imperfectly.

 

[albeto.]

So, I'm not convinced it is the case that religious children in general are less altruistic.

 

I don't think anyone should be convinced from one study, and time will tell if the results from this study is consistent with results from other studies (I think it is shaping up to be just so). What I find interesting is that it challenges theological claims about religion making people more moral. It challenges that claim and finds it suspect. There simply is not enough evidence to suggest religion makes a child more moral, and by extension, an adult.

 

Eta: That's all I'm going to say in this thread. Knowing what I know about this place, once certain peoole jump into the thread (because they simply can't resist the Siren call), it's all downhill from there.

 

I can sympathize with the frustration of watching a beloved belief, and ultimately I think, the assumed character of a believed beloved person (Jesus), challenged in such a public way. Not only is this belief/person challenged publicly, but there is no defense other than personal belief, and that's increasingly unsettling in a culture that is beginning to demand more than personal assurances and assumptions. 

 

I find it interesting because now, of all times, is the perfect opportunity for one to suggest the solution to the problem of religion not making one a "better" person is that religion doesn't change who you are, just where you'll go after you die (or whatever the catchy phrase is). I don't think it's a real solution by any means, and it opens up more theological and logical problems, but at least it's an answer to the evidence the study provides. Instead, so far, the defense has been to challenge the study, to dismiss the value of the evidence. While that's good (skepticism FTW!), an argument against a claim should also be held accountable to reality. The shaming (oh dear, I fell for that pesky ole Siren song, I have such little will power, I'm so embarrassed), is an entertaining and predictable diversion, but hardly a response to the actual topic. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I grew up in a diverse place and am now raising my dc in the same place, which has become more diverse. Honestly, I think both my dc and I would be very uncomfortable in a place where everyone looked like us (racially, economically, educationally, socially). It would just be too weird. My dc have always known people who have had "no needs" and people who have had "very high needs". I'm not sure what would be attractive about a place where everyone was the same. 

I agree with you entirely.

 

It's easy to be stratified around here, but it's not unavoidable, and it doesn't suit me at all.

 

And I was determined not to raise a kid in that environment.  I've heard one too many people from neighborhoods like that entirely oblivious to the other people right across town, and completely ignorant of how they live, in BOTH directions.  How can we love our neighbors if we stay in our echo chambers all the time?  And anyway, it's boring.  Plus it's exhausting to always be translated when you're around people like that.

[Samm]

Posts #1 and #2 lead off with some adult prejudices and that's okay, but it's not necessary.

 

So the kids value stickers for themselves over giving them away.  I really don't see how wealth redistribution is a sign of altruism.  It's probably a sign of something else though ...

 

Why should the kids believe that others' welfare would really be improved as a result of their selfless act -- are they not capable of themselves handing some stickers personally to a stickerless classmate to see the joy, or did the sticker-laden kids just see a giant bucket where their hard-won stickers were disappearing into oblivion for "redistribution"? 

[JenniferB]

Jennifer, have you seen this video? Beautiful.

 

So sweet.  There's hope for humanity in this girl.  May God preserve her sweet, forgiving spirit.

[6packofun]

I think it's pretty funny.  Biologists doing social science.  Wondering if there are any controls for education, ethnicity, or gender.  Do we have the exact words used to describe the game and all interaction with the children?  That would be interesting (or a video).

 

Wondering if there is a study of which groups study who's more moral more often...  LOL

 

It *could* be interesting, but there are at least 2 dozen more questions I want to ask to clarify a lot of the generalizations and vagueness I get from the article. Nah. :P

[Corraleno]

I've read several articles on this study and I'm very confused.  It seems like what they did was have kids watch cartoons of kids pushing each other ("mundane interpersonal harm").  And then they asked kids how "mean" they thought the actions were.  And the researchers said that the kids who were religious were more likely to say that interpersonal harm is "mean" and the atheist kids were more likely to brush it off as insignificant, with the conclusion being that religious kids are not sympathetic to those who CAUSE "mundane interpersonal harm."  What am I missing?  Am I reading this wrong?  

 

 

No, I don't think you're reading it wrong. From the article linked above: "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."  You know what? I'm okay with children "judging" mean children and expecting consequences for children who aren't kind.

 

 

From the study: 

"[Christian children] also believe that interpersonal harm is more ‘‘mean’’ and deserving of harsher punishment than non-religious children."

 

This is reported as a "bad thing" and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe this is why we have these weird school policies I don't understand -- where victims of bullying get suspended if they get caught being "involved" in a fight, even if the "involvement" was just the fact that they were a victim.  

 

Anyway, it seems the researchers have the assumption that the way to teach kids to turn the other cheek is to teach that pushing isn't mean.   I don't think that in order to teach forgiveness, we have to teach that there is nothing offensive.  So I will continue to teach my children that pushing is mean, but that if someone pushes them, they should forgive, just as they have been forgiven. 

 

The missing piece here is that not all of the "interpersonal contact" was intentional — the videos the children watched included not only kids pushing but also accidentally bumping into each. Religious children were more likely to assume mean intentions and to believe the children should be punished, even when it was accidental.

 

This corresponds to my own experience growing up with a very religious, very judgmental parent. There were no "accidents" — if you spilled your milk, you were punished for "not being careful." If you tripped and fell and knocked something over, you were punished for "not watching where you were going." If you lost a mitten in the snow, you were punished for not "taking care of your things." Etc. 

[Corraleno]

I think it's pretty funny.  Biologists doing social science.  Wondering if there are any controls for education, ethnicity, or gender.  Do we have the exact words used to describe the game and all interaction with the children?  That would be interesting (or a video).

 

The study included almost 1200 children from 5 countries, aged 5-12, and it controlled for age, socio-economic status, country of origin, religion, frequency of religious practice, and other measures of religiousness. The conclusion was that the higher the "religiousness" score, the less altruistic the children tended to be.

[Catwoman]

Personally, I don't think religion or atheism has much to do with whether or not children are altruistic. I think it mainly hinges on whether or not their parents are modeling a good example for them, and that religion has little to do with whether or not a person is good or moral or honest or generous.

 

I would assume that overall, there is probably a relatively equal number of moral atheists and moral religious people. But I don't believe that just because some people claim to be religious, it automatically makes them moral and altruistic, so maybe my viewpoint is somewhat biased. People can talk a great game about how holy they are, while in reality they are quite the opposite, so I try to judge people on their actions rather than their claims.

[Corraleno]

I thought this was interesting: religiosity affects children’s punitive tendencies. 

 

Given the researchers were talking primarily about children from the more punitive religions, it makes sense.

 

I would, however, like to see Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, UU and agnostic children represented in future studies. I also wonder if political orientation of the family is a confound ?

 

Curious - religious posters, if these studies were to be replicated such that you felt the results were reliable re the bolded, would you change anything about your children's religious education ? 

 

The study did include Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus, and those results are combined with Christian and Muslim data in the analyses that compared "religious" children with "nonreligious" children. However, the sample sizes for those religions were not large enough to carry out the additional analyses that compared Christian, Muslim, and atheist results.

[ktgrok]

i think many Christian communities promote a type of punitive parenting that could lead to this. 

[mamajag]

I don't see the issue. People causing interpersonal harm need to be stopped. I don't want my kids feeling altruistic towards those sorts of people. So win for religion there IMO.

 

As for the others, kids aren't as stupid as this study seems to think. No one's going to actually suffer for lack of a sticker. All in all, poorly designed and even worse reporting. 

[Corraleno]

I don't see the issue. People causing interpersonal harm need to be stopped. I don't want my kids feeling altruistic towards those sorts of people. So win for religion there IMO.

 

What kind of punishment do you feel is appropriate for a child who accidentally bumps into another? 

 

 

As for the others, kids aren't as stupid as this study seems to think. No one's going to actually suffer for lack of a sticker. All in all, poorly designed and even worse reporting. 

 

So  the fact that atheist children were more likely to share their stickers with children who would otherwise be left out means they're "stupider" than religious children who keep the stickers for themselves? If no one suffers for lack of a sticker, then having 5 stickers is no worse than having 10, so why not share them?

 

[Catwoman]

My kid would have given away all of his stickers. It's not because he is so incredibly generous; he just never particularly liked stickers. ;)

[Greta]

Someone seriously one-starred this thread....

Someone always one-stars the interesting threads! :-)

[Tanaqui]

I don't see the issue. People causing interpersonal harm need to be stopped. I don't want my kids feeling altruistic towards those sorts of people. So win for religion there IMO.

 

They don't always need to be stopped by use of punishment, though. And I really want my kids to feel charitable and altruistic towards everybody who needs it.

[bibiche]

I don't see the issue. People causing interpersonal harm need to be stopped. I don't want my kids feeling altruistic towards those sorts of people.  

 

Huh, I *do* want my child to feel altruistic towards people even if they do intentionally harm people.  We talk about stuff like this all the time. What are the things that might have made that person do something bad? Did he have a disadvantaged childhood?  Was he unloved?  What could be done to help other people in similar situations?  Are there justifications for bad behavior?

 

I find that having discussions like this with my child helps him to see that things in life aren't always black and white. I hope this helps him to be a thoughtful person who doesn't judge others too harshly.