a “robust” correlation between religious upbringing in either Christianity or Islam and a lack of altruism
Considering this, the title is misleading. It’s like saying “teachings are a problem”, when obviously it depends upon the content. There very well might be other religions which teach people to be more altruistic, but if so, they were outside the scope of this study.
If you want to get into semantics, the title is still accurate. Christian and Islamic children are less likely to be altruistic. Religious people are most likely to be Christian or Islamic. Unless Hinduism produces exceptionally high rates of altruistic children the title should hold.
You forget how skeptical religious people are of studying things. They will remain unmoved.
Likely, or merely probable? Either way, this focuses more on popularity of doctrine than efficacy. I could just as easily suggest that if most US schools churn out ignorant children, that school itself is the problem - but that would be missing the point. It presents a naturalistic fallacy.
So, what if other religions do result in children who are more altruistic than average? This would suggest that “religion” itself (whatever that may be) is not specifically the problem. And regardless, the rest of world might prefer to not be lumped in with Christianity and Islam. The collected Dharmic religions of the world do represent quite a few people, and handle altruism - as well as most other things - rather differently.
I always call non-Jewish girls from Brooklyn “goyls.”
I’m not really sure I understand this question. I’m trying to assess the title of the article from the point of view of logical induction. Given that the only thing you know about a child is that they are religious (and I mean nothing else, denomination, nationality, education, affluence, etc.), does this make him less likely to be altruistic than a child that is not religious?
Hmmm, “make him” is problematic, I’ll try again. Supposing we play a game. I tell you about two kids I know, kid A and kid B. Kid A was raised in a non-religious household, kid B was not. I will ask you to bet a dollar and guess which one is the most altruistic. We will repeat the game many times with different pairs of children. The study, along with some basic demographic knowledge, suggests that if you always pick kid A you will make more than you lose. In that sense the title is quite likely accurate. That’s all I wanted to say.
On a completely different note, from the guardian article:
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’m tempted to say this is the root cause. Like any discipline, if you go in thinking you know everything already you’ll learn nothing. If you believe your church is the source of all morality, send your child to church every week and they will turn out fine. If you don’t believe, you have some work to do.
I sometimes so badly want to openly judge people based in their faith that I can taste it. I think this means I’m an asshole.
I think it’s more than just the particular teaching or the denomination; there are people in many groups who consider allegiance to their own group to be a mark of morality. Actual ethics become secondary, because everyone else is just a little bit inferior. The same can often apply to atheists - it’s not that they hold to a common doctrine, it’s just that everyone else who does is at least slightly wrong. Some groups are more explicit in their exceptionalism, but I think anyone can act in that way.
No it makes you human. Or we’re both assholes.
Humans are assholes. FTFY both!
I am glad to see people discussing the scientific merits of this study and not taking its conclusions based on faith alone.
Although that’s true, when you’re dealing with religions that tend to emphasize judging (and excluding) others for their beliefs; with an actual and mythological background of extreme, even cruel punishment for non-criminal infractions (“you don’t believe a thing, therefore an eternity of hellfire”); topped with the reward of, “you’re a believer, so you have no worries ever about anything”…
Well, at some point you’re going to have to consider that there may, in fact, be a cause-effect relationship.
Yeah, it was a reactionary response, a bad idea, and I’m sorry.
Did o hear seome muttr, “bad parenting?”
Yeah, every time someone tells me “Oh, no. Jesus made a new covenant with Man, which invalidates the old Hebrew laws.” I have to explain that that’s just something Christians made up so they could ignore all those inconvenient rules they no longer want to follow. Then I point out Matthew 5:17-18
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one dot or one mark will pass from the law until all be fulfilled.
Did heaven and earth pass away, and no one told me? I hate when that happens.
FWIW, for Jews anyway, we have a concept of Am Yisrael meaning the nation of Israel (totally separate concept from the current nation state). This is why for us, an Ethiopian Jew, an Indian Jew, a Chinese Jew, a Yemenite Jew or Ashkenazi Jew, (etc) are all part of the same nation. Same for any convert since conversion is more like acquiring new citizenship than just a statement of faith. Quite separate from the biblical 12 tribes.
Cool.
“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.”
And once AGAIN, “religion” means “Abrahamist”. For fuck’s sake. There are a whole bunch of religions that aren’t that one, people.
How about seeing how everyone else actually measures up? Wiccans? Hindu? Cherokee? Xia? Voudun? Zoroastrians? Jainists? Shinto? Sikh? Palo Mayombe? Hopi? Zuni? Ringatu? Druids? Helenists? Thelema? Eckankar? Yoruba?
I am SO sick of that shit.
Maybe, just maybe, there’s a chance that one of the hundreds of religions not founded on a supremacist only-we-know-the-truth doctrine, might not foster being a dick to outsiders?
Sorry- I’ve been driving through the Confederate states the past two days, and it’s starting to get to me.
Sick burn bro!
No really, thanks, I’m definitely going to remember that one, very useful.
Yeah, that would drive me nuts too.
Ild like to give you a like, but I am conflicted. Can I give you a Burn It With Hellfire instead? 
