Religious children are more selfish

[john]

Neurologists studying the attitudes of children from Christian and Muslim (only) families find they have measurably less empathy for others, are more judgmental and selfish......When compared to children from atheist families.

Interesting eh exactly the opposite of what posters here claim about the religious.   

independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-children-are-more-selfish-than-atheist-children-say-us-neuroscientists-a6723596.html

[Hope]

Neurologists studying the attitudes of children from Christian and Muslim (only) families find they have measurably less empathy for others, are more judgmental and selfish......When compared to children from atheist families.

Interesting eh exactly the opposite of what posters here claim about the religious.   

independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-children-are-more-selfish-than-atheist-children-say-us-neuroscientists-a6723596.html

Actually, john, the study isn't as definitive as you would like to make out.  The very first paragraph says "Children from religious families are less generous and altruistic than their atheist contempories, a study has suggested"

It then goes on to state that

religion can encourage people to act badly because they think they have already done something "good" - like praying - at another time.

This is called "moral licensing", said Professor Decety.

"It’s an unconscious bias. They don’t even see that’s not compatible with what they’ve been learning in church," he said, according to Forbes.

(my emphasis)  It doesn't say that it 'does'.  Also noted in this passage is that the 'moral licensing' actually runs contrary to what they are taught in church (which I assume was another way of saying 'what Jesus taught').  Of course, sevarl of Paul's official and putative epistles addressed just this point - suggesting that it isn't Christianity per se (I can't speak for Islam) that is to blame for this phenomenon.

Also, does 1000 from a pool of nigh on 1.8 billion really give a true picture?  (About 26% of today's global population is under 15)

[ProfessorDavey]

Neurologists studying the attitudes of children from Christian and Muslim (only) families find they have measurably less empathy for others, are more judgmental and selfish......When compared to children from atheist families.

Interesting eh exactly the opposite of what posters here claim about the religious.   

independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-children-are-more-selfish-than-atheist-children-say-us-neuroscientists-a6723596.html

I think this is about the same study as in the 'Religion and altruism' thread so perhaps should be merged.

This is rather interesting as the researchers refer to other studies where religious parents claim their children are more sensitive and empathic (self determined) yet when actually tested there reverse is the case.

What a number of studies have found is 'within-group' behaviour - that religious people may be more altruistic toward in-group members (i.e. other members of their religion) than non-religious people, but less so toward people out-with their group. This is often referred to as 'parochial altruism', and that may explain why overall religious people are no more, or even less altruistic, than non religious people as this considers altruistic behaviour not just to members of the group but wider society and strangers, but specifically why religious people 'feel' that they are more altruistic, as helping a friend or fellow group member is a much more 'visible' activity than helping a stranger.

[ProfessorDavey]

Neurologists studying the attitudes of children from Christian and Muslim (only) families find they have measurably less empathy for others, are more judgmental and selfish......When compared to children from atheist families.

Interesting eh exactly the opposite of what posters here claim about the religious.   

independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-children-are-more-selfish-than-atheist-children-say-us-neuroscientists-a6723596.html

Actually, john, the study isn't as definitive as you would like to make out.  The very first paragraph says "Children from religious families are less generous and altruistic than their atheist contempories, a study has suggested"

It then goes on to state that

religion can encourage people to act badly because they think they have already done something "good" - like praying - at another time.

This is called "moral licensing", said Professor Decety.

"It’s an unconscious bias. They don’t even see that’s not compatible with what they’ve been learning in church," he said, according to Forbes.

(my emphasis)  It doesn't say that it 'does'.  Also noted in this passage is that the 'moral licensing' actually runs contrary to what they are taught in church (which I assume was another way of saying 'what Jesus taught').  Of course, sevarl of Paul's official and putative epistles addressed just this point - suggesting that it isn't Christianity per se (I can't speak for Islam) that is to blame for this phenomenon.

Also, does 1000 from a pool of nigh on 1.8 billion really give a true picture?  (About 26% of today's global population is under 15)

Oh here we go again - I don't like the findings so the study must be rubbish.

On cohort numbers, scientific study looks at variation and uses that in the design of studies, via a method known as power statistics. This approach determines the number of participants needed for statistical significance to be able to be determined. And this flattens out. So a study with 2 participants may be hugely unreliable compared to 20. But once a threshold is reached adding further participants does not affect the reliability of the study. So a well designed study with 1000 participants may be just as reliable as one with 1 million, or 100 million. And actually a well designed study of 100 participants may be much more reliable than a poorly designed one with 100 million (as an example check out the reliability of proper polling - which often has about 1000 responders, with self completed so called 'voodoo poll' which even though they might attract 10 times of 100 times more responses are less reliable as there is no attempt to ensure that the responders are in any way representative of the overall population).

[Brownie]

This is quite interesting;  from long observation I believe there is a tendency for people with strong religious convictions to lack empathy and live in a bit of a bubble, though they would not admit it.  It comes from believing that their way is the only way and that anyone else is damned.  Which is why others often find extreme religionists difficult to be around, they are so inflexible - in the case of Christians, with a glassy look and smile on their face

Who wants to be friends with someone who is only friendly with you because they have the agenda to convert?

[floo]

This is quite interesting;  from long observation I believe there is a tendency for people with strong religious convictions to lack empathy and live in a bit of a bubble, though they would not admit it.  It comes from believing that their way is the only way and that anyone else is damned.  Which is why others often find extreme religionists difficult to be around, they are so inflexible - in the case of Christians, with a glassy look and smile on their face

Who wants to be friends with someone who is only friendly with you because they have the agenda to convert?

Very off putting, I agree.

[Outrider]

This is quite interesting;  from long observation I believe there is a tendency for people with strong religious convictions to lack empathy and live in a bit of a bubble, though they would not admit it.  It comes from believing that their way is the only way and that anyone else is damned.  Which is why others often find extreme religionists difficult to be around, they are so inflexible - in the case of Christians, with a glassy look and smile on their face.

I don't think they lack empathy any more or less than any other group of that size. I think religious people, to greater or lesser extents, reserve their empathy for the 'in-group' identified by their take on their religion - for some religious viewpoints that's the entirety of humanity, whilst for others it's only those that have adopted a particular version of a particular creed.

Who wants to be friends with someone who is only friendly with you because they have the agenda to convert?

Someone has to blink first - if all you are met with is hostility then all you've lost is some pleasant words. Just be friendly, it's difficult for anyone to maintain unpleasantness in the face of that.

O.

[Hope]

Who wants to be friends with someone who is only friendly with you because they have the agenda to convert?

Whilst I have met a few such people, from atheists to Christians to Muslims to sportsfolk, I've met far more of the above who don't have such agendas.

[Brownie]

I agree there are more who do not have that attitude but the majority of extremists do.  Most of us aren't extremists, we see the value of anyone and don't confine friendships to those who go to church with us.When faced with the glassy eyed, preaching type of person we can be pleasant, suitably vague and move on - not going back.  It's difficult for youngsters though, they are often far less secure.

[Hope]

I think religious people, to greater or lesser extents, reserve their empathy for the 'in-group' identified by their take on their religion ...

So, in some res[ects, they are no different to anyone else - think for instance of the ardent soccer fan for whom every club is 'sh*te' bar their own. 

... for some religious viewpoints that's the entirety of humanity, whilst for others it's only those that have adopted a particular version of a particular creed.

I think that there is a degree of truth here, O - but again, it can be equally applied to politics, to sport, in fact to much of life.

[Gonnagle]

Dear atheists,

A little insight into the world of the atheist ( or maybe not )

Anyway from this link,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2015/11/05/religion-morality/

“Many nonreligious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents … The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.”

This is not a pop at atheists, just a thought I have about how your atheism affects your life.

So a question, do you think that you put more thought into how you conduct your life?

Sorry, just trying to put my thoughts down in black and white, do you sometimes think, those pesky theists, I will show them that I can be more ethical, more altruistic, I will show them that I can be a better person without God.

In real life, not on this forum ( although I would argue that that is one of the main reasons you post on here, I don't need God to be a better person ) do you strive to prove a point, in the presence of those holier than thou types, do the hackles rise, do you go out of your way to show you are a better person.

To understand what I am trying to say, I do think there is a truth in this link, religious types can be become complacent, they think their religion has all the answers so don't look further afield, do atheists think more deeply about how they should conduct their lives.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

So, in some res[ects, they are no different to anyone else - think for instance of the ardent soccer fan for whom every club is 'sh*te' bar their own.  I think that there is a degree of truth here, O - but again, it can be equally applied to politics, to sport, in fact to much of life.

Sorry, yes, I didn't mean to imply they were unique in that respect - I think there are examples in religious that are amongst the most explicit in identifying in- and out-groups, but it's not only religious groups that do this.

O.

[Shaker]

Sorry, yes, I didn't mean to imply they were unique in that respect - I think there are examples in religious that are amongst the most explicit in identifying in- and out-groups, but it's not only religious groups that do this.

O.

Indeed. And the tribalism that football engenders (especially football for some reason; you don't see it with tennis and basketball) certainly leads to ugly forms of violence at times. We've all seen it.

What it doesn't do is engender the attitude that other people are not merely wrong but so wrong that they must be persecuted and made to change their allegiance at the point of a sword or AK47 or face one sort of fire before death and another sort after it.

[Outrider]

What it doesn't do is engender the attitude that other people are not merely wrong but so wrong that they must be persecuted and made to change their allegiance at the point of a sword or AK47 or face one sort of fire before death and another sort after it.

Unfortunately, in some place, it actually does. The violence around football matches in some of the South American countries, in particular, is akin to the sort of violence that was around during the late 70s and early 80s in British football - what differentiates it from the religious-inspired violence of recent times is more organisational and funding challenges than intent or vehemence.

O.

[Hope]

What it doesn't do is engender the attitude that other people are not merely wrong but so wrong that they must be persecuted and made to change their allegiance at the point of a sword or AK47 or face one sort of fire before death and another sort after it.

No thsat seems to have been quite prevalent amongst the non-theists during the last 2-300 years.  Think of the anarchy that occurred during the French Revolution when many people were slaughtered more for who they knew than what they necessarily believed.  Or perhaps the excesses of Stalin's and Mao's purges; the Cambodian Killing Fields; or the meaningless murders undertaken by Peru's Shining Path party - to name but a few.

By the way, the 'another sort after (death)' is a Biblical analogy which has been taken literally be certain Christian groups: it comes in a passage that was written in a formulaic manner.

[Shaker]

No thsat seems to have been quite prevalent amongst the non-theists during the last 2-300 years.

Not because of non-theism, though

[Hope]

Not because of non-theism, though

Do you have any proof that these awful events had nothing to do with the perpetrators' non-theistic ideas?  Or is the possibility that they were related to their political beliefs enough to exonerate them?

After all, when your "What it doesn't do is engender the attitude that other people are not merely wrong but so wrong that they must be persecuted and made to change their allegiance at the point of a sword or AK47 or face one sort of fire before death and another sort after it." comment is taken into account how do the two differ?  An 'enemy of the state' (in Soviet Russia, Maoist Chine, etc.) was not only executed, but often written out of history, removed from official paintings and reports - made to be a non-person.

[Shaker]

Do you have any proof that these awful events had nothing to do with the perpetrators' non-theistic ideas?

You know the name for that one by now, I'm sure

Or is the possibility that they were related to their political beliefs enough to exonerate them?

Nothing "exonerates" them but personal psychopathy (especially so in the case of Stalin - he started life as a petty then serious criminal, remember) coupled with the lust for absolute political power is sufficient to explain their actions.

[Hope]

You know the name for that one by now, I'm sure

IIRC, its called a Shakerism.  Not sure what the Latin form of that is, though.   Remember that I am asking you to provide evidence for a positive statement that you have made.

PS - whilst you wrote your post, I've added to my previous one.

[Shaker]

IIRC, its called a Shakerism.

No, definitely not that

Not sure what the Latin form of that is, though.  

Which is a pity.

Remember that I am asking you to provide evidence for a positive statement that you have made.

So you are in fact asking me to provide evidence of the non-existence of any religious motive in the actions of the aforementioned.

There's a term for that too