Religion turns children into assholes

[Major Nikon]

The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World

Highlights

• Family religious identification decreases children’s altruistic behaviors
• Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to injustices and empathy
• Children from religious households are harsher in their punitive tendencies

Summary
Prosocial behaviors are ubiquitous across societies. They emerge early in ontogeny [1] and are shaped by interactions between genes and culture [2, 3]. Over the course of middle childhood, sharing approaches equality in distribution [4]. Since 5.8 billion humans, representing 84% of the worldwide population, identify as religious [5], religion is arguably one prevalent facet of culture that influences the development and expression of prosociality. While it is generally accepted that religion contours people’s moral judgments and prosocial behavior, the relation between religiosity and morality is a contentious one. Here, we assessed altruism and third-party evaluation of scenarios depicting interpersonal harm in 1,170 children aged between 5 and 12 years in six countries (Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey, USA, and South Africa), the religiousness of their household, and parent-reported child empathy and sensitivity to justice. Across all countries, parents in religious households reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies. Together these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism, challenging the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior.

[trotsky]

1. The money shot:

Overall, our findings cast light on the cultural input of religion on prosocial behavior and contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others. More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that the secularization of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness—in fact, it will do just the opposite.

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. Here's the best part:

Consistent with research linking religiousness and adult self-reports of moral behavior, frequency of religious attendance, spirituality, and overall religiousness predicted parent-reported child sensitivity to the plight of others (empathy and sensitivity to justice). Religious individuals consistently score higher than non-religious ones on self-reported measures of socially desirable responding [26]. This previous literature, coupled with the current findings, supports an internal consistency in adults’ self-assessments of their moral dispositions and extends to their beliefs about their children. Children from religious households are more likely to be identified by their parents as more empathic and more sensitive to the plight of others. They also believe that interpersonal harm is more “mean” and deserving of harsher punishment than non-religious children. Thus, children who are raised in religious households frequently appear to be more judgmental of others’ actions, while being less altruistic toward another child from the same social environment, at least when generosity is spontaneously directed to an ambiguous beneficiary. While there is a gap between children’s knowledge of fairness and their actual behavior between 3 and 8 years of age [27], it cannot explain the negative impact of religiosity on altruism. The phenomenon of moral licensing is well established in a variety of domains including prosocial behavior. It can disinhibit selfish behavior and reduce prosocial behavior [28] and may account in explaining how children raised in religious households, who are perceived to be more empathetic and sensitive to justice, are in fact less altruistic to their own class mates.

"People incapable of guilt usually have a good time."

-Rustin Cohle, True Detective

[Major Nikon]

3. "moral licensing" is a phenomena that is well studied

It basically works on the idea that your belief system entitles you to the moral high ground. This sense of self-righteousness leads one to believe their decisions are morally justifiable even when they aren't.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. An anecdotal but hilarious example:

I had an Evangelical floormate my sophmore year at college. This might be routine in other locales, but in the backwoods of New England it was little unusual.

Anyway, this man was saved. He knew he was saved, because he told us. He was going to heaven. And so he routinely helped himself to his roomate's food and drink without so much as asking. Something none of us heathens would ever think of doing.

[MineralMan]

5. An interesting paper.

I'd like to see some further study into this that doesn't rely on parental reporting. Parents are not always good judges of their own children. There is a built-in bias there.

Looking at the index of papers in Current Biology, it looks like a reputable journal. These days, one has to check. There are so many "pay-to-publish" journals that are questionable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. That's a major part of the paper - that parental reporting doesn't reflect an objective measure

Across all countries, parents in religious households reported that their children expressed more empathy and sensitivity for justice in everyday life than non-religious parents. However, religiousness was inversely predictive of children’s altruism and positively correlated with their punitive tendencies.
...
Children completed a moral sensitivity task programmed in E-prime 2.0 and presented on ASUS T101MT Touchscreen computers and administered in their native language by trained researchers, as well as a dictator game, in the laboratory of each local university or in small rooms adjoining classrooms in each school. Parents completed religiousness measures, a sensitivity to justice measure [30] and an empathy measure [31] for their child, as well as demographic information.

The religious parents tend to think their offspring are little darlings full of empathy and sensitivity for justice, where they're really worse than the non-religious families.

[guillaumeb]

6. From the study:

Overall, our findings cast light on the cultural input of religion on prosocial behavior and contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others. More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that the secularization of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness—in fact, it will do just the opposite [29].

So, accepting that this is correct, I have 2 questions:

1) Would a decidedly non-religious society increase human tolerance and kindness?

2) China is a very secular country. The Chinese Government, in fact, does all that it can to discourage religious belief, going so far as to literally place spies in religious households, and going even farther by building concentration camps for theists. Is this real world example sufficient to suggest that the conclusions of this study are, at this point, disproven by actual history?

[MineralMan]

7. The study didn't examine any people in China, so they wouldn't

be able to form an opinion about that.

You, however, are free to hold any opinion you can think up. You are not subject to peer review before publication.

[marylandblue]

8. They actually did look at China, and it works the same there too.

[MineralMan]

9. Ah. OK. Thanks!

[marylandblue]

10. The study looked at children, not governments.

As any military trainer can tell you, you can turn a nice kid into a deadly killer in a very short amount of time.

But based on the study, and assuming a non-coercive, peaceful government, I'd guess a secular society would increase kindness. "Non-coercive government" means people have full freedom to believe and worship as they wish.

It's also only one study, so we would need more data before forming a scientifically valid conclusion.

[guillaumeb]

13. Which brings up a further question.

Governments are comprised of people.

So if a Government run by atheists is just as coercive as those run by theists, what advantage is there for those being coerced?

Is it better to be coerced by a non-theist?

[marylandblue]

15. That question is not relevant to the study.

It only asked about how to make nicer children. If the study is to be believed, then raising them without religion might help.

There are a number of criticisms you could make of the study. None of those criticisms have to do with form of government.

[guillaumeb]

17. Governments are composed of people.

And if these "nicer children" grow up to be citizens of a coercive Government, and support that Government, what net gain is there?

If people without religion behave similarly to people with religion, I fail to see the advantage or disadvantage of raising children without religion.

[marylandblue]

18. Well the study shows that children without religion behave better

than those with religion. That would seem to be a valid end in itself.

Whether that has any implication for when they grow up would require a longitudinal study which are expensive and difficult to perform. However, if you are curious, perhaps you could suggest to the researchers that they follow up with these kids 20 years from now.

[guillaumeb]

19. The study seems to support that reading.

But if the behavior does not last, and if the behavior is seen in nearly every large society, even a non-theistic society such as China, of what use is the study?

It seems to me that the authors might have started with an assumption, and when in search of "proof".

[marylandblue]

23. The lead authors are child psychologists

It seems to me you are making assumptions and demanding answers to things beyond the scope of the project and that they are not qualified to answer.

Part of your question can only be answered by a follow up study and the other part would be best studied by sociologists.

[guillaumeb]

25. The so-called "soft sciences".

As another poster noted this week.

And this same poster has posted this "soft science" piece, perhaps because it is in accord with what he already believes.

[marylandblue]

28. I have no idea about that.

I have a lot more faith in the social sciences than many people do, but I acknowledge it is difficult to do good social science research and people often misinterpret social science to suit their own agendas.

[guillaumeb]

30. And if the studies cannot be reproduced,

or reproduced exactly, they are seen by some as lacking value.

[marylandblue]

32. Well that can certainly be a problem in social science.

[Major Nikon]

39. You'd have to be anti-vax level of stupid to think otherwise

Who else is stupid enough to place the same value on a study that can’t be reproduced?

[trotsky]

45. Well this one supports what gil wants to believe.

So that means it has lots of value.

[trotsky]

11. My goodness you must enjoy humiliating yourself.

The Chinese Government, in fact, does all that it can to discourage religious belief, going so far as to literally place spies in religious households, and going even farther by building concentration camps for theists.

That may be true, but what about the billion Chinese people in the country? How do they behave, and how does religion affect their behavior? That's the real comparison, right? You know that, RIGHT?

I mean, you wouldn't just be running to your favorite #whataboutism topic just out of habit, would you? And making a complete mockery of your own position in the process?

[guillaumeb]

14. The Chinese Government is composed of.....

Chinese citizens. Secular citizens, most of them. And these concentration camps are staffed by...….people from the same pool of secular citizens.

And the household spies are....yes, you guessed it, the same, secular citizens.

I understand the need of some to feel, to believe, that non-theists will somehow behave far better than their theistic counterparts. All that is lacking for that belief- based position is actual proof.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

38. Why are you so obsessed with China?

Why do you constantly bring it up in completely unrelated ways in an attempt to "prove" atheism is bad?

[trotsky]

41. Naw his agenda is more sneaky.

It's a matter of "See? Atheists can be bad people too, so stop criticizing bad things about religion because the bad stuff is everyone being human and religion is 100% pure and good and can never ever inspire people to do evil."

It's religious bigotry, plain and simple. He believes religion is superior to non-religion, that true religious people are always good, and bad people are those who aren't truly following religion.

He's never disputed this by stating how I might have that wrong, either. He'll just belch out "misframing" or "choir" or "11th commandment" or one of his standard hateful tropes.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

42. I'm also pretty sure he has me on Ignore

since he hasn't responded to anything I post since we had a bit of a disagreement a while back.

And I appreciate it when someone else responds to my comments to him.

[Major Nikon]

49. Lucky bastard

[guillaumeb]

56. I do not ignore, nor do I alert.

[Major Nikon]

47. Heads I win, tails you lose

When a religious person does something good, "Thanks, religion!".

When a religious person does something bad, religion can't possibly be to blame because that's just human nature and has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

So yeah, the doublethink is strong with this one.

Gil's agenda is hatred of atheists. He will pretend otherwise, but his decidedly un-Christian actions betray his true motivation.

[trotsky]

50. I dunno, seems to me like gil believes he is in a holy war with atheism.

Or at least with anyone who dares to suggest there might be a teaching or two within a religion here or there that miiiiiiight not be the most noble of concepts.

[Mariana]

51. Well, he says he receives numerous personal messages

asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. There is that.

What we're seeing is religious privilege in action. DU has all those groups for religious people, with rules that clearly spell out their intolerance for any differing opinions. Disagreement, criticism, awkward questions, and the like are not permitted in those groups. Only in this one lone group on DU can we have the kind of discussion that takes place here, and that is just one too many for some people. Knowing that others have tried unsuccessfully to get rid of this group altogether, or to change the rules to make it a clone of those other groups, the only recourse is to disrupt as many conversations as possible.

[Major Nikon]

54. The tactic is known as shitposting

Kinda like when he creates 10 new threads on the same subject and a few spin off threads beyond that. Then when someone dares to call him out for his obvious shitposting, he claims he’s being persecuted by a conspiracy of people who are denying his privileged access.

[guillaumeb]

57. And this post?

With vague assertions, and an obvious bit of agenda in the silly title.

What is this but a reply to my previous post?

[Major Nikon]

59. I didn't think it was all that vague

It’s not as if your motives and tactics are all that hard to figure out and several here have. As original as you might think yourself to be, it’s not as if you actually are. If you want to pretend otherwise go right ahead, but you aren’t fooling anyone.

If I intended to reply to any of your posts I would have done so. It’s not as if I haven’t before, so please don’t flatter yourself as it doesn’t suit you.

[guillaumeb]

61. Look in the mirror,

and repeat what you just wrote.

I see a trace of another frequent poster in this reply of yours.

[Major Nikon]

63. I tend to reject advice advice

...from people who suck at what they are trying to give advice about.

Whatever underhanded cowardly accusation you’re trying to make here could have been prevented by your own self-reflection had you any skills in that regard.

[guillaumeb]

65. More echoing.

And no, I am not accusing you of being another poster, simply of being very close in recent style.

[Major Nikon]

66. You seem to think I give a shit what your lame accusation means

I just recognize the source and motivation and write it off as petty bullshit without giving it any more thought. Says far more about you than me.

[NeoGreen]

53. This should be our collective response...

...to g's bad China atheist theme:

[guillaumeb]

55. You might ask why some few here are so obsessed with demonizing theists.

But you did not.

[trotsky]

40. What's the ratio, gil?

Is it 1:1, number of Chinese citizens to number of Chinese government officials?

Keep digging, I am willing to let you humiliate yourself even more if you'd like. i do quite enjoy it, you know.

[Lordquinton]

20. Literally every atheist in china

is responsible, it's impossible to separate them. Meanwhile every theist is different and you can't assume any of their beliefs at any point.

[Major Nikon]

12. Your questions are on a macro level that the study didn't address

Meanwhile your favorite example of an exception you pretend makes the rule ignores other far more relevant examples that don’t involve totalitarian despotic regimes. So kinda funny how you never include Scandinavian countries that are far more secular and empathetic towards its citizens.

It’s almost as if you want to make a conscious effort to demonize atheism, but of course this can’t possibly be true. Right, Gil? I suppose if it were, the answer to this is we could just as easily pretend countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are an excellent representation of where theism takes us, yes?

[guillaumeb]

16. Well noted.

I am comparing citizens as a mass versus individuals acting as individuals. But every mass of citizens is composed of individuals, so the macro reflects, to some degree, the individual.

But China is an excellent example of a country with no real history of theism, save that imposed by European colonialists. And this country, these mainly non-theistic citizens, comprise a Government that behaves every bit as brutally as the worst of the theistic countries.

Your examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran well illustrate how badly theists can behave. As does most of history, for that matter.

As to the charge of "demonizing atheism", I have no such intent. Nor, as another poster has insisted, do I "hate atheists".

Atheism is a position that I do not share. I do not sat it is a bad position, or that people who share it are bad people. I simply do not share the position.

[Lordquinton]

21. no real history of theism, save that imposed by European colonialists.

And islamic colonists too, right?

[guillaumeb]

22. There is a territorial overlap in north western China.

So these "colonists", as you term them, were actually separate ethnic people who were absorbed by the Chinese.


It was Chinese western expansion that forcibly made the many Islamic tribes part of China.

[trotsky]

43. You know, if you're going to nitpick others for their typos...

you should avoid making them yourself, Mr. "I do not sat it is a bad position".

[guillaumeb]

58. I sat down and laughed at that one.

You have proven that I am not perfect.

[Major Nikon]

60. Nor is anyone else

Sometimes the best we can hope for is just to be less annoying.

[guillaumeb]

62. Be best?

And I recognize that this forum is a safe space. That is why I do not take action, so to speak, when I am insulted.

[Major Nikon]

64. Sure you do

You repeatedly claim to be a victim of the same behavior you exhibit on others. Funny how that works.

[trotsky]

69. This forum is open to all. No "safe space" here, though you clearly wish it were.

Safe from the commentary of people who have negative opinions about religion.

But you've got a dozen groups where that is the case, and you could post to your heart's content without worrying that people might disagree.

Instead, here you are endlessly whining about the mean old atheists who post things you don't like, and so you feel justified in attacking them as members of a "choir" or mindlessly following a fictional "commandment."

Matthew 5:38-40. Do you believe Jesus said that? What does it mean to you, guillaumeb?

[guillaumeb]

71. Speaks the poster who claims to hate me, and who claimed that I ruined DU.

And your second sentence reveals your agenda. It seems that you do not wish to have actual theists posting in the religion group.

By your logic, why do you not post in the atheists group where you can expect to find only agreement?

[trotsky]

72. Oh there's no claim about it. I've stated exactly how I feel about you.

As far as "ruining" DU, naw, others have been much worse than you. You flatter yourself.

It seems that you do not wish to have actual theists posting in the religion group.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. Quit making crap up, g. There have been many theists who post here that I respect and am willing to engage with, because they don't engage in the nasty filth that you do. Your group insults and attacks, your whataboutism and other dishonest tactics, your double standards and hypocrisy all make me sick.

By your logic, why do you not post in the atheists group where you can expect to find only agreement?

Because I don't only seek agreement, like you do.

[guillaumeb]

73. The "many theists" argument again.

Link to them. Many of them.

[trotsky]

74. When you start proving your unfounded claims - starting with your incredible "fan club"...

then I will gladly follow.

Until then, I refuse to bow to your demands. You have destroyed any good will I may have felt toward you at one time. Go ahead and call me a liar now - I don't give a shit what you think. I know the truth.

[guillaumeb]

75. As I thought. eom

[trotsky]

76. Great.

I'm glad you realize you flushed good will down the toilet when you refuse to hold yourself to the same standards you demand of others.

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. Interesting.

So, Islam is native to western China, then?

[trotsky]

46. Gil's got an interesting take on history, eh? n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. About as interesting as Mel Gibson's, I'd say.

[Lordquinton]

52. Interesting view of history

and linear time.

[citation needed]

[Major Nikon]

24. Chinese theism predates your Christianity

And the Judaism which came before. It is literally embedded into most aspects of their culture far more deeply than most western religions. To say they have no history of it is quite ignorant.

[guillaumeb]

26. My reply:

I am comparing citizens as a mass versus individuals acting as individuals. But every mass of citizens is composed of individuals, so the macro reflects, to some degree, the individual.

But China is an excellent example of a country with no real history of theism, save that imposed by European colonialists. And this country, these mainly non-theistic citizens, comprise a Government that behaves every bit as brutally as the worst of the theistic countries.

Your examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran well illustrate how badly theists can behave. As does most of history, for that matter.

As to the charge of "demonizing atheism", I have no such intent. Nor, as another poster has insisted, do I "hate atheists".

Atheism is a position that I do not share. I do not sat it is a bad position, or that people who share it are bad people. I simply do not share the position.

You focused on 1 aspect, and ignored the others. And I find it interesting that you introduced this study, this "soft science", after attacking the soft sciences.

Was it because this soft science study supports what you already believe?

[Major Nikon]

27. Your thought process here resembles a scalded cat

Your reply started out with an incorrect assertion and from this foundation you built a flawed argument. If you don’t want to defend that assertion I can certainly understand why, but pretending I ignored what was already made irrelevant is kinda silly.

Now if you want to talk about your latest straw man about “soft science”, we can certainly do so, but I’m afraid I must first insist on the level of “focus” you demand of others. If you’re willing to concede your assertion regarding China’s religious history was a colossal fuckup, we can move past that.

[guillaumeb]

29. Your asssertion about the Chinese and theism

is lacking substance.


Unless you are insisting that Buddhists are theists, and that ancestor worship is also theism.

As to the soft science meme, that was your focus yesterday.

[Major Nikon]

33. Focus

It was your assertion not mine. I called bullshit on your assertion.

Focus on this first before attempting to move on to something unrelated.

[guillaumeb]

34. You decide to ignore what you cannot refute.

And I did answer your ahistorical claim.

[Major Nikon]

35. Your assertion was the Chinese have no history of theism

That is bullshit. Expecting me to disprove what you never proved to begin with is just intellectual laziness. Learning how to think will help prevent your baseless accusations.

[guillaumeb]

36. Keep ignoring what you cannot refute.

And claim a victory.

[Major Nikon]

37. Sure, Gil. The burden of disproving you is always on others

That way you can just go through life claiming whatever horseshit you like content in the belief you are always right.

I get criticality of thought has been indoctrinated out of you. Learning how to think isn’t for everyone.

[NeoGreen]

67. It's almost as if it is weird form of...

...performance art.

At least the 'performance' part is down pat, as indicated by the admission of having a fan base.

[Act_of_Reparation]

70. And what a performance it is.

[guillaumeb]

31. And speaking of soft science:

Much less a study that deals with a soft science vs hard statistical data.

So if by "we" you mean all of us, then my direct answer to your question is no.

That was your meme.