Why Kids and Religion Mix

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/why-kids-and-religion-mix_b_2605554.html

Dr. Peggy Drexler
Author, research psychologist and gender scholar

Posted: 02/02/2013 9:30 am

Sam's parents like to say their son was eight when he found God, no real thanks to them. The family was sitting down to dinner one Tuesday evening when Sam asked if they might go around and talk about what each person was thankful for. Sam's mother, Nora, thought this was strange -- they'd never done this before -- but harmless. Until they got to Sam, who said, "Today I am thankful for my cats, television, and especially Jesus, who gives us everything."

Nora and her husband were taken aback. They had both grown up Catholic, but had decided to raise Sam and his brother without any sort of religion. They never talked about not believing in Jesus, or God -- the kids were too young for that, Nora thought -- but they didn't talk about believing, either, because, well, neither she nor her husband did. Sam, she realized, must have been getting his information on religion from kids at school, or other families, or maybe TV. While she wasn't sure she wanted to push her atheism onto her children, the fact that she had no hand in Sam's religious education, or in influencing his belief system -- which, it appeared, was different from hers -- felt strange.

More Americans than ever are turning away from religion. A recent report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 1 in 5 adults has no religious affiliation -- under the age of 30, the numbers increase to a third -- compared to the year 1950, when the percentage of adults who identified as having no religion was just two percent. And the biggest increase among the non-religious is what researchers call the "nones," the people who are largely indifferent. They're not atheists or disenchanted former believers; they just don't care.

This indifference is being passed on to children, but at what cost? That all depends. While a study out of the University of British Columbia found that spirituality is more important than religion in making kids happy, religion certainly has been shown to come with certain benefits. Participation in a religious community may help kids develop a strong moral core; specifically, it has been shown to reduce the incidence of teen drug use and pregnancy, while increasing feelings of self-esteem and overall hopefulness.


more at link

[hrmjustin]

1. Both my parents and siblings are former Roman Catholics turned non-believers, but I turned

out to be a believer from an early age. It is just weird how it turned out.

[cbayer]

3. It is. While I think families have a great deal of influence, they don't make

the decision. It's interesting to talk to those that have chose a path very different than the one they may have been raised on.

[mzteris]

2. My five year old son

raised in a Methodist church, indeed went to the Methodist preschool from the age of 1 - quickly figured out it was all a bunch of baloney. The ark story tipped him off (budding paleontologist that he was...) which got him thinking. And asking questions. So much so, the Sunday School teacher asked me to tell him to stop doing that because it was confusing the other children (and her, if truth be told!)

One day he announced, "I don't know how anyone can believe ANY of this. It's such an unbelievable story. Everything. All of it." I tried to explain about faith, etc. . . but he was pretty adamant. He was so convincing - he changed my life. I was raised from birth in the Church. Baptized at age 6 even. All my questions (similar to his) were turned aside and I was accused of being "unfaithful" so I stopped asking the questions and kept trying to convince myself it was all true and that I was going to hell for "questioning god".

It took the courage of a 5 year old for me to admit, I really didn't BELIEVE any of that "stuff" either.

Of course, this is the same child, who at 9 - when studying China- decided he was a Buddhist. Not the RELIGIOUS kind, but the PHILOSOPHICAL kind (like Ch'an). The two are different.

BTW - kids also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and Fairies and Elves and Unicorns.

For most, morality is pretty inherent. It can be developed or destroyed. Being raised by MORAL parents or in a moral community, is the important point and one absolutely does NOT have to be religious to be MORAL. In fact, some of the most immoral people I've ever met - or heard of - are "Religious". And the most moral, atheists.

[cbayer]

4. Interesting that your child gave you *permission* to express what it sounds like you

had embraced well before that. But it makes we wonder about which came first and who actually influenced who.

Anyway, there are moral and immoral people in all camps, be they religious or not. No one has the upper hand, imo, and it all comes down to action not words.

[mzteris]

5. Oh I was heavily "churchy"

I toed the party line pretty much. We were at church all the time. I started an instrumental ensemble. I was the chair of the outreach committee. I started a food pantry for the working poor. I taught Vacation Bible School. I told my children all the Bible stories. I used the same arguments with my son about "faith", etc., that had been used to brain wash me.

He was just smarter than I was. Or more free spirited. Or well - I did raise my children to voice their own opinions and make some of their own choices (within parameters). But no, I don't think I influenced him into "not believing". I struggled for quite a while after that.

Of course there are "moral and immoral people in all camps" - it's just statef so often - and this article pretty much claims - that being religious makes you "moral" and those who are NOT "buhlievers" are immoral and all going to hell. Which we know is NOT true.

[cbayer]

6. Sounds like you were heavily involved. Do you miss it?

I was raised in the church, but, if I am recalling this correctly, was raised to question everything including church doctrine and dogma.

The author of this piece does seem to assert that she felt the church could provide her child with some sort of moral underpinnings that he couldn't get elsewhere. While there are churches that can provide that, I agree that there are non-religious avenues towards that goal as well.

She seems relatively ambivalent about her own beliefs of lack of beliefs, but I doubt she is one of those "you gonna burn in hell types".

[mzteris]

7. Not one whit.

Okay - I miss the music. I miss playing and I miss singing. (I was a music major.)

I guess I miss some of the friendships I had, but when I look back, most of them are not people I'd be all that "friendly" with today. Even for liberal Methodists, they still had some issues.

[cbayer]

8. I miss the community and have never found anything to replace it.

And the music. I'm with you on that.

[okasha]

9. If morality were «pretty inherent»

we would have vastly less war, murder, rape and governmental graft than we do. If you want to see what is actually inherent in human beings, study chimpanzees.

[cbayer]

10. We must have read the same book.

[okasha]

11. We have.

[

[cbayer]

12. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think chimpanzees subscribe to any of the world's major

religions.

[okasha]

14. Or any of the minor ones, either.

I thought anthropology had pretty much gotten us past Rousseau's delusions about the «natural man,» but it appears that threy're still with us. Given that intraspecific murder in the human line goes at least as far back as Australopithecus, and is still with us a few million years later, the unsubstantiated claims for inherent morality seem to be little more than wishful thinking.

[cbayer]

15. As do the theories that religion is responsible for everything evil that

has ever happened.

[okasha]

16. If that were valid,

Mao's China and the USSR should have been veritable paradises, especially since the suppression of religion would have let all that inherent morality flourish.

[trotsky]

17. Yeah, those are funny theories.

Has anyone actually said that? Or are you just making it up to mock people?

[Goblinmonger]

23. Said nobody. Ever. n/t

[trotsky]

13. Actually, I would say that if morality weren't "pretty inherent"...

we would see MORE war, murder, rape, etc. than we already do. We are a social species and a sense of morality is part of our evolutionary history.

One could make a much stronger case that if religion made a bit of difference in human behavior, THEN we'd see less war, murder, rape, etc. in the more religious societies. But we don't, in fact we see MORE. Go figure.

[gcomeau]

19. Why not study bonobos?

They're basically just as closely related to humans as chimps are. And they have significantly different social/ethical structures.

[okasha]

35. No, they aren't.

They diverged from the chimpanzee/human heritage before the common H. sap/Pan ancestor.

[gcomeau]

36. Ahem...

[cleanhippie]

37. Facts are not her strong suit, I guess.

Well done.

[okasha]

38. Thanks for the correction.

My bad; I was faultily remembering a previous discussion on common violent characteristics of humans and P. troglodytes.

The unfortunate fact remains, however, that H. sap. and P. trog share unpleasant behaviors that are rare or nonexistant in paniscus. Patriarchy, for example. Territorial war,for another.

[gcomeau]

18. Same old argument... same old blind spot...

"Religion can do good thing "X". Therefore religion is good."


Let's ignore that religion also effectively always does bad thing "Y" (in this case, conditions against proper treatment of evidence). And that religion is *unnecessary* for good thing "X" which can be acquired from other social structures. Nobody needs religion to form a moral core. Particularly when the nature of that moral core is totally unconstrained by the structure of religion... anyone want to give their kids the moral core of Phelps church and call that a good thing?

[cbayer]

20. Well, that's not what she says.

Religion does not always do the bad thing you describe. If it did, no true scientists would also be religious.

They are different animals and provide different things. Many do not need or want religion. Others both need and want it. Moral codes can be religiously based or can exist without any religious basis at all.

Then again, science without a moral base can also be very dangerous. Anyone want their kids participating in things like the Tuskegee experiments or what occurred in concentration camps?

[gcomeau]

21. Yes...

Religion DOES always do the bad thing I describe.

I happen to know plenty of scientists who are religions. Not a single one of them are religious in the lab. Supernatural nonsense is *explicitly rejected* in the lab. They keep it outside, because you *can't do science* and entertain supernatural hypotheses as valid.

That allows them to get work done and deal with evidence properly in the lab, but then they step out the door and into their regular lives and that goes right out the window. As it does for everyone else.

"They are different animals and provide different things."

Indeed. science provides answers. Religion provides fiction. Comforting and reassuring fiction perhaps... *sometimes*... but fiction. Which would be fie if it was acknowledged as fiction. The problem is that it isn't.

And anything can be dangerous without a moral base. The point is that science is distinct from morality. The fact of gravitational force existing says nothing about whether you should or should not push some guy off a cliff to watch them fall. That is a totally separate question.

Religion on the other hand makes a specific claim to providing morality but it does so using means that provide *zero* constraints on the form of that morality. You can appeal to some inscrutable supernatural entity saying *anything you want* is "moral" and there's no argument to be presented against it because after all, God said so. And that's all you need to know... because he's God and his mind is beyond your feeble human comprehension so you couldn't hope to understand his reasons anyway.

[cbayer]

22. You just made my argument for me.

When people recognize that religion and science are different animals, then their religion does not necessarily inhibit their ability to properly assess scientific evidence or any other kind of evidence for that matter.

While there are some who can't seem to separate one from the other and cling to religious "truths" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, most religious people are not like that.

It's fiction to you, truth to others and no one has the winning hand or right answer when it comes to the validity or lack of validity of religion. Those that say they do are fools, basing their position only on what they believe or don't believe. Talk about nonsense.

Not all religion makes a claim to provide morality, though most offer guidelines. So what?

I get it. You appear to be at war with religion and religionists. Good luck with that.

[gcomeau]

24. If you think so you didn't understand my post.

When people recognize that religion and science are different animals, then their religion does not necessarily inhibit their ability to properly assess scientific evidence or any other kind of evidence for that matter.

No. Wrong. The only way for their religion not to inhibit their scientific pursuits (or anything else that requires the meaningful assessment of evidence) is... as I said... for them to *explicitly reject* their religious hypotheses while performing the assessment. It is mental compartmentalization to avoid dealing with the incompatibility, not evidence of compatibility. Saying that this means that religion does not have the negative effect is like saying if you put the uranium in a lead shielded container it doesn't expose you to radiation, therefore uranium is not radioactive.

"Fiction to me, truth to others" is a transparent copout. We're not talking about whether you like spaghetti or think a painting is pretty. We are not discussing matters of individual personal preference. Religion makes explicit claims about objective realities.To use Christianity as an example... either the Christian God exists, or it doesn't. The statement "God exists" is not true for one person and false for another, unless the claim is that the existence of God is confined to the mind of the believer. As in... a figment of their imagination and thus existing to them but not to someone else.

If that is your claim, fine, we're agreed! Otherwise, no, it is not truth for one and fiction for another. It is either truth for all or fiction for all.

You can't walk around saying things like gravity is "true to you, but not to others" and expect to be taken seriously and the same criteria apply for any other truth claim that is independent of your own mind.

[cbayer]

25. Your claims are baseless. Many people can hold both religion and science without

explicitly rejecting either one in the pursuit of the other.

The problem with your arguments is that you make them solely from a fundamentalist view of religion. You make no accommodation or do not recognize that many religious people aren't fundamentalist at all. Once you do that, your arguments fall apart.

Talk about blind spots.

Things that can neither be proven nor disproven, like the existence of a god or gods, can not be held as truth or dismissed as fiction. Beliefs are truth for some, fiction for others. It's not a team sport, it's a matter of one's individual perspective. You may love your wife. Other people may not even like her. Is one more *true* than the other? Is one fiction? Or is it just a different perspective on the same person?

If one feels they must win this argument, they are on very shaky ground indeed. OTOH, to argue that religion and religious people have some value is not shaky at all. To argue that people's beliefs or lack thereof should be respected when they don't interfere with or threaten the rights or beliefs of others is not shaky either.

I would never make the claim that someone that rejects gravity has a valid argument, as there is scientific data to prove they are incorrect. Not so with most religious beliefs.

[gcomeau]

27. No they cannot.

And if you think they can, demonstrate it.

Give me one single solitary example in which ANY scientific experiment can be conducted and the results meaningfully interpreted while the person doing so actively entertains supernatural religious hypotheses like "God exists"

Hint: this requires you to account for how we tell that no supernatural influences altered the experiment results.


Go ahead, show me how it's done. I'll wait as long as you like.


And this has not one single solitary thing to do with assuming "fundamentalism". Entertaining the hypothesis "God exists" is entirely sufficient to sink any scientific endeavor. Unless you're defining any belief in God whatsoever as "fundamentalist"? Are you?

[cbayer]

28. Again, you are basing your argument on the single view of fundamentalists.

Many believe in a non-interventional god. Many may feel that through the scientific work they perform, they provide a service for mankind that fulfills their religious belief in purpose or helping others. Others may feel that the world opens up to them in a spiritual way when they make a scientific discovery.

Darwin himself struggled mightily with this, and while there is much debate about where he finally landed, there were clearly times at which he very much maintained his belief in god while pursuing his hypotheses.

Your last paragraph is just pure dogma. Believing in god is entirely sufficient to sink any scientific endeavor? Make sure you share that with Roger Bacon, Copernicus, Giordano Bruno,, Galileo, Descartes, Isaac Newton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck and the countless others when you get to heaven (assuming there is a heaven, which I don't).

You can stop waiting now.

[gcomeau]

30. No. I. Am. Not.

"Many believe in a non-interventional god. "

Irrelevant. You have introduced the concept of a supernatual component as a valid explanatory mechanism. Now You have to deal with it. Science does not interpret its results based on the individual experimenters beliefs. Science does not give a crap if you *believe* your pet supernatural entity would not have interfered any more than it gives a crap if you *believe* that a passing rogue black hole messed up your gravitational measurements.

You have declared that appeals to supernatural explanations are valid. You invoke it once and it's on the table. You don't get to just declare it only counts when you feel like it because you say so, like when you're talking about why the universe exists or about what happens to you when you die... but NOT when you're talking about why that gauge over there is reading what it is right now.

You have to be able to DETERMINE that your belief is correct. So if you want to believe your God is non interventionist and didn't interfere in the experiment, how do you tell?

If you can't tell if the results of any given experiment were futzed with by supernatural forces then you can't say what the results of the experiments mean. Science rendered impotent.


And I don't respond to juvenile appeals to authority. Make your argument or don't.

[cbayer]

31. What is a "valid explanatory mechanism".

Of course science doesn't care.

I've made no such declaration as you state in your second paragraph... ever. Only that those that hold religious beliefs deserve respect, just as those that don't hold them also deserve respect. Each position is as valid as the other. Each position can be used for good or not. Each position can either respect the other or not.

Appeals to authority? I'm going to ignore the juvenile part of that because it speaks for its(your)self. You asked for examples, I gave you lots.

See you around the campfire!

[gcomeau]

32. Now you're just dodging.

I don't care if you made the specific claims I listed. I said I was using Christianity as an example. You understand what "example" means right?


I also asked for examples of a specific scientific experiment that could be conducted while admitting religious hypotheses, and an explanation of how their results were interpreted without explicitly rejecting those hypotheses.

You threw out a list of names.

If you seriously think that qualifies you're clueless.



Oh, and valid explanatory mechanism = mechanism which explains some event/observation/dataset that we consider to be valid and accepted as a competing hypothesis.

Like, for EXAMPLE:

"How did the universe come to exist?" --> "God did it"

^^^ INVALID according to science on the grounds that the proposition is unfalsifiable (same grounds all supernatural hypotheses are rejected on). You want it included anyway? You think the falsifiability criteria in the scientific method should be jettisoned so religious hypotheses are permitted? Justify it.

[cbayer]

33. And now you are just resorting to condescending insults.

There's a pat phrase in the playbook for that, too.

I am done talking with you.

[gcomeau]

34. Same trajectory these almost always take...

Make a point... religious person rejects it... ask them to explain themselves... religious person frantically avoids explaining themselves because they can't...... repeat 'X' number of times... religious person declares you're being mean and runs off.


To leave things off for the benefit of the viewers at home. The request was for anything remotely resembling a justification of the position that supernatural religious hypotheses did not interfere with the performance of science or, for that matter, the evaluating of evidence in general. The justification provided was.... a repeated unsupported declaration that it just didn't and a list of names that were somehow supposed to illustrate how this all worked. So... nothing.



I encourage all you kids to try this at home and see how amazingly repeatable the outcome is!

[Duer 157099]

26. Sure, when society transfers social responsibility to "faith-based" entitites

If our social institutions were as robust and well-funded as churches, maybe this wouldn't actually be an issue.

People who need help invariably are directed to some sort of church to get the help they need.

What if we had a society that took over that role?

[cbayer]

29. I agree to some extent, but I'm not holding my breath on this one.

Most churches are struggling mightily and not well funded at all, by the way. But it is very true that those most in need in our society are likely to find resources in the religious community that the government or other secular institutions fail miserably at providing.