What's new

Far from bolstering generosity, a religious upbringing diminishes it

An interesting article, to say the least:

http://www.economist.com/news/scien...ligious-upbringing-diminishes-it-matthew-2239

Religion and altruism
Matthew 22:39
Far from bolstering generosity, a religious upbringing diminishes it
From the print edition

20151107_stp502.jpg



AN ARGUMENT often advanced for the encouragement of religion is that, to paraphrase St Matthew’s report of Jesus’s words, it leads people to love their neighbours as themselves. That would be a powerful point were it true. But is it? This was the question Jean Decety, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, asked in a study just published in Current Biology.

Dr Decety is not the first to wonder, in a scientific way, about the connection between religion and altruism. He is, though, one of the first to do it without recourse to that standard but peculiar laboratory animal beloved of psychologists, the undergraduate student. Instead, he collaborated with researchers in Canada, China, Jordan, South Africa and Turkey, as well as with fellow Americans, to look at children aged between five and 12 and their families.

Altogether, Dr Decety and his colleagues recruited 1,170 families for their project, and focused on one child per family. Five hundred and ten of their volunteer families described themselves as Muslim, 280 as Christian, 29 as Jewish, 18 as Buddhist and 5 as Hindu. A further 323 said they were non-religious, 3 were agnostic and 2 ticked the box marked “other”.

Follow-up questions to the faithful among the sample then asked how often they engaged in religious activities, and also about spirituality in the home. That let Dr Decety calculate how religious each family was. He found that about half the children in religious households came from highly observant homes; the spiritual lives of the other half were more relaxed. He then arranged for the children to play a version of what is known to psychologists as the dictator game—an activity they use to measure altruism.

In truth, the dictator game is not much of a game, since only one of the participants actually plays it. In Dr Decety’s version, each child was presented with a collection of 30 attractive stickers and told that he or she could keep ten of them. Once a child had made his selection, the experimenter told him that there was not time to play the game with all the children at the school, but that he could, if he wished, give away some of his ten stickers to a random schoolmate who would not otherwise be able to take part. The child was then given a few minutes to decide whether he wanted to give up some of his stickers—and, if so, how many. The researchers used the number of stickers surrendered as a measure of altruism.

The upshot was that the children of non-believers were significantly more generous than those of believers. They gave away an average of 4.1 stickers. Children from a religious background gave away 3.3. And a further analysis of the two largest religious groups (Jews, Buddhists and Hindus were excluded because of their small numbers in the sample), showed no statistical difference between them. Muslim children gave away 3.2 stickers on average, while Christian children gave away 3.3. Moreover, a regression analysis on these groups of children showed that their generosity was inversely correlated with their households’ religiosity. This effect remained regardless of a family’s wealth and status (rich children were more generous than poor ones), a child’s age (older children were more generous than younger ones) or the nationality of the participant. These findings are, however, in marked contrast to parents’ assessments of their own children’s sensitivity to injustice. When asked, religious parents reported their children to be more sensitive than non-believing parents did.

This is only one result, of course. It would need to be replicated before strong conclusions could be drawn. But it is suggestive. And what it suggests is not only that what is preached by religion is not always what is practised, which would not be a surprise, but that in some unknown way the preaching makes things worse.

The negative association between religiousness and children’s altruism across the world, by Jean Decety, Jason M. Cowell, Kang Lee, Randa Mahasneh, Susan Malcolm-Smith, Bilge Selcuk and Xinyue Zhou
From the print edition: Science and technology
Told ya. :enjoy:
 
.
What about children raised in non religious household, specially Atheists? I have come across so many Atheists and the amount of hate they carry for anyone with belief is surprising, they are arrogant, they think are smarter then the rest of humanity and that the world owes them something.They look down upon people who believe in God. How is it any different from religious bigots?
True. I pose as deeply religious person and say the weidest of shit(which I obviously do not believe), just to annoy new born atheists.... lolz
 
.
What about children raised in non religious household, specially Atheists? I have come across so many Atheists and the amount of hate they carry for anyone with belief is surprising, they are arrogant, they think are smarter then the rest of humanity and that the world owes them something.They look down upon people who believe in God. How is it any different from religious bigots?

Athiesm like any ism is a religion.

Follows all the rules and pitfalls of organized religion.

I've said it before.

An atheist is brave and condescending till the shit seriously hits the fan.

Then he cries mommy.

Good night with Tom Petty crooning Its Good To Be King ....
 
.
it suggests is not only that what is preached by religion is not always what is practised, which would not be a surprise, but that in some unknown way the preaching makes things worse.
A sdy cant possibly suggest that when other parameters were not taken into account as in the income practicing Muslim vs Muslim by birth....
I think the article is interesting because the results are totally opposite to what most people would guess.
It is interesting coz it echos your believes as to a religin is what the people follow rather than what is in the books coz even if every human dies Islam would still be alive....so it doesnt matter if no one follows it ...

And here I thought you were going mad about any religious related articles...Hypocrisy at its best....Def not preached in Islam but practiced by many calling themselves Muslims :tsk:
 
.
Athiesm like any ism is a religion.

Technically you're correct. Although Atheists would disagree but in a sense Atheism it self is a belief in the disbelief of existence of a higher Divine power. :D
 
.
What about children raised in non religious household, specially Atheists? I have come across so many Atheists and the amount of hate they carry for anyone with belief is surprising, they are arrogant, they think are smarter then the rest of humanity and that the world owes them something.They look down upon people who believe in God. How is it any different from religious bigots?

Did you even read the OP? I would suggest you do so before responding, thanks.

"Five hundred and ten of their volunteer families described themselves as Muslim, 280 as Christian, 29 as Jewish, 18 as Buddhist and 5 as Hindu. A further 323 said they were non-religious, 3 were agnostic and 2 ticked the box marked “other”."

Athiesm like any ism is a religion.

And yet, the study suggests at least one of the differences by the data presented, quite clearly.
 
.
.
but the point is some people are already using this study with its eye catching headline to justify their point of view. Would you have posted this article if the results showed otherwise?

Of course yes. I arrive at conclusions from data, and not the other way around. I read the article expecting it to suggest the opposite of what was revealed.
 
.
Of course yes. I arrive at conclusions from data, and not the other way around. I read the article expecting it to suggest the opposite of what was revealed.
but that is not very scientific rather jumping to conclusions
 
. .
to look at children aged between five and 12 and their families.

I won't expect children of this age group to be selfless and generous, in my observation children in this age group tend to be more selfish and possessive, even two true brothers of this age group won't share anything with each other (believe me being a parent of young two males I have this duty of resolving these sharing conflicts at home). I have no idea how this experiment can be linked to religion, but giving Stickers to children of this age group and then asking them to share it with others?

My personal experience is that my own children won't share the stickers with each other no matter what I do; it does not help even if I stand on a "Jai Namaz" with Quran in my one hand and then preaching them what religion has to say about sticker sharing. Whereas on other hand one of these children of mine, was in habit of giving away her water bottle/ eraser/ pencil/ sharpener etc to some other child in school and would very proudly announce it I gave it to some other child in school, and us parents had to beg her religiously "Baita don't give away your stuff to other children at school, please".

In my opinion being generous has nothing to do with how much religious I am, it is a personal trait (may be hereditary), I have seen most religious people acting as misers and some illiterate non-religious people as most kindhearted generous people I could meet.
 
. .
I won't expect children of this age group to be selfless and generous, in my observation children in this age group tend to be more selfish and possessive, even two true brothers of this age group won't share anything with each other (believe me being a parent of young two males I have this duty of resolving these sharing conflicts at home). I have no idea how this experiment can be linked to religion, but giving Stickers to children of this age group and then asking them to share it with others?

My personal experience is that my own children won't share the stickers with each other no matter what I do; it does not help even if I stand on a "Jai Namaz" with Quran in my one hand and then preaching them what religion has to say about sticker sharing. Whereas on other hand one of these children of mine, was in habit of giving away her water bottle/ eraser/ pencil/ sharpener etc to some other child in school and would very proudly announce it I gave it to some other child in school, and us parents had to beg her religiously "Baita don't give away your stuff to other children at school, please".

In my opinion being generous has nothing to do with how much religious I am, it is a personal trait (may be hereditary), I have seen most religious people acting as misers and some illiterate non-religious people as most kindhearted generous people I could meet.

You should pay attention to this portion of the OP:

"In truth, the dictator game is not much of a game, since only one of the participants actually plays it. In Dr Decety’s version, each child was presented with a collection of 30 attractive stickers and told that he or she could keep ten of them. Once a child had made his selection, the experimenter told him that there was not time to play the game with all the children at the school, but that he could, if he wished, give away some of his ten stickers to a random schoolmate who would not otherwise be able to take part. The child was then given a few minutes to decide whether he wanted to give up some of his stickers—and, if so, how many. The researchers used the number of stickers surrendered as a measure of altruism."
 
.
An interesting article, to say the least:

http://www.economist.com/news/scien...ligious-upbringing-diminishes-it-matthew-2239

Religion and altruism
Matthew 22:39
Far from bolstering generosity, a religious upbringing diminishes it
From the print edition

20151107_stp502.jpg



AN ARGUMENT often advanced for the encouragement of religion is that, to paraphrase St Matthew’s report of Jesus’s words, it leads people to love their neighbours as themselves. That would be a powerful point were it true. But is it? This was the question Jean Decety, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, asked in a study just published in Current Biology.

Dr Decety is not the first to wonder, in a scientific way, about the connection between religion and altruism. He is, though, one of the first to do it without recourse to that standard but peculiar laboratory animal beloved of psychologists, the undergraduate student. Instead, he collaborated with researchers in Canada, China, Jordan, South Africa and Turkey, as well as with fellow Americans, to look at children aged between five and 12 and their families.

Altogether, Dr Decety and his colleagues recruited 1,170 families for their project, and focused on one child per family. Five hundred and ten of their volunteer families described themselves as Muslim, 280 as Christian, 29 as Jewish, 18 as Buddhist and 5 as Hindu. A further 323 said they were non-religious, 3 were agnostic and 2 ticked the box marked “other”.

Follow-up questions to the faithful among the sample then asked how often they engaged in religious activities, and also about spirituality in the home. That let Dr Decety calculate how religious each family was. He found that about half the children in religious households came from highly observant homes; the spiritual lives of the other half were more relaxed. He then arranged for the children to play a version of what is known to psychologists as the dictator game—an activity they use to measure altruism.

In truth, the dictator game is not much of a game, since only one of the participants actually plays it. In Dr Decety’s version, each child was presented with a collection of 30 attractive stickers and told that he or she could keep ten of them. Once a child had made his selection, the experimenter told him that there was not time to play the game with all the children at the school, but that he could, if he wished, give away some of his ten stickers to a random schoolmate who would not otherwise be able to take part. The child was then given a few minutes to decide whether he wanted to give up some of his stickers—and, if so, how many. The researchers used the number of stickers surrendered as a measure of altruism.

The upshot was that the children of non-believers were significantly more generous than those of believers. They gave away an average of 4.1 stickers. Children from a religious background gave away 3.3. And a further analysis of the two largest religious groups (Jews, Buddhists and Hindus were excluded because of their small numbers in the sample), showed no statistical difference between them. Muslim children gave away 3.2 stickers on average, while Christian children gave away 3.3. Moreover, a regression analysis on these groups of children showed that their generosity was inversely correlated with their households’ religiosity. This effect remained regardless of a family’s wealth and status (rich children were more generous than poor ones), a child’s age (older children were more generous than younger ones) or the nationality of the participant. These findings are, however, in marked contrast to parents’ assessments of their own children’s sensitivity to injustice. When asked, religious parents reported their children to be more sensitive than non-believing parents did.

This is only one result, of course. It would need to be replicated before strong conclusions could be drawn. But it is suggestive. And what it suggests is not only that what is preached by religion is not always what is practised, which would not be a surprise, but that in some unknown way the preaching makes things worse.

The negative association between religiousness and children’s altruism across the world, by Jean Decety, Jason M. Cowell, Kang Lee, Randa Mahasneh, Susan Malcolm-Smith, Bilge Selcuk and Xinyue Zhou
From the print edition: Science and technology
Religion only encourages generosity and thinking beyond yourself if these delusional authors can't get it nothing can be done about that.
 
.
Religion only encourages generosity and thinking beyond yourself if these delusional authors can't get it nothing can be done about that.

These authors are simply presenting the results of their studies, that is all.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom