Religion Makes Children More Selfish

[Will Torbald]

Morality is often associated with religion, but new research reveals that children from religious households are actually less generous than kids from a secular background.

 

This conclusion comes from a study of over 1000 children from around the world, published in the journal Current Biology. The project was led by Professor Jean Decety, a neuroscientist from the University of Chicago, who didn’t originally aim to compare moral behavior. “I was more interested in whether I would find differences in empathy or sharing depending on the culture,” he says.

 

While previous research has examined generosity in adults, Decety’s work shows that upbringing shapes morality early in life. This includes altruism – actions that benefit a recipient at a cost to the donor. Children learn religious values and beliefs from their family and community, through rituals like going to church. If religion promotes morality, kids from religious households should have stronger altruistic tendencies.

 

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

 

Why are religious people less moral? One factor is a psychological phenomenon known as ‘moral licensing’: a person will justify doing something bad or immoral – like being racist – because they’ve already done something ‘good’, such as praying. “It’s an unconscious bias,” Decety explains. “They don’t even see that’s not compatible with what they’ve been learning in church.”

 

The article also provides direct source to the paper here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7

 

 

He also doesn’t expect his work to have much impact on the wider American public, particularly evangelical Christians who ignore facts. “My guess is they’re just going to deny what I did – they don’t want science, they don’t believe in evolution, they don’t want Darwin to be taught in schools,” he says. “These people will say, ‘Oh that’s the evil scientists again’.”

 

Religion is not required for kindness. “It’s not like you have to be highly religious to be a good person,” Decety points out. “Secularity – like having your laws and rules based on rational thinking, reason rather than holy books – is better for everybody.”

 

Although this isn't something unheard of for most here, it is interesting to see research like this going out to the public, and is useful to have in case you want to share it with people who make claims to the contrary.

[Guest Gee]

No accounting for IQ.

 

No accounting for income (Social economic status of children is based of mothers level of education!)

 

No accounting for one vs two parent families.

 

No accounting for local and none local religious homogeneity (the schools were not referenced as religiously homogeneous schools and given the relative dominance of religions by country,

• US = 70% Christian
• Turkey = 96.5% Muslim
• Canada = 67% Christian
• Jordan = 94% Muslim 
• South Africa = 86% Christian
• China = 87% None religious 
• etc, etc, etc....

It can be assumed that the schools are religiously homogeneous in some sample populations but not in others which could easily explain the different results especially given.......

The receiver of the altruism was ethnically and culturally anonymous!

 

 

Of additional note is that the sharing of resources was with an anonymous child beneficiary from the same school and similar ethnic group. Therefore, this result cannot be simply explained by in-group versus out-group biases that are known to change children’s cooperative behaviors from an early age [15], nor by the known fact that religious people tend to be more altruistic toward individuals from their in-group [8, 16].

 

So it can not be assumed that the recipient is the same religion and again, as the ethnicity is not explicitly given it can not even be assumed that the recipient is the same ethnicity, though the researchers do mention that the ethnic groups are similar, without definition of what similar means we can assume the common parlance (similar is not identical) thus own group preference can not be discounted.

 

 

Sneaky hit piece / 10, would not reference.

p.s. what is this doing in a biology journal?

[dsayers]

would not reference.

Same, but for different reasons. It claims being racist is immoral and that being generous is being moral. So it suffers from the lack of integrity of not defining terms. The quote "your laws... based on rational thought" is irrational, implying the religion of Statism. All in all, some of the things seem antagonistic, which suggests bias during data analysis and personal gratification from the results.

[Will Torbald]

p.s. what is this doing in a biology journal?

On the second page of the article it explains why it has biological significance. Morality is not exclusive to humans. Systems of conduct, codes, regulated behaviors can be seen in other species. One example is capuchin monkeys, other apes, other social mammals. Understanding the relation between biology and morality, and the degree to which both are linked is crucial. Which is why studies in children are important since they reveal the innate and intuitive morality codes directly expressed as pure genetic phenotypes when no religious indoctrination has been imposed.

 

While your criticisms of the study are valid from a statistical standpoint, it misses the larger picture. That religion affects the moral behavior of children when compared to secularly raised children. That means that children already have embedded reasons to be peaceful and generous, and that the intrusion of dogmatism and fundamentalism interferes negatively against the natural tendency when otherwise untouched.

 

It opens up the road for further, deeper investigations. Since the researchers weren't directly looking for the difference they couldn't account for all the variables you suggest. But now they can have newer and much more precise studies that directly try to find the differences and trace causations.

[Will Torbald]

Same, but for different reasons. It claims being racist is immoral and that being generous is being moral. So it suffers from the lack of integrity of not defining terms. The quote "your laws... based on rational thought" is irrational, implying the religion of Statism. All in all, some of the things seem antagonistic, which suggests bias during data analysis and personal gratification from the results.

 

Generosity is a secondary sympton of being moral. If you are immoral, even as defined objectively, you can't be generous at the same time. Only if you are moral can you be generous. Therefore, measuring the degree to which people are generous to others correlates to how comfortable they are with morality as a whole. I may also be reading between the lines in your comment, but how is saying "racism is immoral" wrong in any way? Can you justify the morality of racism?

 

The full quote is “Secularity – like having your laws and rules based on rational thinking, reason rather than holy books – is better for everybody.” and in the context of the comment, it is true. While "statist law" is still rooted in the force of the state, the degree to which rational born laws are more moral than theocracy is evident. By simple matter of empiricism it is dishonest to equate a secular democracy with a totalitarian islamic or fundamentalist christian regime. It is better for everybody, just not the best that it can ever be.

[dsayers]

Define your terms. Morality refers to the consistency of behaviors that are binding upon others. You say "if you are immoral" and "if you are moral," but people don't have moral components, behaviors do.

 

Racism is holding the belief that ethnicity A is inferior/superior to ethnicity B. Such a belief is not binding upon others and therefore has no moral component.

 

While "statist law" is still rooted in the force of the state, the degree to which rational born laws are more moral than theocracy is evident. By simple matter of empiricism it is dishonest to equate a secular democracy with a totalitarian islamic or fundamentalist christian regime. It is better for everybody, just not the best that it can ever be.

The author put forth morality as a standard. Keeping this in mind, immoral is not better than immoral. He also put forth generosity as a standard. That which is taken by force is not a generous donation. Besides, who are you to decide for others which is better? In a secular democracy, the initiation of the use of force is largely invisible. I say better the devil you know than the one you regard as a savior.

[Will Torbald]

Define your terms. Morality refers to the consistency of behaviors that are binding upon others. You say "if you are immoral" and "if you are moral," but people don't have moral components, behaviors do.

 

Racism is holding the belief that ethnicity A is inferior/superior to ethnicity B. Such a belief is not binding upon others and therefore has no moral component.

 

The author put forth morality as a standard. Keeping this in mind, immoral is not better than immoral. He also put forth generosity as a standard. That which is taken by force is not a generous donation. Besides, who are you to decide for others which is better? In a secular democracy, the initiation of the use of force is largely invisible. I say better the devil you know than the one you regard as a savior.

 

While we have a rather structured definition of morality, what is traditionally meant as morality is general benevolence, non violence towards others, lack of prejudice, and so on. The kind of philosophical regime such as UPB isn't really useful in this case such as the behavior of children who are clearly not murderers, thieves, or rapists. It could even be called a matter of aesthetic morality on the practical field of every day life. A person who is racist towards black and chinese people wouldn't be considered moral next to someone who treats people with respect on their character, not their race. Arguing about the initiation of force in a relatively free environment in a secular society with division of state and religion - and saying that it is just as wrong as a theocracy of sharia or inquisition is extremist and fundamentalist. Pure black and white, no nuance to it. Ask yourself, in this false dichotomy, where would you rather live? And if the answer is that you don't care either way, then go to Iran or Saudi Arabia and open shop, open your mouth and speak logic and reason, and see if it's just as nice as where you are now.

[dsayers]

"There are worse places to be living, so I'm automatically right" is not an argument. I won't share it and for the reasons I've explained. Threatening me with life someplace less pleasant (which you can't deliver anyways) won't change this.

 

There's a reason why people say words like objective and morality when they don't apply. It's because they wish to persuade you without the rigor of making a case. If the author says morality and means a willingness to donate to charity, then I'm not interested in what he has to say because he's referring to preferences and voluntary behaviors of others, which is none of my concern.

[Will Torbald]

"There are worse places to be living, so I'm automatically right" is not an argument.

 

Lay off the strawmen for once. I'm talking about degrees of irrationality and control. You are right that both are breaking the NAP, but the degree to which they are pernicious is important.

[dsayers]

I'm talking about degrees of irrationality and control. You are right that both are breaking the NAP, but the degree to which they are pernicious is important.

You're having a different conversation now. The article referenced "rational commands backed by threats of violence," which I pointed out is irrational. You would have to make the case for "commands backed by threats of violence" being rational at all before you could make the claim that there's a gradation.

[Donnadogsoth]

If religion overlaps with conservatism, maybe all those religious-conservative kids are saving up their altruism for when they get older.

 

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

[Guest Gee]

 But now they can have newer and much more precise studies that directly try to find the differences and trace causations.

 

Got a link to a newer and more precise study? thx.

[Donnadogsoth]

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

 

 

The article also provides direct source to the paper here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7

 

 

Although this isn't something unheard of for most here, it is interesting to see research like this going out to the public, and is useful to have in case you want to share it with people who make claims to the contrary.

 

Three problems with this article:

 

(1) They presume that sticker-allocation, about as meaningless a task as imaginable, scales up to helping a fellow child who has fallen and hurt themselves.

 

(2) They invert morality by saying that those who make moral judgements about justice regarding violence are less moral.  “Overall, religious children are less tolerant of harmful actions and favored harsh penalties.”  And this a bad thing?  The Christians and the Moslems are to be applauded for taking a stand against unjust violence, it's the secular kids who are lagging behind.

 

(3) They ignore the fact that the Abolitionists—and the people who actually abolished the slave trade and slavery proper--were Christians, in cherry-picking their human rights advocates to be secularists.