• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Non-religious children are more generous than religious kids.

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
41,561
Reaction score
31,166
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Christian or Muslim, neither do so well as the secular in a thorough new study. They're just too rigid and judgemental. How ironic.

"Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from around the world. Children from religious homes—particularly Muslims—also showed a greater inclination to judge someone’s misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and moral behavior don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand for children.
“Our findings support the notion that the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact it does just the opposite,” says Jean
Decety, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, in Illinois, and the study’s lead author.

Past research has already called into doubt the common stereotype that religious people are more moral than their nonreligious brethren. In surveys, religious people report higher levels of charitable activity. But it’s not clear whether this is accurate or an exaggeration. It’s also unclear whether the altruistic spirit is mostly confined to other members of their religion. In actual tests of generosity, there are also mixed results. One study found both religious and nonreligious people shared more money with a stranger after reading sentences containing religious words such as “spirit” and “God.” But people were also more generous after reading words associated with secular authorities such as “police.” Another study found that more religious people were just as likely as less religious people to bypass a stranger in distress. ... "

Nonreligious children are more generous | Science/AAAS | News
 
Yep, that's right. A "study" of 1170 kids from around the world shows that hundreds of millions of religious kids are stingy, selfish, and greedy when compared to non-religious kids.

This why I laugh at statistics and studies. That's why I consider people who base their positions on them so gullible.

I still find it hard to understand why people place so much faith in statistics and studies...the belief that a small sample can be used to project expectations and truths on the whole.

As an individualist I don't accept such projections, it diminishes us all to nothing but predictable numbers.

Just boggles the mind. :coffeepap
 
Last edited:
Christian or Muslim, neither do so well as the secular in a thorough new study. They're just too rigid and judgemental. How ironic.

"Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from around the world. Children from religious homes—particularly Muslims—also showed a greater inclination to judge someone’s misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and moral behavior don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand for children.
“Our findings support the notion that the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact it does just the opposite,” says Jean
Decety, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, in Illinois, and the study’s lead author.

Past research has already called into doubt the common stereotype that religious people are more moral than their nonreligious brethren. In surveys, religious people report higher levels of charitable activity. But it’s not clear whether this is accurate or an exaggeration. It’s also unclear whether the altruistic spirit is mostly confined to other members of their religion. In actual tests of generosity, there are also mixed results. One study found both religious and nonreligious people shared more money with a stranger after reading sentences containing religious words such as “spirit” and “God.” But people were also more generous after reading words associated with secular authorities such as “police.” Another study found that more religious people were just as likely as less religious people to bypass a stranger in distress. ... "

Nonreligious children are more generous | Science/AAAS | News

Another new through study, did the federal government pay for it by any chance? While I might agree that those raised in liberal-minded households might be encouraged to be more giving, I myself would prefer the child who is not. Because the child who is not will accrue far more assets in their lifetime and, as would appear, act far more responsibly.
 
True charity comes from the heart and is an individual choice.
 
Christian or Muslim, neither do so well as the secular in a thorough new study. They're just too rigid and judgemental. How ironic.

"Religious doctrines typically urge the faithful to treat others with compassion and to put the greater good before selfish interests. But when it comes to generosity, nonreligious kids seem to be more giving, according to a new study of 1170 children from around the world. Children from religious homes—particularly Muslims—also showed a greater inclination to judge someone’s misdeeds as wrong and punish the perpetrators. The study, the first large-scale analysis of its kind, suggests that religion and moral behavior don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand for children.
“Our findings support the notion that the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact it does just the opposite,” says Jean
Decety, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Chicago, in Illinois, and the study’s lead author.

Past research has already called into doubt the common stereotype that religious people are more moral than their nonreligious brethren. In surveys, religious people report higher levels of charitable activity. But it’s not clear whether this is accurate or an exaggeration. It’s also unclear whether the altruistic spirit is mostly confined to other members of their religion. In actual tests of generosity, there are also mixed results. One study found both religious and nonreligious people shared more money with a stranger after reading sentences containing religious words such as “spirit” and “God.” But people were also more generous after reading words associated with secular authorities such as “police.” Another study found that more religious people were just as likely as less religious people to bypass a stranger in distress. ... "

Nonreligious children are more generous | Science/AAAS | News

Religious hypocrites be all into smiting. :)
 
Yep, that's right. A "study" of 1170 kids from around the world shows that hundreds of millions of religious kids are stingy, selfish, and greedy when compared to non-religious kids.

This why I laugh at statistics and studies. That's why I consider people who base their positions on them so gullible.

I still find it hard to understand why people place so much faith in statistics and studies...the belief that a small sample can be used to project expectations and truths on the whole.

As an individualist I don't accept such projections, it diminishes us all to nothing but predictable numbers.

Just boggles the mind. :coffeepap

A thousand is accepted as the standard in such studies.
 
the results seem to mimic a study on adult charity work too

i'm sure there are some cases where religion does help someone turn their life around or become more generous, but i challenge theists to act on non religious motives once in a while
 
The author of this study revealed his bias when he predicted the outcome of his next study. If you study something with the belief you'll achieve a result that is skewed. Since the observation are somewhat arbitrary, his bias likely played a part in achieving the results attained.
 
I'm not convinced. Only statistic of relevance to me is the one I've cooked up myself.
 
The author of this study revealed his bias when he predicted the outcome of his next study. If you study something with the belief you'll achieve a result that is skewed. Since the observation are somewhat arbitrary, his bias likely played a part in achieving the results attained.

What is the difference between making a prediction and proposing a hypothesis?
 
The slight (trivial?) differences in sticker giving noted (4.1, 3.3 and 3.2) show that all kids kept more stickers than they gave away for other kids to share. It seems odd that no statistics were included for any other difference factors, for example by country or age group.
 
What is the difference between making a prediction and proposing a hypothesis?

If it is a case study, it is the difference between being relevant and biased. Not that case studies are really ever unbiased.
 
And another study finds that Internet atheists are concerned with world domination.
 
Christian or Muslim, neither do so well as the secular in a thorough new study. They're just too rigid and judgemental. How ironic.

If you are looking for something even more ironic, I would point to your hundreds of postings defending Islamic fundamentalism.
 
"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."

This makes sense. Religious people, as much as they do good work such as supporting charitable organizations like the Salvation Army, or even "soup kitchens" at the corner church, also believe that each of us is responsible for ourselves and that charity should only be given where it is truly needed. Kinda like the right wing vs. left. On the right we have conservatives who believe people need enough help to stand on their own two feet. On the left we hear about things like forced redistribution of wealth. There's a lot of kids in my town (age ~ 16 - 25) who are on welfare. They live in absolute squalor, and use their welfare checks to pay for booze and drugs. It's sad because "charity" destroyed their lives. The final conclusion of the welfare state.
 
If it is a case study, it is the difference between being relevant and biased. Not that case studies are really ever unbiased.

So because you don't like the result, you complain about bias in a study of a type you claim are really always biased.
 
If you are looking for something even more ironic, I would point to your hundreds of postings defending Islamic fundamentalism.

Your hate for Islam has skewed your observational skills. Not hating all Muslims is not defending fundamentalists such as yourself.
 
So because you don't like the result, you complain about bias in a study of a type you claim are really always biased.

Case studies are always somewhat biased and that isn't my opinion.



In addition, unlike a scientific study which deals with facts, a case study is based on opinion and is very much designed to provoke reasoned debate. There really is no right or wrong answer in a case study.
https://explorable.com/case-study-research-design
 
Yep, that's right. A "study" of 1170 kids from around the world shows that hundreds of millions of religious kids are stingy, selfish, and greedy when compared to non-religious kids.

This why I laugh at statistics and studies. That's why I consider people who base their positions on them so gullible.

I still find it hard to understand why people place so much faith in statistics and studies...the belief that a small sample can be used to project expectations and truths on the whole.

As an individualist I don't accept such projections, it diminishes us all to nothing but predictable numbers.

Just boggles the mind. :coffeepap

For a population of 300,000,000 (properly sampled) a sample size of 1000 is enough to give a result at a 99% confidence level with a confidence interval of 4.

Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems

Statistics is incredibly important in almost every field of science, has been refined over centuries to what it is now, and has contributed to incredible amounts of progress and discoveries.
 
For a population of 300,000,000 (properly sampled) a sample size of 1000 is enough to give a result at a 99% confidence level with a confidence interval of 4.

Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems

Statistics is incredibly important in almost every field of science, has been refined over centuries to what it is now, and has contributed to incredible amounts of progress and discoveries.

I don't care what statisticians claim about the value of their science.

I remember when I took statistics and the one thing that stuck in my mind from that course was something the professor said about samples. That the same data can be used to argue both for and against the same point depending on the bias of the collector. It is all in how it is presented.

I don't buy statistics because I refuse to accept that I can be categorized, and that predictions can be made for my action/reactions on the basis of some sample of 1000 people. I am not a drone that you can label simply because your science tells you so.

Human are individuals and each one is unpredictable. Each one of those kids who didn't give a sticker today might give it away tomorrow or the next day. Or they might have someone in particular the felt needed it more. Who knows? Who cares?
 
Last edited:
I don't care what statisticians claim about the value of their science.

I remember when I took statistics and the one thing that stuck in my mind from that course was something the professor said about samples. That the same data can be used to argue both for and against the same point depending on the bias of the collector. It is all in how it is presented.

I don't buy statistics because I refuse to accept that I can be categorized, and that predictions can be made for my action/reactions on the basis of some sample of 1000 people. I am not a drone that you can label simply because your science tells you so.

Human are individuals and each one is unpredictable. Each one of those kids who didn't give a sticker today might give it away tomorrow or the next day. Or they might have someone in particular the felt needed it more. Who knows? Who cares?

I'm happy and all for you but fyi statistics actually work. You can put your fingers in your ears and shout lalalalala really loudly if you want I guess.
 
I'm happy and all for you but fyi statistics actually work. You can put your fingers in your ears and shout lalalalala really loudly if you want I guess.

They work in certain hard sciences, but when applied to human interaction they have no more real value than a voodoo priest waving his ju-ju stick, or psychic reading your palm.

No "la la la" about it. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom