http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/070424_religion_kids.html

Study has its limitations, but interesting nontheless (and somewhat expected)

Quote :

"Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development. The conflict that arises when parents regularly argue over their faith at home, however, has the opposite effect. John Bartkowski, a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers. The researchers compared these scores to how frequently the children’s parents said they attended worship services, talked about religion with their child and argued abut religion in the home. The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents. But when parents argued frequently about religion, the children were more likely to have problems. “Religion can hurt if faith is a source of conflict or tension in the family,” Bartkowski noted. Why so good? Bartkowski thinks religion can be good for kids for three reasons. First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills. Children who are brought into such networks and hear parental messages reinforced by other adults may also “take more to heart the messages that they get in the home,” he said. Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family, Bartkowski told LiveScience. These “could be very, very important in shaping how parents relate to their kids, and then how children develop in response,” he said. Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance, he said. University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, who was not involved in the study, agrees. At least for the most religious parents, “getting their kids into heaven is more important than getting their kids into Harvard,” Wilcox said. But as for why religious organizations might provide more of a boost to family life than secular organizations designed to do the same thing, that’s still somewhat of a mystery, said Annette Mahoney, a psychologist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, also not involved in the research. Mahoney wondered: “Is there anything about religion and spirituality that sets it apart?” Unanswered questions Bartkowski points out that one limitation of his study, to be published in the journal Social Science Research, is that it did not compare how denominations differed with regards to their effects on kids. “We really don’t know if conservative Protestant kids are behaving better than Catholic kids or behaving better than mainline Protestant kids or Jewish kids,” he said. It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation. “There are certain expectations about children’s behavior within a religious context, particularly within religious worship services,” he said. These expectations might frustrate parents, he said, and make congregational worship “a less viable option if they feel their kids are really poorly behaved.” "

4/25/2007 3:34:32 PM

atheist households can teach self-control and encourage proper socialization without the introduction of organized religion.

sure, it looks nice to say that exposure to organized religion makes kids better, but this study just doesn't prove that at all.

4/25/2007 5:22:19 PM

Show me their statistics, where they got their sample from and then maybe I'll believe it. That sounds like manipulation of the numbers.

However, religion is a form of control where instead of mom or dad punishing you and all seeing omnipotent being will.

4/25/2007 5:31:06 PM

Quote :

"Kids with religious parents are..."

Well, I've found the problem. AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY IS NOT AN EXPERIMENT. THIS STUDY SHOWS CORRELATION, NOT CAUSE AND EFFECT.

4/25/2007 5:49:25 PM

this is as expected

4/25/2007 5:51:31 PM

as long as they stop believing it ~10 years old I could see religion as being good.

4/25/2007 5:57:06 PM

Quote :

"It’s also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation."

Something along these lines is what I figure.

A counter-study, of sorts:

The Israelites' campaign to carry out their god's commandment to commit genocide against the native inhabitants of Canaan-cum-Palestine took several generations. It began with Joshua's massacre at Jericho. Contrary to the Christian song "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho," according to scripture there was no battle at all. It was a siege, at the end of which all of the city's inhabitants were killed except Rahab the prostitute (she and her family were spared in exchange for helping Joshua plan his strategy, Joshua 6:16-17, 19, 21, 24, RSV):

Quote :

"Joshua said to the people, "Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction . . . But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD." . . . Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword . . . And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. "

He presented Joshua 6:20-21 to 1,066 school children, ages 8-14, in order to test "the effect of uncritical teaching of the Bible on the propensity for forming prejudices (particularly the notion of the 'chosen people,' the superiority of the monotheistic religion, and the study of acts of genocide by biblical heroes)." The children's answers to the question "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?," were categorized as follows: "'A' means total approval, 'B' means partial approval or disapproval, and 'C' means total disapproval." Across a broad spectrum of Israeli social and economic classes, 66% of responses were "A," 8% "B," and 26% "C." The "A" answers tended to be as straightforward as they were numerous (Tamarin, 1966):

* In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the "Goyim."
* In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.
* Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

Other misgivings included (1966):

* I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.
* I think Joshua did not act well, as he should have left the property of Jericho; if he had not destroyed the property it would have belonged to the Israelites.

As a control group, Tamarin tested 168 children who were read Joshua 6:20-21 with "General Lin" substituted for Joshua and a "Chinese Kingdom 3000 years ago" substituted for Israel. General Lin got a 7% approval rating, with 18% giving partial approval or disapproval, and 75% disapproving totally.
http://saltysleveen.blogspot.com/2007/01/joshua-jericho-genocide-and-fallacy-of.html

[Edited on April 25, 2007 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2007 6:05:30 PM

when you've got religion, it's easy to control kids

"billy, if you don't stop hitting your sister, you're going to go to hell."

4/25/2007 6:06:08 PM

^ lol

4/25/2007 6:13:11 PM

Isn't any type of discipline good for you?

4/25/2007 6:45:06 PM

i mean whats wrong with teaching kids that its wrong to steal, murder, lie, cheat, etc etc etc

4/25/2007 6:54:01 PM

Well the Montagues and the Capulets were uber religious and look where it got them.

4/25/2007 6:55:52 PM

Oh, hey, this is news?

4/25/2007 7:08:14 PM

Quote :

"i mean whats wrong with teaching kids that its wrong to steal, murder, lie, cheat, etc etc etc"

nothing at all. i absolutlely have been and will continue to do so with my child.

sorry, though, i wont tell him that Santa Claus died on the Cross and will send him to Burn in Hell if he doesnt find enough chocolate bunny eggs.

4/25/2007 9:49:58 PM

Quote :

"i mean whats wrong with teaching kids that its wrong to steal, murder, lie, cheat, etc etc etc"

There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching those sorts of things. But why does it take religion to teach them? Why can't people not murder others because it's wrong and not because some invisible voyeur in the sky says you can't?

4/25/2007 10:13:29 PM

I think what the studies says is more related to religion happening to teach good values, and that those kids generally turn out better. As opposed to you have to be religious to have/learn/teach values.

4/25/2007 10:18:16 PM

I honestly don't give a shit what instrument is used to teach people morals, but if Religion works...then it is fine with me. As long as it is being taught.

4/25/2007 10:21:44 PM

Actually, it depends on what religion you believe in. If you're a radical Muslim, then you're actually encouraged to murder.

4/25/2007 10:21:50 PM

Quote :

"nothing at all. i absolutlely have been and will continue to do so with my child. sorry, though, i wont tell him that Santa Claus died on the Cross and will send him to Burn in Hell if he doesnt find enough chocolate bunny eggs."

well americans seem to be missing out on teaching their kids anything except GTFO at 18

4/25/2007 10:27:11 PM

^ yeah, that'd be something, if it were true.

theres this peculiar phenomenon we have here where the kids are still dependent on the parents even at age 25 or longer.

4/25/2007 11:08:15 PM

Quote :

"If you're a radical Muslim [follower of any religion], then you're actually encouraged to murder destructive."

there, i made it more general for you.

4/25/2007 11:53:45 PM

Quote :

"actually encouraged to destructive."

MAIN SCREEN TURN ON

ITS YOU!!!!

4/26/2007 1:06:50 AM

oh snap

4/26/2007 1:33:30 AM

HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN?

4/26/2007 1:40:58 AM

Quote :

"theres this peculiar phenomenon we have here where the kids are still dependent on the parents even at age 25 or longer."

o'rly? from what i've seen living in the US is that the majority of parents give their kids the boot at 18 and let them figure life out on their own.

4/26/2007 3:43:42 AM

Quote :

"The researchers compared these scores to how frequently the children’s parents said they attended worship services, talked about religion with their child and argued abut religion in the home. The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents."

How likely is it that extremely poor parents will go to church? They could be disabled, unable to have transportation to church, have a series of part-time jobs that require Sunday work, be alcoholics etc. I didn't read anywhere that this study was controlled for the economic status of the parents. I think it's generally accepted that children from poorer backgrounds will probably have less self-control, be less happy, etc. than the middle-class or upper-class kids.

On another note, I'd rather teach a kid with less self-control than one whose parents beat the shit out of them to get them to go to church.

4/26/2007 4:19:01 AM

Quote :

"A counter-study, of sorts:"

How is that a counter study? What does accepting "genocide" have to do with good behavior?

4/26/2007 9:40:00 AM

Quote :

"THIS STUDY SHOWS CORRELATION, NOT CAUSE AND EFFECT."

As a religious man, I would have to agree with this statement. It's not the religion itself providing the purported benefits to children.

4/26/2007 9:43:53 AM

^I agree as a religious man who takes his kids to church, though not every Sunday, and I'm no Bible thumper. Hell in our church I'm seen as a outsider/rebel, as I'm Methodist so I don't believe its a sin to go out and drink and dance, but we go to a Baptist church. Also only my wife has had "full immersion" baptism, so again I get questioned about that sometimes. But I can see why its nice. My kids are in Sunday School, learn better habits, have to behave with other kids, etc. Its nice.

4/26/2007 2:07:06 PM

my community has 5 churches in under .5 square miles...

it also has a 27% rate of children passing competency exams.

4/26/2007 2:09:57 PM

It didnt say anything about non-religious parents. Just about parents who argued over religion--and kind of parental strife is going to affect the kids

4/26/2007 2:24:20 PM

^^ yeah i guess maybe religion lobotomizes kids into behaving. smart enough to follow orders and not much else.

4/26/2007 2:50:04 PM

Quote :

"my community has 5 churches in under .5 square miles... it also has a 27% rate of children passing competency exams. "

Aren't you in Charlotte? They're probably just bussing in dumb kids to try to make them not be idiots.

4/26/2007 3:08:48 PM

Quote :

"THIS STUDY SHOWS CORRELATION, NOT CAUSE AND EFFECT."

btw, sorry for shouting, everyone. The study offended me more as a statistician than an atheist. Considering the lurking variables and no possibility of a control group, I'd hate to see people draw a too many conclusions from this. And even if a perfect experiment could be done, who's to say that subjective ratings of first graders' behavior represent their well-being throughout life?

4/26/2007 3:42:01 PM