Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Primordial Groove · 03-25-2004, 02:27 PM

According to this article in the Washington Post, you better believe it!

Quote:

Late last year, a commission convened by Dartmouth Medical School, among others, studied years of research on kids, including brain-imaging studies, and concluded that young people who are religious are better off in significant ways than their secular peers. They are less likely than nonbelievers to smoke and drink and more likely to eat well; less likely to commit crimes and more likely to wear seat belts; less likely to be depressed and more likely to be satisfied with their families and school.

Pretty signifcant findings, although I am curious of the methods used to come to these conclusions.

Quote:

Though one of its sponsors, the Institute for American Values, publishes a good bit about God and faith, the commission was no conclave of religious conservatives. It included professors and researchers at the medical schools of Harvard and UCLA as well as longtime experts on child-rearing practice including T. Berry Brazelton, Robert Coles, Peter Benson and Michael Resnick.

IAV- biased

T. Berry Brazelton- I can't see bias

Robert Coles- books to sell. Bias

Peter Benson- Not sure.

Michael Resnick- If this is the same person, he has books to sell.

Why would I take this study seriously?

Quote:

The commission members said that religious congregations benefit teenagers by affirming who they are, expecting a lot from them and giving them opportunities to show what they can do. These are not exactly earthshaking observations; as the panel noted, the same could be said of clubs, sports teams and other youth organizations (such as the YMCA, which helped fund the study). What sets religious groups apart, however -- and makes a surprisingly big difference to kids, according to the panel -- is that they promote a "direct personal relationship with the Divine."

(bold mine)

I wonder how big of a difference this is to teens that aren't raised to believe in the divine? And if there is no belief in 'the divine' (whatever color that is today), would the clubs, sports teams, etc. be all the kids need?
Let's find out:

Quote:

"Their brains are changing, their relations with family, friends and the opposite sex are changing, and they're beginning to figure out what their purpose in the world will be," says Wilcox. "We know that people often turn to God in the midst of momentous changes. Adolescents are no different."

wtf? People will only turn to God during change IF they believe in a god. It seems they have equated change to a helpless feeling that only a sky daddy can mend. Again, I would say this only applies to children that were exposed to god in the first place. Not only exposed to, but lead to believe in and rely upon.
I can't see my children feeling helpless because their imaginary friend isn't there to help them open the cookie jar. All of a sudden it changes in our adolescence? Pu-lease!

Quote:

Adolescents, said the Dartmouth group, are "hard-wired to connect" to people and God.

And with a broad stroke, I feel my life has been a complete waste. Is it to late to seek something that isn't there. Is it to late to rely upon my imagination rather than my intelligence and wisdom? Should I start feeling guilty for the thousands of times I have masturbated or fornicated?

What do you think of this article?

(if a thread has already been started on this, I couldnt find it)

Shadowy Man · 03-25-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

...concluded that young people who are religious are better off in significant ways than their secular peers.

Perhaps because they are not being constantly ostracized by their peers for their lack of belief.

Crowder · 03-25-2004, 02:44 PM

I grew up as a Lutheran and was quite ignorant and happy until a close relative of mine died (who was not a Christian). If my faith would have been true, my relative would have burnt in hell for eternity. That was an irrational proposition for myself to believe, so I questioned my faith and came to the truth.

Now I'm an existentialist/atheist and happier than ever, although I still hold a grudge to those who taught me at church and Sunday school what Nietzche would call "the denial of life."

It's good to finally be awake. If I had children, they'd be raised without religion.

Bohemian Jordy · 03-25-2004, 02:59 PM

Seriously....

There's alot of spiritual people without a "religion"

There's alot of people without any faith at all who get by just fine.

What does it matter as long as it works for that person? I get confused on what they define as "religion"

You can teach a child morales without teaching them a religion. Let the spirtuality of that child develop on its own.

Crowder · 03-25-2004, 03:02 PM

Spirituality is a different matter. "Spirituality for the Skeptic" by Robert C. Solomon gives some good advice. Things must be "naturalized".

Ab_Normal · 03-25-2004, 03:08 PM

Hardwired to Connect

Quote:

The Commission is basing its recommendations on recent scientific findings suggesting that children are biologically ``hardwired" for enduring attachments to other people and for moral and spiritual meaning. Meeting children's needs for enduring attachments and for moral and spiritual meaning is the best way to ensure their healthy development, according to the Commission's report.

I think this is the study the article talked about. I'm counting on the more scientifically inclined Infidels to help me understand it.

Crowder · 03-25-2004, 03:12 PM

Basically a repetition of what we've known for centuries... All metaphysics are subjective, including morality.

lpetrich · 03-25-2004, 06:14 PM

Did they compare different religions and sects to find out which are the best ones for making kids and teens healthy?

Were they willing to have the honesty to support Plato's Royal Lie view of religion?

And what nonreligious ones did they examine? Did they examine the offspring of professional families? Or did they examine those who might be considered social dropouts? Somehow I suspect the latter.

Eudaimonist · 03-26-2004, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primordial Groove
Late last year, a commission convened by Dartmouth Medical School, among others, studied years of research on kids, including brain-imaging studies, and concluded that young people who are religious are better off in significant ways than their secular peers. They are less likely than nonbelievers to smoke and drink and more likely to eat well; less likely to commit crimes and more likely to wear seat belts; less likely to be depressed and more likely to be satisfied with their families and school.

Correlation does not establish causation, but even if causation does exist (that religion can be beneficial in some ways for children), it would be misleading to conclude that parents ought to encourage religious belief in their children. It may turn out that some religious children are getting some things that some nonreligious children aren't getting, but perhaps there are secular alternatives to religion.

Perhaps a "Sunday School" in which children are taught nontheistic philosophy would be a mind-opening experience that would encourage them to take a more self-respecting and other-respecting attitude towards life. Show kids the original Star Trek, for instance, and ask them to discuss the morals in the show. I wonder how such a program would fare against religious Sunday School.

iridium · 03-26-2004, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primordial Groove
What do you think of this article?

Considering who owns that paper, not a lot

03-25-2004, 02:44 PM	#3
Crowder Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: IL, USA Posts: 21	Religion... I grew up as a Lutheran and was quite ignorant and happy until a close relative of mine died (who was not a Christian). If my faith would have been true, my relative would have burnt in hell for eternity. That was an irrational proposition for myself to believe, so I questioned my faith and came to the truth. Now I'm an existentialist/atheist and happier than ever, although I still hold a grudge to those who taught me at church and Sunday school what Nietzche would call "the denial of life." It's good to finally be awake. If I had children, they'd be raised without religion.

03-25-2004, 03:02 PM	#5
Crowder Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: IL, USA Posts: 21	Yeah Spirituality is a different matter. "Spirituality for the Skeptic" by Robert C. Solomon gives some good advice. Things must be "naturalized".

03-25-2004, 03:12 PM	#7
Crowder Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: IL, USA Posts: 21	Morals Basically a repetition of what we've known for centuries... All metaphysics are subjective, including morality.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2004, 02:59 PM	#4
Bohemian Jordy New Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 4	Seriously.... There's alot of spiritual people without a "religion" There's alot of people without any faith at all who get by just fine. What does it matter as long as it works for that person? I get confused on what they define as "religion" You can teach a child morales without teaching them a religion. Let the spirtuality of that child develop on its own.

03-25-2004, 06:14 PM	#8
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Did they compare different religions and sects to find out which are the best ones for making kids and teens healthy? Were they willing to have the honesty to support Plato's Royal Lie view of religion? And what nonreligious ones did they examine? Did they examine the offspring of professional families? Or did they examine those who might be considered social dropouts? Somehow I suspect the latter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.