Children are harmed when raised into religion.

orkanen: Abstract:

In two studies, 5- and 6-year-old children were questioned about the status of the protagonist embedded in three different types of stories. In realistic stories that only included ordinary events, all children, irrespective of family background and schooling, claimed that the protagonist was a real person. In religious stories that included ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention, claims about the status of the protagonist varied sharply with exposure to religion. Children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, judged the protagonist
in religious stories to be a real person, whereas secular children with no such exposure to religion judged the protagonist in religious stories to be fictional. Children’s upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic (Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories.

http://www.bu.edu/learninglab/files/2012/05/Corriveau-Chen-Harris-in-press.pdf

Corwin: So in other words, it's like taking a young impressionable mind and switching off the BS-Filter instead of reinforcing it.
I can see how this would greatly benefit religion, but I fail to see how this could in any way benefit an individual.

I suppose our computers would be better off if we removed all the firewalls and anti-virus software.

Zanjan: Of course, we'll just ignore the fact that ALL children make up their own stories and are often subject to fits of elaborate imagination - why shouldn't they think all adults do the same?

However, children trust their parents and most adults, even when they're bad people and they know it. We can be thankful that, for the most part, children aren't running our country - adolescents are.

Children are harmed by abuse, not by belief; this in no way implies they can't overcome the damage. Facts demonstrate that children are exceedingly resilient, to such extent that if one should experience abuse and hardship at any time in their life, it's better for it to happen in childhood than in adulthood.

All children outgrow things, adults don't.

sixty 9 yrs of wanda: o hell yes lol . . . at the very least retarded in the growth of their understanding . . . at worst . . . well we all kno wat the worst is vis a vis the bizarre phenomena known as right wing republican religio-freaks.

personally, it took me 'til I was . . . well let's just say a LOT older until I began to see the light about reality.

Zanjan: It's true that not everyone grows at the same speed, even in the identical family environment. That has more to do with genes than it does the incidentals.

Say you have 4 kids, all raised in the same home with same parents all their lives. The odds that a parent will favour one or two children are very, very high - that approval will determine the path these favoured choose as adolescents, which will most likely be the spiritual path of their parents. The same is for their experience in any academic school.

If this were not the case, no family would have a rogue or black sheep offspring.

orkanen:
Zanjan wrote: Of course, we'll just ignore the fact that ALL children make up their own stories and are often subject to fits of elaborate imagination - why shouldn't they think all adults do the same?

Eh, the children KNOW their own made up stories are just that, made up. Those who're raised into religion, as this study is about, have problems differing between real and fictitious stories told to them, particularly where magic is involved.

Zanjan wrote: However, children trust their parents and most adults, even when they're bad people and they know it. We can be thankful that, for the most part, children aren't running our country - adolescents are.

Your point being?

Zanjan wrote: Children are harmed by abuse, not by belief; this in no way implies they can't overcome the damage. Facts demonstrate that children are exceedingly resilient, to such extent that if one should experience abuse and hardship at any time in their life, it's better for it to happen in childhood than in adulthood.

I suggest you read the study, instead of asserting things you obviously know nothing about.

Zanjan wrote: All children outgrow things, adults don't.

Very few children, upon reaching adulthood, outgrow their childhood indoctrination, giving them years of trauma to work through. Ask anyone who's managed to fully escape the clammy grip of religion.

Zanjan: "Your point being?"


That what you have is a crap study. It's completely out of touch with reality. I know kids - they obviously don't.

The study assumes all children of age 5 and 6 are on the same intellectual level, regardless of their family status and experience. Furthermore, it assumes the difficulty any child experiences with determining reality is damage to the psyche and ultimately, it's permanent.

What does it matter how a small child thinks when they're far from the developed adult?? Your assertion that religious indoctrination causes trauma and ruins them is preposterous - parents ruin their kids, nobody else.

If the parent has brought up a child with a weak constitution without applying measures to strengthen it, the child will be easily subject to peer pressure and media influence. Society, as it is right now, takes the path of least resistance, fostering intellectual and spiritual laziness in the majority of the population.

Zanjan: As for escaping the grip of anything - two things cause that: fear or courage.

You can claim whichever of those two for yourself but in the end, who's got the clean record?

orkanen: Zanjan wrote: That what you have is a crap study. It's completely out of touch with reality. I know kids - they obviously don't.

Your assertions don't alter the facts, stated in the study I referred to. Do your own study, see where it leads you.

Zanjan wrote: The study assumes all children of age 5 and 6 are on the same intellectual level, regardless of their family status and experience. Furthermore, it assumes the difficulty any child experiences with determining reality is damage to the psyche and ultimately, it's permanent.

Perhaps you should read the study thoroughly, instead of assuming its contents.

Zanjan wrote: What does it matter how a small child thinks when they're far from the developed adult?? Your assertion that religious indoctrination causes trauma and ruins them is preposterous - parents ruin their kids, nobody else.

I'm not asserting anything, I'm referring to a study. Perhaps you should read it?

Zanjan wrote: As for escaping the grip of anything - two things cause that: fear or courage. You can claim whichever of those two for yourself but in the end, who's got the clean record?

The one with the clean record would of course be the one who never indoctrinated their children with assertions of undocumented magical beings. My wife was very much against religious figures, and religion in general, but never say a word, for or against. Nor did I. Not a word. Religion is not a topic in our household. My son had his religious period, walking around with a huge cross around his neck. Like I told you, It came and went, without interference from us. He's now the wiser.

Zanjan: I HAVE done my own study - that's how I can tell a crap study from a scientifically thorough one. How do YOU tell the difference?

What makes you think I didn't read it? Maybe you didn't read it yourself.

True science is unbiased - the very title of this document is biased and seriously misleading as it aims to prove a point without using cross checks - where's the study of each child's parents??

Oh, it's all about Christianity and church goers vs non-church goers. Could the non-church goers and their children be Muslim or Jewish or something else? NO! Because only one religion exists - that's the context. Oh, and that 61% of the kids in the study were WHITE. Yep.

If it starts off as crap, it ends as crap. No need to read the absurdities in the middle. No need for there even to be a study - did you read their brilliant conclusion? As if they were telling us there's something new here -> that children who are raised without religion see differently than children with religion.


I can certainly believe you think your child is wiser if he chose the same path as you.

orkanen: Zanjan wrote: I HAVE done my own study - that's how I can tell a crap study from a scientifically thorough one. How do YOU tell the difference?

So let's see your study.

I consider the value of a Scientific study on whether or not the hypothesises are falsifiable, and if the study can produce repeatable results, among other things. Based on those two criteria, it's a good study.

Zanjan wrote: What makes you think I didn't read it? Maybe you didn't read it yourself.

I know you didn't read it because you have so far drawn the wrong conclusions when referring to it.

Zanjan wrote: True science is unbiased - the very title of this document is biased and seriously misleading as it aims to prove a point without using cross checks - where's the study of each child's parents??

Try reading the whole study instead of assuming its contents. Your conclusion is wrong, as usual.

Zanjan wrote: Oh, it's all about Christianity and church goers vs non-church goers. Could the non-church goers and their children be Muslim or Jewish or something else? NO! Because only one religion exists - that's the context. Oh, and that 61% of the kids in the study were WHITE. Yep.

Try reading the whole study instead of assuming its contents. Your conclusion is wrong, as usual.

Zanjan wrote: If it starts off as crap, it ends as crap. No need to read the absurdities in the middle. No need for there even to be a study - did you read their brilliant conclusion? As if they were telling us there's something new here -> that children who are raised without religion see differently than children with religion.

Try reading the whole study instead of assuming its contents. Your conclusion is wrong, as usual.

Zanjan wrote: I can certainly believe you think your child is wiser if he chose the same path as you.

He is wiser from investigating into the matter and drawing his own conclusions. One doesn't learn anything if one just accepts something without question.

Zanjan: This paper is a study alright, just NOT a scientific study by any means. It's a survey and utterly useless. Even if they changed its title to reflect what the students actually did, I'd never give it a second thought.

"I know you didn't read it"

"Try reading the whole study instead of assuming its contents."

What I cited in my previous post, I copied directly from the study - those were their own terms; had you read it yourself, you'd have known that. That you accept it, despite its obvious flaws in procedure, doesn't surprise me one bit. I bet you never got past the introduction. Thankfully, you're not in charge of any children!

"drawing his own conclusions"

Which are the same as yours - how accidental!

There's nothing more for me to say on that paper since it quickly lost credibility. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me either if that was a fake website. I'll leave other experienced posters to read it and contribute their own thoughts

orkanen: Zanjan wrote: This paper is a study alright, just NOT a scientific study by any means. It's a survey and utterly useless. Even if they changed its title to reflect what the students actually did, I'd never give it a second thought.

An unverified assertion. It stands as a Scientific study until you demonstrably prove otherwise.

Zanjan wrote: If it starts off as crap, it ends as crap. No need to read the absurdities in the middle.

I suggested you try reading the whole study instead of assuming its contents. I don't care if you copied from what little you read, other claims you made are in contrary to what's in the study.

Zanjan wrote: I HAVE done my own study - that's how I can tell a crap study from a scientifically thorough one.

I'm still waiting for you to present your study, but I'm beginning to believe it's something you made up.

ghostgeek: Jewish children were excluded because several of the stories used in the study are based on the New Testament. Nothing to suggest there were any Muslims but if there were I guess they would have been excluded for the same reason. In other words the study only involved Christians to create a level playing field.

Corwin:

Argue amongst yourselves

Zanjan: So, active Christians as opposed to inactive Christians, right? All Christians, nonetheless.

Does a child of 5-6 or 3 years old understand Christianity? I think most Christians don't understand Christianity, considering even the active ones argue about it.

Corwin: I like hotdogs... they're probably made of questionable substances...but I like them regardless...

.

orkanen: Zanjan wrote: This paper is a study alright, just NOT a scientific study by any means. It's a survey and utterly useless. Even if they changed its title to reflect what the students actually did, I'd never give it a second thought.

What makes it NOT a scientific study? Please explain, I'd love to read your reasoning.

Zanjan wrote: I HAVE done my own study - that's how I can tell a crap study from a scientifically thorough one.

So, where is this study you boasted about? Were you lying about having one?

It seems Corvin, already as a child, understood Christianity. At least according to his own statement.

near50ohoh: the site in the OP is usually fairly reliable for good info

and Corvin wieners and sausages are definitely not full of grade A meat j/s

Zanjan: Well, so are all surveys - problem is, the interpretation can come out any way one prefers, particularly when the questions require the respondent to select from a choice of formatted answers, rather than permit the respondent's own thoughts.

Isn't multiple choice great? My default answer is "none of the above".

near50ohoh: tis true tis true

orkanen: Zanjan wrote: I HAVE done my own study - that's how I can tell a crap study from a scientifically thorough one.

I take from your reluctance to present it, that there is no study with your name on it, that it was just a lie, as well as an effort to degrade the conclusion of the study, concerning the detrimental effect religion has on children.

Zanjan: You're welcome to believe what you wish.

Apparently, you can't figure out anything by your own experience. Instead of using collective studies on all subjects concerning children together with professional training, and applying useful information in the course of working with children, you rely on whatever a couple of students at a university produce that might provide some support for your world view.

orkanen: Let's see here, students, you say?

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/4554034/kathleen-h-corriveau
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/11441981/eva-e-chen
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/4245882/paul-l-harris

Don't look like students to me.

Where is your study, or were you lying about having one?

Zanjan: If you HAVE to do a paper, you're a student on the subject - that's the point, Ork.
Maybe you haven't noticed, not one of them had a Doctoral degree and not one studied theology, philosophy, religious or cultural history.

They work as a team with one supervisor. It's nothing more than a homework assignment, where all students get credit for participating in the experiment - not for coming up with a major discovery to provide the foundation for a thesis, which can be accepted by a board of doctoral peers and which will ultimately be applied in the community.

I'm thinking, when the study was performed, they hadn't brought up any of their own children either and never spent any time working with children in established programs of development.

At the most, they'd spend an hour observing one child once, then move to the next. You do NOT understand a young child in one hour nor will you ever understand that child in an isolated, unfamiliar environment and/or by excluding the parents. Of course, you wouldn't know why that is.

I've been involved with university studies in different fields; they do NOT listen to suggestions. They especially do NOT begin with known facts. They begin with a point they're trying to prove rather than beginning with tests which produce patterns, which they could then study.

Some of these studies are done on government grants (over the summer when school is out) because there are interested third parties, such as big societies, who will supplement the funding and support a specific outcome. Many of them end up going nowhere, except to take its place in a process of elimination.

That said, I've eliminated this as a credible study due to it being highly biased, corrupted and inefficient.

Corwin: I think that an hour would be long enough to tell a fictional fable of magical people to a child, and then ask them if they felt the fictional magical characters were real or not.

Just like if you did a study regarding a certain domograph and their preference towards Coke or Pepsi given a taste-test. If the choice is either A or B then isn't their simple answer enough to establish a conclusion regarding their preference? Would we really need a team of Theologians, Psychologists and Historians to spend weeks with each subject to truly establish whether they "really" preferred Coke over Pepsi?

Now, I will point out that the data collected in Ork's posted study is based on correlation, and doesn't necessarily establish causation... but when we're talking about religious indoctrination that involves convincing children that magical fairy-tale-like beings are real, and then reading them other fictional magical tales and asking if they think THOSE are real too, and compare those results with a test-group of children NOT indoctrinated, and find opposite results.... well... I think causation is very highly suggested in this case.