Of course, who doesn't love a bit of fear-mongering and cynicism? Even better, physical abuse: fun for the whole family.

What other conclusion could one possibly draw from what I posted? I'm blatantly a twisted individual and that's the only explanation for stating what I stated...
I had essentially the same upbringing. Catholic Sunday school and all.
I never claimed it doesn't play a part in people's life. My claim was more specific to people's psychology.

Going to the toilet every day plays a part in people's life too, but there's certainly no evidence in psychological literature to suggest that going to the toilet 3 times as often has a significant affect on their psychological welfare.

If hell is defined only as permanent separation from God (as it is in mainline Christianity as far as I know) and is taught along with forgiveness and mercy, it is fine to teach kids.

It is better than "when no one is looking, do whatever evil you can get away with because know will know".

Not that many fit that often trotted out troll and i think if anything it says more about the heart of those trotting...

But do whatever you want then ask for sincere forgiveness and all is well, is not better. Hell you dont even have to say sorry to those you hurt, just God. Pretty weak. Not as weak as a eternal judgement on a flawed finite life. But close.

I'd be sympathetic to that conclusion, if we could disregard religious adherence as a factor. That isn't done, and I don't think that is a co-incidence.

Some social science 101: Conclusions in studies like these are inferential, not descriptive. This means they are drawn from the data-set via tests. This means the quality of the conclusion is based on the data-set and the tests performed.

Why is this important? We'll use the former example to explain once more:

Assume you want to do a survey in the US where you want to test your hypothesis that punitive religion is linked to belief in a specific party. You do not include data for which religion your recipients adhere to. You will now (most likely) find that punitivity is linked to conservate politics and the Republican party. However if you include data for which religion, you would (most likely) find that believers in Islam tend to favor the Democratic party.

Similarly, in this study I would like to see that we could ignore the (known) communal trait of Christianity, Islam and Judaism as a factor. You could perhaps argue that it is the punitive element of these religions that have fostered their sense of community, but as you can see - if you go down that road, you have a lot more groundwork to cover.

The study was carried out at 8 different locations. The moralistic, punitive god for each location was: Christian God, Kalpapen (tribal god), Haine (moon god), Bhagwan (Hindu), Shiva (Hindu), Christian God, Buddha Burgan (Buddhism), and the "Bible God" (Christian). The less punitive god was: Tupunus (garden spirit), Ishoku (sun god), nam (spirit), Our Lady of Nazareth (Christian), cher eezi (local god), and Kalou-vu (ancestor god).

Neither Islam nor Judaism are part of this study. Christian gods or saints are represented among both the punitive and less punitive religions. I'm just not seeing this problem you are identifying. If we wanted to isolate out punitive and knowledgeable gods from the effects of a particular religion, this seems like the right way to do it--look at these kind of gods over a variety of different religions and places. This is the study doing the "lot more groundwork to cover" that you are talking about (or at least trying to).

THE FIRST 500 YEARS: In the first five centuries there were six known theological schools. Four of them taught that all men would EVENTUALLY be rescued from Hell: these being the theological schools at Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea and Edessa/Nisbis. One school, Ephesus, taught Annihilationism (that sinners are totally incinerated into nothingness in Hell). Only one theological school, Rome/Carthage taught eternal punishment. Source: The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Universalism Entry, p. 96, Baker Book House.


If that isn't enough for you, I can provide a lot more evidence to buttress my correct assertion.

St Augustine (c.354-43): "There are very many ('imo quam plurimi', which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29)

St. Basil the Great: (c. 329-379): "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." (De Asceticis)

Yeah i dont think you are right that its modern. The above does not counter that. It says eternal punishment was apart of one school. So that more supports its not modern.


Some of the Churches Founding Fathers quotes seem pretty clear. I already knew that there was disagreement and that some even thought all come to the lord...crazy... that cant work there is no out group.

Well, it used to be the predominate method of keeping kids in line. Now, studies have shown that you don't ever need to get physical with a child in order to rear a good productive adult.

And I shouldn't have to go any further than that with Aaron W. I don't have to prove that because teaching about hell can cause trauma in some it's not good for all. The point is, it's wrong simply because it has been shown to be unnecessary.

I saw the article and it doesn't change my view on this. The argument seems to boil down to "it's ok to terrify young children if the outcome is 'good'". Zumby onced asked me 'what's the harm' and I would say that the harm is that young children have been terrified...

Even if I accept that the outcome (our 'civilisation') is good, and frankly I don't, and ignore the many assumptions being made in this hypothesis, then we have some form of consequentialism, it could even be described as Machiavellian, and you've done nothing to support that it's morally right to achieve a goal, even a worthy one, through the use of fear (and who decides what is worthy or desirable?). If so, then presumably this model works in other contexts? Is it ok for me to terrify my children in other non-religious ways, if the end result is a net positive contribution to our society?

Also, we have the viewpoint that for whatever gains we've made because of cooperation as a result of shared religious viewpoints, those same viewpoints have also caused massive harm and have in many ways limited our progress. I understand the arguments suggesting that we have improved our knowledge and made progress because of religions, but I see it differently, I think we have made progress despite religions, not because of them. Religions are also extremely divisive, and much suffering has resulted from this, as well as the expenditure of much energy that could have been usefully directed elsewhere.


'Generally thought to be immoral'... and yet there are many easy to find examples of when it's not. It's such a grey area that I think the best we've ever come up with is some form of 'it depends on why you're lying'.

I doubt that 'many people think it is okay to lie to children' is true, but that some form of what I said might be, that many parents will lie if they believe that they are doing it for a good reason, but not simply because they think it's ok to lie to their kids whenever they feel like it, about anything.

Sorry, but the research methodology in this paper is of the same type that proves that ice cream leads to drowning.

There is absolutely no reason to infer indirectly what could so easily have been controlled for directly. That the results might be skewed by certain religions having a greater tendency towards being communal (and possibly also international) is not even controversial. Even the linked paper itself quotes that these religions have been shown to be more communal and with a stronger sense of cohesion.

If researchers want to put forth strong inferential claims, they need strong data and they need properly skeptical analyses.

And we have even gotten to the really strong criticisms. How did they arrive at the claimed causation? Couldn't communal religions have a greater tendency towards growing punitive? How did they show the relevance of studying modern day religion in a game setting to making claims about the earliest civilizations? What religions specifically do they propose lead to bigger and more complex civilizations? What do they actually know about the punitivity of religions at the dawn of the neo-lithic revolution, given that writing came about some 6000 years later? I mean, there are limits to what you can infer from archaeological evidence.

So, no... sorry. The study is very speculative. It is interesting speculation, but that is all.

This is an even worse hard line position to take. The jump from "unnecessary" to "wrong" encompasses even more things (positive things can be unnecessary, too).

Really, it seems you want to hold so hard to your desired conclusion that you're willing to accept any rationale, despite the very obvious flaws. And I see Mightyboosh has jumped into the conversation, so I guess you're in good company.

Mightboosh is spot on in his analysis. Seems like an educated, level-headed, free-thinker that we need more of in this world.

Not sure if this is ironic or ill-informed. But hang around a while or search through his old posts.

I was going to edit my post to say this same thing, but got caught up with something. Yes, I need to put an *** by my post that says:

***However, I have had no previous interactions with him and I do not know about his previous posts or thoughts, so it is only based off of this one post.

Your response seems to be that even if you accept all the assumptions made in the argument, well, you would still have to accept consequentialism. Yep. You think that is the poison pill that will cause people to reject this argument?

Okay. Making any kind of broad historical claim is very difficult. Here's my goal in posting this article. There are a few strongly anti-religious people on this forum, of which you are one. It seems to me that in the background are some hasty generalizations from a few real harms brought about by modern religion (eg anti-evolution, anti-birth control, some aspects of modern terrorism, etc), to a general claim that religion has historically been a net negative for humanity.

I have argued for skepticism about such claims. The purpose of bringing up this study is to identify a specific benefit that might have come from religion. I don't think it will convince you that religion is a net positive for humanity. But it should make it more difficult to argue that it is a net negative.

So how would you have constructed the study so that it controlled directly for religion?

EDIT: This is a genuine question--I don't know much about social science methods.

Okay, so let me end this by admitting my error. Instead of saying wrong, I should have simply substituted the word unnecessary. So:

No. It is not wrong. But it is unnecessary. And in my opinion should be avoided because it could have damaging effects on some children lasting well into adulthood and even an entire lifetime.

Better?

It's not that I want to hold so hard to my conclusion. Show me evidence for an alternative conclusion and I'll change mine. But you don't do that. Instead, you circle threads like a vulture looking for any hole to pick at on other people's views and ideologies. Try offering your own once in a while or at least provide reasons for a counter view instead of just nibbling at inconsequentiality.

Okay.

The question of "necessity" doesn't seem to help. As I noted, there are also good things that are unnecessary. So the standard of necessary or not does not seem to provide any insight.

Similarly, the notion that something "could" have a damaging effect on "some" is also not a useful standard. There are some for whom peanuts can cause serious harm, but that would not make it something to be avoided for all children.

So while you are welcome to your opinion, there still doesn't really seem any compelling reason to accept your opinion as providing a particularly meaningful or useful framework for decision-making.

Read OrP's OP. There is at least some evidence to suggest that moral thought that includes the existence of a punitive God promotes pro-social behaviors.

I'd also suggest that the existence of unnecessary things that are good is excellent evidence to reject the idea that the necessary/unnecessary as a reason to avoid/not avoid something is far from a meaningful framework.

You're the one who engaged me. You came in claiming that teaching children that hell is real is "tantamount to abuse." You even defended it with the Jabberwok analogy. And now you've taken that position and completely unwound it to something completely different than what you came in with.

I even warned you about the trajectory you were taking in Post #41:

Cry all you want, but you're the one who stepped in it and kept stepping in it.

Lastly, I think this *is* consequential. I have no doubt that before you engaged this conversation, you really did believe that teaching children that hell is real is a form of child abuse*. Such a position is incredibly hard to defend, and I hope you see that now. I think it is wrong to claim that teaching children that hell is real is child abuse, and that holding such an attitude is both ignorant and prejudicial. I hope you don't continue to believe what you claimed to believe at the start of this thread.

* Edit: Why? Because claiming X is child abuse is not an accusation that should be made lightly. And I'd rather think that you believed wrong about this particular instance than think that you would make such an accusation flippantly.

Yes, because I don't think the result justifies terrifying young children, the end doesn't always justify the means. There's a big step between accepting that something has, or has had, a benefit to our society and deciding that this makes it morally 'right'.

Take capital punishment as a counter example. Presumably it still exists because it has a net positive effect on the societies that still employ it but do you consider it morally right to kill people as a punishment? Or what about corporal punishment, do you believe that it's morally right to inflict pain on young children in order to instill discipline, even though it has obvious benefits?

If you do (although I think that unlikely in both cases) I'll keep going to until I find a context in which this model breaks and then I'll try to determine why there's an apparent inconsistency.


Your examples don't include the impact of having religious views that I most dislike it for, and that's the way it inhibits our learning and progress. Right now, a significant percentage of the human population don't believe that some of our greatest scientific breakthroughs are true, entirely because of their religious beliefs. Right now in the US (and this matters for the whole planet), the GOP candidacy is going to go to the guy who can best assure the fundamentalist right that their Christian values and beliefs will be protected. Trump could actually end up being president because of religion, an issue that shouldn't even have been mentioned in the entire process.

No, it doesn't change anything for me because I've long understood the benefits of having beliefs that unite us, I strongly lean towards the idea that it was an evolutionary adaptation. But it doesn't tip the scales in favour of it having been a net positive despite all the suffering it causes because many other behaviours have also contributed to our 'success' as a species. It's possible that we could have arrived where with are entirely without religion. Perhaps our society would actually be better if it hadn't happened.

In any case, we no longer need it and it is now something that prevents us uniting, to a level that is now a credible threat to our continued survival. Does that now make it morally wrong to terrify young children while instilling these beliefs?

Religious people should be able to mention and bring their values and issues into the political process. Its fine to challenge them but trying to stifle them by saying they should stfu and keep their values out of the political process... is pretty bad.

The experiment would be be pretty much the same. In the survey I would include categorical questions for what religion (if any) the participant belongs too, later I'd likely code several categories together for the analysis part (fewer variables tend to give more solid comparative analyses in small data-sets).

Then in the analysis section I would perform an analysis that allows me to how much these different variables explain of the variance ("if this changes, does that tend to change" and "if this and this changes, how much do these comparatively tend to change in accordance with that").

Some assumptions:


The nature of the data-sets (both categorical and continuous independent variables, and continuous dependent variables) leans us towards a type of very common form of analysis called multiple regression analysis. This type of analysis is popular in medical and economical research, since it allows for easy comparison of how multiple independent variables contribute towards the dependent variable.

It's a straightforward analysis to read and understand. You run it once with only "punitivity" as an independent variable, then you run it again with "punitivitity" and any suspected confounding variables as independent variables, and you see if the explanatory factor of "punitivity" drops. If it drops significantly, you should suspect confounding variables and adjust your conclusions accordingly - pending on your data-set, you can perform other tests to explore these relationships more fully.

Note that it's been some good years since I have done quantitative work, I'm sure there are many other ways to go about this - but this is a fairly basic one that shouldn't raise eyebrows anywhere.

As always, conclusions regarding causality can't and should never rest on this type of analysis alone. We have a descriptive data-set and I]assumed [/I] relationships of the variables. We then build our little model of the world with these intellectual legos and proceed to claim it is sufficiently similar. And even in this little model world, our technique does not allow us to on its own say anything about what actually causes what in the model, only if the proposed causal relationship is plausible in it.

Parts of that last section is what social science researchers often tend to forget, sadly.

A fine straw man. Firstly, I'm not talking about 'religious people', I'm talking about the candidates themselves. Second, no one said anyone had to 'stfu and keep their values out of the political process', what I think is that a candidate's religious beliefs are irrelevant to their suitability for high level political office and that they shouldn't be pandering to the religious beliefs of voters simply to get elected, especially in a country where there is a constitutional separation of church and state, where the government is literally not allowed to appear to promote one religion over another.

There are many countries, including mine, where elections take place and no one knows what the religious beliefs of the candidates are. It's simply not an important issue. In the US, this issue could decide the presidency and a narcissistic moron could end up being president, thanks mainly to religion.

They should get to bring their religious values into it too. In fact if they hold them id like to know them.


That would be an opinion some disagree with and one they are entitled to disagree with.

And no you did say the should not be mentioned.


"an issue that shouldn't even have been mentioned in the entire process."

I disagree.
They should be able to express religious beliefs. Even if they do it in a pandering way just to get elected.

This should not stop them from mentioning their religious views.

Since religious beliefs are a big part of many candidates lives here, not knowing them or the influence they might have is not the way to go.

I want to know.

Yeah democracy and freedom, what are ya going to do.

Despair.