• kdawson
    +5

    The use of the word 'garbage' makes me think that your mind is made up and this makes your opinion questionable.

    • Appaloosa
      +3

      From the comments section of the study itself. Forget about the religious or atheist view point. This commentor questioned the methodology.

      "This is a copy of what I posted in a previous group, where a derrogotory post was made against theists (so ignore the apologetics information and look at the experimental critique instead please):

      This is a response to an anti-theist (due to the caricature and purposefully denigrating ridicule given by this person towards religions in his comments.) post from a member of this group. The study this poster refers to is the following: http://www.theguardian.com/…/religious-children-less-altrui… I am aware of a substantial atheist presence in this group (in fact, several have argued with me), but if the common mis-attribution of "reason" is a common descriptor that is true of the group, then a real experimental critique by another scientist should not be denied. My rebuttal: A flawed pseudo-scientific study from a known anti-theist. 1.) The study itself makes the arbitrary link between giving stickers out "the dictator game", and altruism. Many factors, such as S.E.S. (not wanting to give away belongings), cultural indicators, demand characteristics, and framing effect, all can come into play with this flawed methodology questionably chosen by the lead researcher, Jean Decety, an atheist. 2.) As someone in the mental health field, I squirm when I see studies like this by neuroscientists and evolutionairy psychologists, out of their area of expertise (ethics/philosophy). I know very well the majority of scientific literature points out that religion is a protective factor, I also see it in practice. On the other hand, high suicide rates are to be found in those with an atheistic worldview, which is linked to self-esteem, and the view of others. I'm sure most people understand the link between self-esteem, altruism, and view of others. Thus, this study contradicts what other studies show and imply, and the head of researchers is a known anti-religionist, just like the O.P. I responded to. 3.) The sample size was too small, especially for the non-religious, and though the lead researchers said the object of the study may not require this, the conclusion that he and the journalists arrived to does... Further, if not, then why was religious belief even a variable in the study that was published, and not simply ignored (as far as publishing a study goes)? Smells fishy (red herring fishy). 4.) Were these sample sizes random, and if random, why were the massive differences in S.E.S. and culture not adequately accounted for that surge from randomization? 5.) The lead researcher is an anti-theist, and anyone can see this by looking at his twitter feed and recent interview about the study. 6.) The confounding variables of multi-cultural differences and S.E.S. were not accounted for (considering the dictator game is largely an economic study, with an arbitrary and contested assumption that it measures altruism). 7.) The conclusion that Decety gave in the interview, and other journalists covering this study, with an anti-theist worldview, of morality being compatible with atheism, is not proven in this study in any sense... That is a philosophical assumption (ethics - a metaphysical branch). 8.) Of course, how the dictator game can be considered to measure objectively, and empirically, altruism, needs to be substantiated first of all.

      9.) Contrary to the original dictator game, money was not given, but ca...

      Read Full
      • [Deleted Profile]

        [This comment was removed]