I remember reading such reports as well. I suspect that the tendency toward "anti-social" behaviour is far more complex than such research suggests. For example, a particular behaviour can be read as either social or anti-social depending on the context. I think much of what such studies are measuring is really related to an index of meaning, that is, does the child feel meaningful - does he or she behave as if his or her life has meaning. Since the perception of meaning is something human and not at all limited to religious interpretation, one way of studying the development of a sense of belonging or meaning is through the study of suicide.

There is a wikipedia article on Suicide by Emile Durkheim
and a ppt at isis.ku.dk/kurser/blob.aspx?feltid=202965

Here is a summary statement from the article: "Durkheim believed that the social bond is composed of two factors, which are social integration (attachment to other individuals within society) and social regulation (attachment to society's norms). He believed that suicide rates may increase when extremities in these factors occur." - which suggests that an over-regulated social group would tend to increase the number of suicides, especially if there is no other way out.

One thing I remember from reading around Durkheim was that kids from wealthier classes were more likely to commit suicide than those from poorer classes. Religion really only plays a part as the particular type of faith constructs a sense of belonging and provides a valued place to its young. Of course providing such things is something society does regardless of whether it is religious or not. Some aspects of our society have just been trained to see it as religious, just as some have been trained to see the red leaves in fall as a spirit's art work, instead of as an effect of the break down of green chlorophyll and the presence of anthocyanins.

DWill wrote:This might be as good a place as any to bring up a reputed effect of religion on children. In the literature on child development and what is called "prevention," it is frequently mentioned that participation in "spiritual activities" is protective; that is, according to research, children whose parents have them take part in such groups tend to have fewer problems with adjustment, such as anti-social behavior and drug abuse. I’ve seen the statement made several times, and now I wonder whether research really supports the conclusion. If it does, then I’d need to know what it is about these activities that provides such protection. It’s not a given that the “spiritual” element is the effective part. Something I mean to look into.

Bill, this intuitive suggestion cuts against the argument from Messrs Dawkins and Hitchens that religion is a form of child abuse.

The point is that belonging to a group with a sense of shared identity creates a sense of meaning and direction in life, with opportunities for networking, meeting good role models and mentors, and learning lessons. The absence of such group identity, in the solipsistic atomism of the modern world, produces an anomie and isolated detachment where values can easily become arbitrary, delinquent and distorted. It gets back to an idea in Confucius that when ritual and ceremony are in order then society is in order.

Perhaps the accuracy of the beliefs underpinning ritual is a secondary consideration to its value in establishing community solidarity. We see this in the weekly sermon which generally contains a useful moral lesson which helps people to think about how they could live better. It has been a point of sadness to me that I have not been able to get my children to attend church, (partly also because my own attitudes are so idiosyncratic).

It is fine for the brilliant brights of the world such as Richard Dawkins and CH to find a sense of meaning in the abstract ideas of science, but that is simply not possible for the general population who lack their opportunities, and need to be part of their local community. RD and CH make the best the enemy of the good by setting the social value of religion so far below its epistemic accuracy.

Again, the issue here is to reform religion to make it compatible with a modern world view, retaining the value of social cohesion and making it available to those who cannot hack the baggage of outdated supernatural error.


RT

Dr. King was an ordained minsiter, working pastor and Doctor of Systematic Theology within the Christian faith tradition...hardly side issues or minor interests in his life...he was a founding and leading member of the Southern Leadership Christian Conference- the integral organizational movement behind his Civil Rights efforts...he was profoundly influenced by Ghandi's satyagraha practice of non-violent civil disobedience (the spiritual notion of 'love-force' or 'soul-force')...his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" was written as one disciple of Christ and ordained minister to those many others who disagreed with his Civil Rights efforts- and in that text he offers theological, scriptural and moral reasoning for his efforts that, as he argues, reflect how a child of God must act to injustice...his most influential speeches were full of scriptural reference and metaphor, biblical analogy, moral reasoning and theological reflections...he performed hundreds of sermons in hundreds of churches all across the southern states and many prominent northern locations as well- in these oratorical performances he linked current civil rights efforts to the liberation of Israel out of Egypt, as well as the resurrected Jesus following the cross of imperial Rome...he wrote thousands of letters where he explains his theological reasoning and biblical understanding of his personal mission, the meaning of the civil rights movement for the USA and the world and the destiny of humanity......

Dissident Heart: of course MLK's religion was not a side issue for him. The question is whether he would have been a good person if he had been raised in some other context. Just speculation of course, but I suspect that if he had been raised in a Buddhist household he would have still gotten up against social injustice but his speeches would have used different metaphors and phrasing.

Do you disagree?

Robert Tulip wrote: Bill, this intuitive suggestion cuts against the argument from Messrs Dawkins and Hitchens that religion is a form of child abuse. The point is that belonging to a group with a sense of shared identity creates a sense of meaning and direction in life, with opportunities for networking, meeting good role models and mentors, and learning lessons. The absence of such group identity, in the solipsistic atomism of the modern world, produces an anomie and isolated detachment where values can easily become arbitrary, delinquent and distorted.

I think CH answers his question by saying, in effect, that religion can be child abuse. I would agree that his examples are apt. We get to the problem again, though, of whether CH is blanketing religion with this judgment. I don't think he is. I don't think he'd say that my bringing my children to a Presbyterian Sunday school 15 years ago constituted child abuse. But if he did, I'd have to disagree, and I think not just out of defensiveness. That was quite a mild indoctrination they received. Today, one daughter stills goes to church occasionally and seems to have some feeling toward religion. I am certainly not disappointed in this. The younger daughter never became a church member and says she doesn't believe. I am not disappointed in her, either.

It's as obvious to me as it is to you, Robert, that in this era of "Bowling Alone" (the book by Robert Putnam), any means that may increase our social connectedness are not to be slighted. One natural advantage religion has is its ability to bind people into a community (this is perhaps identical to one of its dangers as well). When Barack Obama arrived in Chicago as a community organizer, virtually the only handle he could get on the community was through the neighborhood churches. The point is often made that it is not religion per se that is responsible for the benefits provided by churches. Secular organizations can produce the same social and individual benefits. True, but if religion is an attractor, that is not a bad thing.

One thing I believe strongly regarding children: you can't just subtract religion due to its problematic aspects and expect children to get what they need "naturally." You certainly can't look to the culture to teach the children. That could be disastrous. If religion is far less than perfect, the culture at large is worse still.

RD and CH make the best the enemy of the good by setting the social value of religion so far below its epistemic accuracy.

I don't see them saying this directly, but this is probably a fair inference. It would be a good point to raise with the author (CH).

MaryL: The question is whether he would have been a good person if he had been raised in some other context.

I think a far more fruitful question, one that gets beyond mere speculation, is: what about his Christian faith motivated and mobilized him to act as he did?

Dr. King was very clear in many ways and on many occasions regarding the integral connections between his passion for justice and discipleship of Christ. King was very much aware of the multiple religious systems and philosophical schools of thought that filled his world: he was deeply influenced by prominent teachers beyond his own tradition. He did not fall into his theory and practice out of cultural habit or familial demand or social necessity (although all played a part)...he made a series of personal decisions that involved careful, critical and intelligent consideration of multiple alternatives. His Christianity was not the same as his father's, nor was it anything like the dominant white churches that controlled much of the south. His faith was steeled in the intellectual furnaces of Socrates, Freud, Marx, Nietzsche and Darwin...as well as the hateful misanthropy of white supremacy...and in direct conflict with American imperial hegemony. And, he makes it clear althruout that he is one link in that ancient Jewish prophetic pathos of social justice and radical revolution...linked as well to that terrible cross two thousand years ago...and carrying on a legacy of hopefilled resurrection.

I don't see how the question I asked is any more speculative than the one you asked. Also they address different points. I don't think many people would say that MLK didn't use his particular belief system in the cause of social justice. I suppose some would argue that his roving masculine eye might count against his professed beliefs, but no one I have ever taken the least bit seriously would say that MLK's Christianity was deeply hypocritical.

What matters to those who argue for or against the need of religious belief to the ability of a person to conduct a moral, committed life, at least in part, is the question of whether MLK's faith (as one instance of this question) was the reason he was so passionate about justice. If it was, then faith is necessary to this kind of social devotion. If it wasn't, then faith is just the metaphor that is used to speak about something deeper than faith. So, like much thought, yes it is speculative, but it is important nevertheless.

Mary L: I don't see how the question I asked is any more speculative than the one you asked.

My question can be answered by reading the voluminous works by King, his closest companions, the journalism of his day, and the last forty plus years of scholarship concerning King, the Civil Rights Movement and African American history...where King's faith is described and shown to be a definitive, integral and essential factor in his life's efforts. There is simply no need for speculation.

DH
My question can be answered by reading the voluminous works by King, his closest companions, the journalism of his day, and the last forty plus years of scholarship concerning King, the Civil Rights Movement and African American history...where King's faith is described and shown to be a definitive, integral and essential factor in his life's efforts. There is simply no need for speculation.

So in your opinion MLK would have amounted to nothing without Christianity?

Dissident Heart wrote:My question can be answered by reading the voluminous works by King...

Your answer only explains MLK's behaviour if you first accept that Christianity was the sole motivator of his social conscience. An example is using quotations of the Bible to "prove" the inerrancy of the Bible.

No one is arguing that Christianity wasn't important to MLK. That is clear based on behavioural evidence. What it doesn't show is that religious belief caused his sense of social justice. All it shows is that he couched his natural sense of justice in the metaphorical terminology of his society.

In a parallel case - Mahatma Gandhi's faith in the multitudinous gods of his background...is being a Hindu necessary for such acts of moral courage?

Another - the Dalai Lama doesn't believe in a personal god...is being a non-believer in a personal god necessary for such acts of moral courage?