How religion generates social conservatism

[Pale Blue Dot]

You could make a reasonable case that pencils have a purpose, but pencil shavings just exist. But what about elephants? Religious people and children are, of course, more likely than non-religious adults to say that animals exist for a purpose.

But what about men and women? Black people and whites? Rich and poor? Arab and Jew? Do these exist for a purpose? And is it possible for one to become another? Gil Diesdendruck and Lital Haber of Bar-Ilan University in Israel decided to find out what children think.

They tested 64 Jewish girls and boys aged 7-12 years. Public education in Israel is heavily segregated, and they took half their sample from a secular school and half from an orthodox school. Each child was shown a series of picture pairs - animals (elephants and lions), artefacts (chairs and tables), ethnicity (Arabs and Jews), sex (men and women), race (black and white), and wealth (rich and poor).

They were then shown a little story, in which two dolls discussed whether these different categories exist for a purpose, e.g., ‘‘Danny says that rich people exist for a purpose. Yossi says that rich people exist for no purpose, they just exist”. The children were then asked who was right.

There were big differences between the two groups, shown in the figure here. Orthodox kids were much more likely to say that Arabs and Jews exist for a specific purpose, as do blacks and whites and, revealingly, rich and poor.

In other words, they think that all these types exist because they have a specific role to play, usually mandated by god. You can see here the seed of adult-life social conservatism.

They also asked the kids whether it was possible for one type to become another. Whether an Arab could become a Jew, or a poor person become rich. While they broadly agreed on animals, artefacts, and wealth, orthodox kids were more likely to say that sex, race and ethnicity are fixed (they have 'essential' properties)

http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-religion-generates-social.html

[gratuitous]

1. Did someone get paid for this drivel?

Yikes.

Alternative explanation: Bugfuck insane people mask their insanity by appeals to "religion" without bothering to explain the connection, and they are never pressed on the connection because nobody ever has the background, inclination or access to the bugfuck insane people.

[Christa]

2. Religion does a lot of very bad things

and nothing good.

[immoderate]

3. Yup!

--imm

[serrano2008]

5. Wow, "Religion does...nothing good" is probably the dumbest thing I've heard all week.

Congrats!

[ezgoingrl]

4. I wonder if

the religious kids who didn't apply essential properties to the categories will be more likely to grow up to be less religious than their parents and vice versa for the secular kids who did apply essential properties.