Teens, Suicide, Fatalism, and Religion
by MikeGeneExcerpts from:
Unrealistic fatalism in U.S. youth ages 14 to 22: prevalence and characteristics.
Jamieson PE, Romer D.
J Adolesc Health 2008 Feb;42(2):154-60.
Approximately 1 out of every 15 youth interviewed (6.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.9%, 7.5%) responded that they agreed they would not live much past the age of 30.
Fatalistic youth engaged in greater suicidal planning, had more accepting attitudes toward suicide, were less attached to religion, and were more impulsive than other youth.
Youth who were more religious, both in identifying with a religion and attending services, were significantly less likely to be fatalistic, an effect that remained in the model despite controlling for suicide acceptance. In addition to not accepting suicide, religion may also act as a buffer against fatalism because it provides reasons for living that may help to counteract stressors that trigger feelings of hopelessness about the future [30"“32].
April 26th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Did they also investigate if a belief in Santa Clause makes children happier?
Comment by Raevmo — April 26, 2008 @ 4:54 am
April 26th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Good argument for pretending God exists.
Comment by The Pixie — April 26, 2008 @ 5:44 am
April 26th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Raevmo:
What sort of pathetic statement is that? Apparently religion has a positive effect on preventing suicide and you prop up your post with sheer nonsense! Rather than post something interesting in response, you ridicule instead. Fits the 'new atheist' agenda I suppose.
Comment by Jean — April 26, 2008 @ 8:16 am
April 26th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Please try reading for comprehension. It was a question, not a statement.
Please note too that the study apparently found a positive correlation, it did not demonstrate a positive causal effect (since randomized double blind experiments are difficult to achieve in this context). But even if the effect were real, what would be its relevance? Would it prove that God exists? Would it outweigh the damage done by religiously motivated suicide bombers?
Comment by Raevmo — April 26, 2008 @ 9:54 am
April 26th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Just putting a question mark on it didn't make it interrogative. It was a statement.
Very telling one as well. Nicely done. Pixie, too.
Good on science defenders.
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 10:06 am
April 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Pez
I am going to guess this is sarcasm (apologies if not), in which case: Do you think there is anything more we can learn from the study about beliefs and behavior? Do you think it offers any evidence at all that religion is right?
I would agree with you that Raevmo's comment was a statement, but I think it makes a good point. Does belief in a benevolent, but non-existent entity make people happy? I imagine yes. We do not know if God exists, but whether he exists or not, we could predict that people who think He exists will be happier. This article says nothing about the existence of God. But it does say that thinking God exists is good. Therefore there is an argument for pretending to our children that God exists, so as to dupe them into believing it, and so make then less likely to commit suicide.
Or is the whole point to let religious folks get a warm feeling of self-satisfaction?
Comment by The Pixie — April 26, 2008 @ 11:01 am
April 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hi The Pixie,
I'm not sure if it's exactly sarcasm or not. Nicely done in showing your colours, interest and allegiance with your sarcasm.
Does it show if religion is right? Of course not.
Did you think for a moment what it does show? What the point of the quote might be? Or did you just kick against religion as naturally as you could?
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 11:09 am
April 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Pez
Sorry, I noticed a formatting error in my post, and ending up doing a major edit while you were replying, so you might not have read most of my last post.
Yes I did think about what the quote said for well over a moment. Perhaps you can point out what the point of it is, apparently it went over my head.
Comment by The Pixie — April 26, 2008 @ 11:15 am
April 26th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Hi Raevmo,
Are you suggesting that the findings of science are irrelevant? Given the fact the scientists like Richard Dawkins are trying to link a religious upbringing with child abuse, and philosophers like Daniel Dennett liken religious people to drunk drivers, it would help to tone down the emotional rhetoric and consider what science has to offer.
Of course not. But it is evidence that religion may act as a buffer against fatalism and suicide. In fact, another scientific study converges on the same finding:
And:
Given that Dennett asserts "It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion," should we include the scientific evidence that indicates atheism might be a risk factor for suicide?
Suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States"¦..Teen suicide was the 3rd leading cause of death among young adults and adolescents 15 to 24 years of age
Do you have any scientific evidence that religion is a causal factor for suicide bombings? How about a scientific study that attempts to show a correlation between religion and suicide bombing?
Comment by MikeGene — April 26, 2008 @ 11:24 am
April 26th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Hi Pixie,
To pretend that God exists one would have to know or believe that God does not exist. So this would be a good argument for atheist parents who wanted their children to believe God exists.
But it's not just risk for suicide. There is also plenty of scientific evidence that shows religiosity among teens to have a protective effect against many social ills. As just one example:
Comment by MikeGene — April 26, 2008 @ 11:44 am
April 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
This experiment raises questions I'd like to see answered in a follow-up experiment.
1) Correlate religion with other socioeconomic factors. If religious people are on average in a different socioeconomic group than non-religious people then its possible that socioeconomic factors might have a higher correlation.
2) Correlate child suicide rates with stability of the family unit while selecting controls against religion. If stable atheist families have the same rate as stable religious families you might find family unit structure and/or stability might have a larger correlation that religion.
Studies centered around simple correlation are notoriously tricky to read meaning into and are often abused for political means. Correlation alone does not show cause and effect. I am not one to claim religion has no positive value, but it is my opinion that the positive values bestowed by religion can be replicated through secular means once the cause-effect mechanisms are understood.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 26, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
3 weeks ago today my little brothers best friend killed himself. Thats right a 17 year old kid. Guess what his views on God were. "Well he doesnt exist". Being a depressed kid, atheism was his crutch. He believed that since we are just on this earth for a spec of time and we will all die "Why does it matter when we die" It basically saves time and suffering from other tradegies in life, why would he want to experience those. In his eyes life was worthless and meaningless. So go ahead shove your atheism down our youths throats and laugh as the statistics go up! Yet these are most likely the same people will die before there is any talk of religion in school. Thats right teach the youth life is worthless and see what happens.
Comment by gore — April 26, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
gore,
I'm sorry for the loss of your brother's friend, but Atheism has nothing to do with teaching that life is worthless. Atheist is not nihilism. Our lives being brief and final makes it all the more important that we savor the time we have. I don't need the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of eternal reward to give my life meaning.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 26, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Todd B,
..I have to ask, have you read many atheist philosophers? Do you think this 'there is no God, humanity is just robotic meat, we all are condemned to eternal death, and it's hard or impossible to justify living' concept is a theistic talking point? It's the conclusion of multiple atheists, not all of them depressed kids.
A better question to ask would be: Can anyone, coming from the starting point of atheism, argue why these statistics are even negative, or something that needs to be addressed?
Because these comrades, by killing themselves young, rob the worker's paradise of due labor?
Because these citizens, by causing distress in those close to them, are disruptive traitors to our glorious nationalist state?
Because these children, with the proper adjustments, could have been a net-gain of pleasure and happiness for our and their utilitarian goals?
Because these students, with the proper education, could have provided additional man- or brainpower to support our scientific pursuits?
Really - a 15 year old walks up and says, "I'm going to kill myself tomorrow. I agree with Schopenhauer, Russell, and other philosophers in regarding life as an objectively meaningless, doomed, and even painful exercise. I want no part of it." On what grounds is their act, even their inclination, regarded as a mistake and an objective wrong? Because 'Well, I disagree, but that's my subjective view' isn't exactly persuasive.
Comment by nullasalus — April 26, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Mike
Atheist parents who wanted their children to believe God exists do not need the argument, they are already doing it.
Pez thinks I have missed the point. Can you clarify what exactly is the point here? Are you advocating religion? Are you trying to show why theists are superior to atheists? What?
Comment by The Pixie — April 26, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Thanks nullasalus, couldn't have said it better myself. The bottom line is that we should be helping children to embrace and love life, and not see it as meaningless.
Comment by gore — April 26, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Mike asks:
We need only look at the reality of who does the dying and who orders the hits to answer these questions. The terrorists who run the show do not have their sons or brothers commit terrorist bombings. The people who actually pull off the acts are generally recruited and manipulated. Islam is used as a manipulative tool. The leaders of terrorists groups have much in common with the leaders of organized crime. Let the sons of other parents do the dying- that's their MO.
Comment by Bradford — April 26, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
My solution was to teach my children to respect all views because everyone has to find their own truth.
I told them I believed the purpose of life is to love and to learn.
All of my children had to decide for themselves whether or not Santa Claus was real.
I made no secret of my religious beliefs which doesn't include a supernatural caretaker.
When one of my children challenged me to read the Bible when she was young I agreed and read it out loud to her for several nights in a row. When she got disinterested, I continued to read it to myself (she was aware that I did).
We did take the children to a church for a while (Unitarian Universalists). This allowed us to connect with local support groups which we did. The family lost interest in going to church every Sunday, but we still give quite a bit of money to its charities. Our children know this too.
Are children were free to explore their friends' religion. We freely talked about their experiences. However, one of our children was from my wife's previous marriage. My wife's ex-husband is a devote Christian who happens to relish in the biblical prescription "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church "“ he himself being the savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Of course, he expected similar obedience from his off-spring. Our jointly-shared daughter isn't dumb she understood that belief wasn't optional. Either she believed, or she lost her father. She was the exception to the free and open religious discussions. After she turned 18, she quietly became an atheist.
All my children grew up understanding they were responsible for their own life, including their own happiness.
I am proud to say that their use of crutches, either of the religious or pharmaceutical kind, was at a minimum. Not because the crutches were unreasonably withheld, but because it was their choice.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 26, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
TP,
"That is your choice," TP says to the 15 year old.
And so, one explanation is offered up for the correlation in statistics.
Comment by nullasalus — April 26, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
TP
What about the 'Truth" that life is meaningless and suicide is the best option or the "view" that they will not make it past 30.
Did you teach them to respect such views while you were expressing pride that they had no religious "crutches" ?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 26, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
If the same correlations were found among Scientologist teens, what would be the conclusion? Indeed what if Scientologists scored better overall?
Comment by JackT — April 26, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
JackT,
The same response as ever, I suppose - examine why that's the case, what influences within scientology were yielding those results.
I'm a Catholic, but I have zero problem looking to mormons, buddhists, or otherwise for examples. I think many religious, even orthodox types, are the same way; it's not like there's nothing new to learn.
Comment by nullasalus — April 26, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Maybe this need for religion demonstrates the evolutionary process is pushing our species towards spirituality. And the survival of the fittest will end up being the religious ones.
I guess this may mean Dawkins et al are evolutuionary dead ends.
Comment by willo — April 26, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Sure, religion can offer comfort and have a beneficial effect on someone's life. And indeed, I know from personal experience that it can be very difficult to realize that this life is all we've got, and to accept that when we die, we vanish forever. No soul, no nothing. It might well be that this has some effect on fatalism among teenagers. But I think the effect is very weak compared to other cultural and socio-economic factors (as Todd also pointed out). In the study Mike cited, being Hispanic had a considerably stronger effect on fatalism than religion. Moreover, only the highly religious (not the moderately) were significantly less fatalistic. Note also that the suicide rate among US males (but not females) is higher than the rate in the "workers paradise" where I come from, even though we are far less religious. Have you considered that the hatred and ill treatment from believers that atheists in the US have to suffer might be a contributing factor? This on CNN today:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US...
Even if religion would somehow reduce the risk of suicide among our children, I don't see that as reason to teach them religious lies. For a little perspective, let us also not forget that the Commander In Chief believes Jesus wanted him to invade Iraq, thus causing death and destruction among millions of innocent people.
Comment by Raevmo — April 26, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Hi Nullasalus and Fifth Monarchy Man,
Well now that I have offered my honest and open description of how my wife and I dealt with four data points of the statistics. Not, unexpectedly, my offer was met with hostility and rejection.
Are we to presume that your approaches are normal and appropriate whereas the approach my wife and I took were not?
Recently, you stated "I have zero problem looking to mormons, buddhists, or otherwise for examples". Is this attitude ok for your children too or did you insist they be indoctrinated in your beliefs first?
My step-daughter is on her way to getting her PhD is philosophy. We have a lot of discussions concerning religion. The prevailing thought is that statistically the benefit of religion is due to belonging to a social group.
With that in mind, I wonder if the survey had "atheism" listed as separate from none-of-the-above.
In the one nation, under God, trusting in God there is a tendency to treat someone who doesn't profess belief as lacking philosophical and/or ethical principles (biasedly equated to "no religion").
In short…
1. The survey was probably biased by not taking teen socialization activities into account. Todd and Raevmo suggest other contributing factors that might have been ignored because of conformational bias.
2. Teens who are religiously undecided are often pressured by making them feel that something is wrong with them. Even to the point of worrying that they might commit suicide. Which, of course, would increase their tendency to do so by suggestion and/or low self esteem.
3. Brainwashing a child into believing that committing suicide will result in an everlasting hell that is worse than continuing to live would undoubtedly lower the statistical events. However, is the cure worth the cost?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 26, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Question Raevmo
How is it that Materialistic evolution even allows for theism and then incredibly selects those spiritual individuals as the fittest??
Comment by willo — April 26, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Raevmo:
More presuppositions from someone who claims to have none.
Comment by Jean — April 26, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Raevmo:
That's your own personal belief, nothing more.
One soldier. This is a country of more than 300,000,000. The USA is a good place for atheists to live. I know because I live here and know atheists who live very well and who are content. One case makes for poor inductive conclusions applicable to a nation this large.
But if it is news you are looking for, this type of thing is much more common on planet earth:
http://www.salememail.com/spec...
Comment by Bradford — April 26, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Willo:
I've never heard of Materialistic evolution. What do you mean by that, and why is theism incompatible with it?
Religious ideas are not genetically encoded as far as I know, so the fitness of "spiritual" individuals may be a bad predictor of the long-term fate of the ideas. Cultural evolution (with lots of horizontal transfer) and genetic evolution (mostly vertical inheritance) have quite different dynamics.
Comment by Raevmo — April 26, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
From the article,
"Religion brings comfort to a lot of people," he said. "Personally, I don't want it or need it. But I'm not going to get down on anybody else for it."
So is this a role model for you, Raevmo? Or is the image presented one of those people Dawkins and the rest have dismissively, or even angrily referred to as the 'Chamberlains'?
I'm surprised that all of the anti-religion types in this thread won't address the topic. Apparently, there is a link between an embrace in an atheistic worldview, and suicides/some normally considered 'negative' behavior.
Assuming this holds - and the logic seems reasonable - what should be done? Should anything be done? Hell, should this be viewed as 'something that atheists should discourage'? If so, why?
After all, the theist response is obvious; "It's one thing religion provides for, combats, and allows us to see as objectively bad."
TP,
Hostility? Where? I simply stated what your position was in answer to my own question. 'That's up for them to decide.' Obviously I disagree, but what - you believed otherwise?
Naturally I reject your position. And your reject mine. I'm not about to cry about it - even if, frankly, your clinging to Orch-OR (Which Hameroff outright argues leads to a 'secular spirituality' tantamount to scientific proof that the soul exists, and Penrose connects to a belief in the Platonic realm) forever drives a wedge between you and the atheists you imagine as 'on your side'.
Children are 'indoctrinated into beliefs' one way or the other, even if they're taught 'you must make all decisions on your own'. A feral child receives an indoctrination.
I certainly haven't suggested that all children should be raised to believe in God. On the contrary, I think such decisions should be left to their parents, until a particular age. And frankly, even before that day comes - between television, the internet, other people, and so on - a parents' teachings will be one of a variety children encounter. Weighted vastly towards 'hostile to religion' nowadays, in the most mainstream media.
One more time: The idea that a strongly atheistic, hope-rejecting worldview leads to despair is not an apologist invention. There are atheist philosophers, prominent ones, who argue the same - some of whom question what justification there can be to living. It seems that they aren't the only ones connecting those dots, and carrying the logic out to its expected conclusion. So far the response to this information has been (in this thread) 'try switch the topic to denigrating religion even further, and ignore the problem or pass it off as preferable to any alternative'.
At the end of the day, there's a question about what atheism promotes, and what atheistic conclusions lead to. So far, the response here is 'The answer to any apparent negative effect of atheism is to scream about how horrible religion is'. Color me unimpressed.
Comment by nullasalus — April 26, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Jean:
You are a liar. I have never claimed that.
Comment by Raevmo — April 26, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Nullasalus:
Suicide is not objectively bad. Religious folks have a habit of talking about objective morals, but they have no evidence that objective morals exist. It must be comforting to believe so, so you don't have to make difficult decisions on your own but instead simply follow the leader (like the infallible pope). Is it objectively bad for a dying person who is in terrible pain to end her life? I don't think so.
Comment by Raevmo — April 26, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
I directly addressed the topic of a survey which claims "Youth who were more religious, both in identifying with a religion and attending services, were significantly less likely to be fatalistic…".
It is you who is bringing in side issues.
Again…
In short"¦
1. The survey was probably biased by not taking teen socialization activities into account. Todd and Raevmo suggest other contributing factors that might have been ignored because of conformational bias.
2. Teens who are religiously undecided are often pressured by making them feel that something is wrong with them. Even to the point of worrying that they might commit suicide. Which, of course, would increase their tendency to do so by suggestion and/or low self esteem.
3. Brainwashing a child into believing that committing suicide will result in an everlasting hell that is worse than continuing to live would undoubtedly lower the statistical events. However, is the cure worth the cost?
You wrote…
After all this time have you missed the point I HAVE NO SIDE. I am an independent thinker. While I have a tendancy to reject the notion of a caretaker deity, I have come to except the possiblity of consciousness through interconnected quantum effects.
Now, do I have a religion?
Do I believe in God?
Am I an Atheist?
Which side am I on?
I think it is the responsibility of a parent to raise a child to become a responsible, self assured individual. Yes, I add a minor twist, my children are quite capable of questioning beliefs and strongly defending their one, even in conflict with my beliefs.
I am quite comfortable that no child of mine will fall victim to dangerous group think, regardless of whether in the form of Christian crusaders or godless communists.
And, yes, I am proud of them.
All the more reason to focus early on teaching them to fight group think by having them think for themselves.
Maybe, but I suggest it is irrelevant to the survey that is the subject of this thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 26, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Raevmo said "Even if religion would somehow reduce the risk of suicide among our children, I don't see that as reason to teach them religious lies."
Good point, lets load the gun and hand it to them also! I guess this answers a question posed by nullasalus earlier which was "Can anyone, coming from the starting point of atheism, argue why these statistics are even negative, or something that needs to be addressed?"
From your response you basically say its better to let them do it than tell them anything about religion. Or maybe I should just use this other quote of his "Suicide is not objectively bad". So because of your assumption of religion, makes all religious belief a lie? I would rather have someone live to spread the word of scientology than to have them end it all because they see it as pointless, If you give somebody something to live for, isn't that good enough? I guess some people just dont see it that way. Wait till you lose somebody that is way too young And this athiest philosophy, see how great it feels. I am not writing this out of what any silly article says, I say this from personal experience of having to hold my brother in the worst state I could ever immagine him in.
Comment by gore — April 26, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
No, I'm being observant. Remarkable how atheist zealots stick the liar label on someone they don't agree with.
It's implicit from your writings. You state something as fact, rather than admit it to be a personal opinion only, grounded in nothing but faith. You deny your presuppositions, willingly.
Comment by Jean — April 26, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Hi Gore,
You wrote…
The loaded gun analogy was inevidable.
In a world full of guns, you teach your children how to use them as early as possible.
Once again, I argue the survey does NOT demonstrate atheists are more prone to killing themselves. It is lost, ungrounded teenagers that are vulnerable.
Trust me, my children weren't going to kill themselves. I was concerned that one of them was going to mouth off once too often and get herself killed, but it wouldn't have been by her own hand.
Teaching children to use their guns only when instructed to do so (and where to point it), puts way too much power into hands of people like Pol Pot, Hitler, St. Cyril, etc, etc, etc, …
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 26, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
TP,
'The effects of atheism on worldview and life' is a side issue? Your enumerated responses are 'Maybe the survey is wrong (fair enough, but what if it's right? Hence my questions)', 'Anecdotal postulating (again, fair enough, but still far from the main thrust of the issue)' and 'Oversimplification bordering on strawman'.
You don't think Raevmo's "Okay, maybe religion does give people a worldview that combats suicidal thoughts, but Bush got us into Iraq and he believes in God" claim is a side-issue? Or, wait - is that issue so important that it's never a side issue?
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
Actually, I've got the point loud and clear - the problem is you scream 'I am an independent thinker', and what I get is 'TP insists he is an independent thinker'. I just happen to think it's a bunch of hooey.
You ask me what side you're on now, and when I point out your past claims, you'll claim you never hid your thoughts and attachments. I'm not interested in exploring your psychology further - I continue to be amused at the continued inability of 'free thinkers' to, well. Think freely.
It has to be, doesn't it? After all, in a survey where religious belief is correlated with a resistance to negative behaviors and suicide, and lack of belief or atheism is correlated to a likelihood of said issues, what relevance is whether the lack of belief correlates to such behaviors?
Let's not talk about that question. Hits a little too close to home.
Comment by nullasalus — April 26, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
TP wrote "Once again, I argue the survey does NOT demonstrate atheists are more prone to killing themselves. It is lost, ungrounded teenagers that are vulnerable."
Once again I argued "I am not writing this out of what any silly article says, I say this from personal experience of having to hold my brother in the worst state I could ever immagine him in."
I am glad you sound like a supportive parent. My point is and basically has been that its a crutch. In this experience I am speaking of, the kid was depressed, I am not saying he was an extreme athiest. As I have said his atheism was a crutch to an already depressed person. and as beautifuly as Ravemo put it "Suicide is not objectively bad". SO this philosophy to a person who is already depressed is not a good combo.
Comment by gore — April 26, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Hi The Pixie,
As you see, Mike did just that in the comment right after yours.
Oh, I see you still didn't get it.
Did you? 'Nuff said.
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
Actually only my first enumerated response was questioning the validity of the survey.
The second point presumed the survey was accurate as stated and I suggested a cause. A cause that was different than the one you are suggesting.
My third point presumed that your leap in logic was correct but suggested the cure might be worse than the disease.
I believe Raevmo strayed off topic, but he didn't address his comment to me. You, on the otherhand, made a blanket "I'm surprised that all of the anti-religion types in this thread won't address the topic." I took it as a challenge to respond, which I did.
Doesn't it bother you that we agree on many things?
You are probably one of a handful of people who are tolerant of my Quantum Quack ramblings.
Do you question my ability to defend my opinions?
By all means, dredge up of my past comments. At one time I insisted that God played dice and, therefore, randomness came from Quantum Mechanics. Joy led me to data that convinced me to change my mind.
I believe that I think for myself, but am willing to have even that challenged. In fact, that is why I post here. To test the quality of my understanding.
So, by all means, give it your best shot.
You skipped the three points again. The survey only talked about a lack of belief. The question of relevance is to Atheism, not lack of belief.
Is this a plea not to talk about it? Ok, then don't talk about it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 26, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
TP,
No. Why should I care? My problem with you comes down to what I consider - get ready for it - shield bashing. Twists of logic and reasoning, spin doctoring. Particularly the spin doctoring.
It means nothing to me. I've defended Allen MacNeill from charges I thought were unfair, even though I have a very low opinion of his methods and reasoning. My main contributions at UD lately have been defending Darwinism from what I think are false charges - and I'll go after an "intellectual ally" if I see a problem. Not that I'm a saint, but I think my track record is fine here.
Why? I'm more interested in the thread topic than your psychology.
You claim you have no sides, yet you'll admit that you post with advancing your causes in mind. You've done it in the past - that's enough for me. I don't care if anyone else agrees, yourself included. I'm stating my view, not attempting to persuade.
If you can't draw the line from lack of belief to atheism, I won't do it for you. I won't draw the line from suicide to Schopenhauer, etc for you either. Or even from suicide to Will Provine's takes on life.
This is where subtlety gets me. And people wonder why I fall back on the cute little animated gif faces so often.
Comment by nullasalus — April 26, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
That brings up a good point about use of the words lie and liar. Look at this next quote:
Religious critics often like to define themselves as people of reason and those who are guided by the empirical findings of science. Yet neither reason nor science is at odds with the concept of God's existence and when we are able to apply science to the predominant religious view in western culture- a Judeo-Christianity outlook as delineated in the NT and OT- we find archeology confirming the accuracy of many historic accounts within these books.
Clearly Raevmo and others are relying on their personal metaphysics in assessing the plausibility of religion. But if that is the case then how can the use of lie and liar be appropriate? A lie is something standing in opposition to objectively established facts. Or is the meaning deliberately distorted to mean that if someone alleges what I feel is not true I have to right to apply the lie tag?
Comment by Bradford — April 26, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
..and…
My motivations are agenda oriented, my tactics aren't. In other words, I try to keep my arguments ethical. I don't apply an ends-justify-the-means mentality. I do not forward arguments I think are false even if I think I could get away with it. That includes quotemining.
I provide links for people to fact check and provide their counter interpretations.
My spin tends to be counter-spin. Have you noticed I don't tend to post "hey-look-at-this" propaganda comments on the open threads, even though I have been tempted to do so?
I think you are fooling yourself if you think you aren't engaging is persuasive speaking.
Excuse me for misunderstanding. I sympathize with a frustration of wanting to make sarcastic remarks. It just doesn't work in blogs.
Well, if we are back on, then how about responding to my three points? The last point leads into your Atheist World View argument. But I'm not letting you skip over the hard part.
The whole package needs to be discussed. Once again…
1. The survey was probably biased by not taking teen socialization activities into account. Todd and Raevmo suggest other contributing factors that might have been ignored because of conformational bias.
2. Teens who are religiously undecided are often pressured by making them feel that something is wrong with them. Even to the point of worrying that they might commit suicide. Which, of course, would increase their tendency to do so by suggestion and/or low self esteem.
3. Brainwashing a child into believing that committing suicide will result in an everlasting hell that is worse than continuing to live would undoubtedly lower the statistical events. However, is the cure worth the cost?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 26, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
TP,
All speaking is persuasive speaking, to me. It's a question of - oh boy - teleology.
And your explanation of 'my spin tends to be counter-spin' is supposed to stir what response from me? "Oh, well, you're just spinning because you think others are spinning. That's somehow better."
Like I said, I'm not interested in getting into your psychology here. I've said I don't see you as 'promoting independent thought', I've said why. And I think your unasked-for explanations just prove points I said I had no intention of even pursuing. It's baffling.
The whole package isn't contained in your three points. You honestly want my responses again, even though I gave them? Fine.
1. Is it possible the survey's results are incorrect? Possibly - I do not trust surveys typically, and I trust interpretations of surveys less. On the other hand, the suggested link isn't all that surprising. Especially not when everyone here is squirming rather than addressing the conclusions about life atheism (particularly the evangelical strain) leads to.
2. I dispute the characterization. I'd guess most teens don't have strong thoughts on religiosity, period. Hell, I'd guess most adults don't. The survey has nothing to say about that topic, so I'm not interested in pursuing it.
3. Your characterization of religious upbringing is, just like your slipping in of a saint alongside Pol Pot, yet more spin. Flash over substance. If you truly believe that any and all religious upbringing is 'brainwashing', there is no discussing this with you - you're a zealot. If you're merely phrasing it that way to maximize the persuasive 'punch' you hope to sneak into the argument, there is no discussing this with you - your interest isn't honestly exploring ideas, it's in advancing a point of view at all costs.
Play whatever games you want. At the end of the day, you have to grapple with the results of the worldview peddled from Hitchens to Dawkins, from Schopenhauer to Sartre. I, as a theist, must face those who abuse belief towards horrible ends. The difference is, I view my challenge as an honest problem that must be addressed and explored. You view yours as a PR liability that must be spun and minimized.
Comment by nullasalus — April 26, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Hi Raevmo,
I hear this rumoured hearsay quite a bit.
Do you have the link to Bush actually saying this?
As to those of you suggesting other correlates, such as socio-economic factors, these kinds of studies are designed to take those into account and they still demonstrate that religious involvement is correlated independently with better life affects, including negative correlation with suicide.
Here's one, for instance:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g...
Thinking christian keeps a decent list of these studies:
http://www.thinkingchristian.n...
As evidence loving science defenders, what, exactly, is the socio-economic effect on suicide?
Comment by Pez — April 26, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Hi Raevmo
Here's a primer from the Talk Origins website to help you get up to speed
"Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution".
Gould, Stephen J., Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Ballantine Publishing Group, NY, 1999)
Comment by willo — April 26, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Hi Nullasalus, (and Pez)
I say…
"1. The survey was probably biased by not taking teen socialization activities into account."
You responded with…
Note that Pez linked to some research in the subject. Social-economic factors are important. For example, if non-religious people happens to be richer than religious people than this study could actually be an affirmation that rich kids commit suicide more than less rich kids. Good studies compensate for that by making sure that the economic factors are the same.
My reference to my PhD daughter wasn't idle. An inherent problem with religious studies is that an inherent part of being religious is an identity with a group. A feeling of belonging. Humans are social animals, they get aggitated when forced to be alone. It would be very difficult for a study to compensate for that. Furthermore, I am very suspicious based on what little we have to go on.
Your doubt and disregard of the study's accuracy pretty much makes its existance worthless.
Your statement that "…the suggested link isn't all that surprising" is the ultimate confirmation bias. You aren't worried about the validity of the study because you are going to presume what you expect anyway.
Your statement about "everyone here is squirming" is simply false. I am not avoiding the subject, you are. This study provides you no support for your predetermined conclusion.
I wrote…
2. Teens who are religiously undecided are often pressured by making them feel that something is wrong with them. Even to the point of worrying that they might commit suicide. Which, of course, would increase their tendency to do so by suggestion and/or low self esteem.
You are not interested in pursuing it, yet you make an argument. Are you reverting back to your punch-and-hide tactics?
So far, you are using confirmational bias to presume a conclusion regardless of the study's validity and, here, you aren't even interested in pursuing the very conclusion the study is making.
Thus conceding the study and its conclusions aren't worth pursuing.
Normally, I would question why we are having this conversation, but you have made it clear what agenda you are pursuing that has nothing to do with the actual study.
Oh well, let's get to YOUR AGENDA…
I wrote…
3. Brainwashing a child into believing that committing suicide will result in an everlasting hell that is worse than continuing to live would undoubtedly lower the statistical events. However, is the cure worth the cost?
Would you rather I said "lie"
My "brainwashing" was similar in connotative content as your "comrades", "glorious nationalist state", "utilitarian goals", "scientific pursuits", "life as an objectively meaningless, doomed, and even painful exercise".
An "its the truth" argument works for me just as it does for you.
Not at all costs. I wouldn't pull a punch and run tactic. I state what I honestly believe and defend it. I will agree that "brainwashing" was over the top, shall we call it "indoctrinating" or "catechesis"
Ok, Ok, how about this?
Is convincing our children that they will go to hell if they kill themselves worth lowering the number of teenage suicides?
These aren't easy issues. I understand why you want to only present the one side that matches your agenda of attacking Atheism but, hey, life is more complicated than that.
I do not have to grapple with the worldview of people who are not me or mine.
Note, I provided, in detail, my solution to the problem. I suggest this is what independent thinking and personal responsibility means.
Your response was to overly trivalized it as me simply telling a 15 year old "That is your choice,".
I am not squirming. I do not consider what "Hitchens to Dawkins, from Schopenhauer to Sartre" has to say to be a PR liability. That is your agenda, not mine.
I am curious as to how you address the problem. Do you tell your kids that even if they commit suicide they will go to heaven no matter what?
Are you interested in addressing and exploring these issues or not?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 27, 2008 @ 1:53 am
April 27th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Hi TP,
Did you read any of them? Why do you say that the study "was probably biased" Do you have any evidence of this? Do you think all the studies linked are biased?
Comment by Pez — April 27, 2008 @ 1:58 am
April 27th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Hi Pez,
You asked…
I looked at both links. I skimmed the first one. I didn't go into any of the studies of the second link.
All studies are "probably biased". I am more suspicious of this one because it is a survey type. They interviewed. Depending on what the intent of the survey is, the bias could be unimportant to the authors.
All studies are "probably biased". Like I said, the religious/Group Identity link is very strong. I would be interested in a study that compared after school atheist groups with after school bible studies. I think that would be more unbiased study for what we are talking about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 27, 2008 @ 2:15 am
April 27th, 2008 at 3:29 am
Hi TP,
All studies are biased, you say. Yes, that's true. All science and all observation are biased as well. So why point it out in this case?
et al.
So, do wealthy people commit suicide less often than the poor? Has any science defender here even googled this to back up their claims about socio-economic factors? And if they do is there evidence that the religious are more wealthy? Or, given that the opposite is the case, will you all now say that the religious are less wealthy, and therefore don't commit suicide as often? Are you flipping two-headed coins here?
Of course there are many confounding variables. Like the fact that the religious don't abuse substances as much, and have a lower rate of divorce (they do too, Barna's poor presentation notwithstanding), and they enjoy greater benefits of volunteering and giving to charity, and they have the support of caring communities - all of which correlate negatively with depression and suicide. As do the factors listed in the OP.
With all these confounding variables we'll probably never be able to scientifically verify Dawkins' claims about religion. This might be why he never bothers doing the science and just makes the assertion.
Comment by Pez — April 27, 2008 @ 3:29 am
April 27th, 2008 at 3:46 am
TP,
TP, you're twisting my words - and what's more, you know it. I did not claim I have doubts about this specific survey, but any and all surveys and their explanations. I approach each and every one with hesitance, and a willingness to entertain the possibility that something is wrong. Which makes all your crowing about 'confirmation bias' not only a crock, but the opposite of what I truly said.
Let me guess - you thought I was spinning, so you just had to spin out of duty.
Yes, TP - I'm taking a wild stance here and saying that since peer pressure did not come up in the survey, little is going to be gained from musing about it as a possibility. The data is what the data is, right or wrong, and once we're dreaming up alternate explanations of why we got it, we're effectively dismissing it. We have a correlation between religion and behavior, as well as irreligion and inverted behavior. You want to discuss why the data may be wrong, why the study may be flawed, why other factors may be skewing the results. Entertaining the possibility that there's a truth to be had here? Well, that's just unthinkable.
It doesn't, really. Partly because for all the pride you have in your 'debating ability', anyone can see your spin as spin from a mile away.
Those four lingo-laden examples I gave had something in common - they appealed to everything but the individual. I invited someone to provide any way someone can come from that view of atheism and give a hypothetical fifteen year old a proper response. You responded with 'It's your choice' - is it any wonder why you want to talk about something, anything other than the question I asked?
God is love, right TP? For you and yours. I am not so fortunate to have such a.. shall we say, evolutionarily expedient worldview.
You wouldn't begin to understand what theists would have to say about this, because for all the schpiel about 'independent thought', you show little desire to think about what you see as your political opposition says. Their words are to be analyzed for weaknesses to exploit, and if there are no weaknesses, the subject is to be changed, dismissed, or questioned on the spot.
But I'll give you my answer anyway: I'd do my best to pass on the many, powerful reasons to hope. Philosophical, scientific, religious, and otherwise - I'd show all the reasons to not even entertain suicide as an option, even if death in this life is a near-certainty. I'd talk about the stuff of objective value, why there's life to begin with, why despair is something to be overcome - not ignored until it's overwhelming, or treated as proof that you need a better distraction. I'd communicate a morality that is self-rewarding, and that the reason evils were thought of as evils and goods were thought of as goods for nearly two thousand years of Christian belief wasn't 'Because God gives you a cookie for every work and a spanking for every sin', but because it spoke to a deeper truth and reality. I may be Catholic, but I don't need images of unending fire to justify my living today. In fact, I can pray hell is empty, and still argue the good of good, and the evil of evil.
In short, I'd have a stockpile of reason and a dearth of hellfire to call upon.
Just one thing: This isn't for 'me and mine'. I'd share this with a stranger, if asked. Hell, I'd share it with someone I had utter dislike for, if I thought they were sincere in asking.
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 3:46 am
April 27th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Pez
No I do not. I would have thought the obvious next step was for you to say what the point is. I would have thought you would want people to understand what the point is, and that a good way of promoting that would be to explain it.
Oh, well. My bad.
Comment by The Pixie — April 27, 2008 @ 6:35 am
April 27th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Pez:
link: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
No, it appears to be hearsay as far as I know. Not entirely unlike the hearsay you rely on to try and make a case for Darwin->Hitler->Holocaust.
Here's from the study you linked to:
Doesn't this suggest that the effect of religiosity is weak or absent once controlled for socio-economic effects?
Wiki lists a number of reasons, including socio-economic ones, such as unrequited love, financial loss, being part of a religious cult, restoring honor.
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2008 @ 10:21 am
April 27th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
and
Rather than point to Dawkins, why don't we talk about my suggestion…
"I would be interested in a study that compared after school atheist groups with after school bible studies."
This would help offset the socialization aspect of it and get right to the point of interest, ideology.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 27, 2008 @ 11:37 am
April 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Raevmo said: "Doesn't this suggest that the effect of religiosity is weak or absent once controlled for socio-economic effects?"
Yes, you are absolutly correct. This is natural selection at its finest, give the lower class the materials and mindset to kill themselvs so we dont have to do it. This way we can get to the next stage of evolution! Lets eliminate the lower class! sounds familier http://youtube.com/watch?v=0TG... Then again you also don't believe suicide is a bad thing, so what am I arguing with. Also, you must not be a college student, because try to use a wiki link and see the grade you get back
BTW from the quote you used "Doesn't this suggest that the effect of religiosity is weak or absent once controlled for socio-economic effects" doesn't say anything about how depressed people such as my brothers friend uses atheism as a crutch for suicide. Which has been my point all along.
Comment by gore — April 27, 2008 @ 11:59 am
April 27th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
gore:
You don't get it do you? We need the lower classes to create the wealth for us.
I know, statistics don't say much about individual cases. Conversely, isolated cases are not easily generalized.
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
aw the truth comes out that they are not people, they are tools. That makes more sense! Then people like you are shocked when one of these tools end up doing what they did at columbine.
Isolated cases are not easily generalized. Hm, the facts were clear on this case to me. Now, I can't say that for everyone clearly, but you dont think that a depressed child looking at the world through these lenses would be more likely to do it?
You know its interesting because I was curious to see how athiests would reply on this post, I figured there would be some good comebacks, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you honestly think of humans as tools. You disguest me dude. Go join the statistics
Comment by gore — April 27, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
Hopefully after a good night's sleep our discussion can take on a more positive tone.
1. The study in question.
I'm not sure whether you want to discuss and defend it or not. If you want to engage in an analysis of it, here is my position…
1a. There is too little information to presume the study is valid.
1b. Teen's confused about religion does not make them atheists.
1c. For example, how would the researchers score a self-described Atheist who attended Unitarian Universalist meetings every Sunday?
2. Possible explanations for increased suicides of teens claiming no religion…
2a. Being non-religious is considered dangerous ala studies like this one
2b. Being religious is considered "normal", being non-religious is questionable at best
2c. Religious teens sense support from other religious teens, Priests, and the US government
2d. Parents and counselors are more likely to try to "fix" non-religious teens
2e. Teen's who get attention for appearing lost are more likely to proclaim a lack of religion and engage in a downward, self-fulfilling spiral
3. Your agenda - fixing the teen suicide problem through religion. You wrote…
Hopefully, we can agree that the key is to start giving the children the tools they need to cope early in life. I was taught God is Love as a preschooler. We taught our children the significance of Love as soon as they were capable of understanding the concept. To live is to love and to learn. While death doesn't erase love, one should strive to live because of all of the love yet to give and receive. That and a continued chance to learn about wonders that make up our world and our universe.
That is our philosophy in brief. If our child asked "what if I died?", we probably would have answered "We would miss you, your grandparents would miss you and it would be sad for all the people who missed the chance to meet the wonderful person you are."
If our child asked "what if I killed myself?", in addition to the above, our response would be a "Why would you want to do that?". By the age such a question would be asked, all of our children knew that a simple "because" doesn't work on daddy. I was one of those parents who exhibited the patence to last through the "because"/"why" repetative gambit. When my children asked me "why", they got an answer, no matter how deep and repetative the regression of "why" went.
With that, I am curious as to what you include in "all the reasons to not even entertain suicide as an option".
As for how life began, our children were taught that different people had different opinions on that. We discussed the different opinions and let them decide. Some of our children assumed God created life when they were young, even though they understood I felt God is Love and Love is God.
I agree, facing despair and depression is an important early lesson. "It is ok to be sad, but…."
The concept of an absolute Truth or even an absolute morality, while allowed, wouldn't stand a chance in our household. As our children got older, they engaged in the "War is bad" discussions among themselves. They were quite capable of seeing things from various points of view.
My eldest daughter got quite animated on how Emerson's don't-listen-to-anyone mantra was a self contradiction.
All of my children think I am arrogent and carry my "think for yourself" schtick too far. I am very proud of each and every one of them.
Thank you for sharing it. Yes, I was sincerely asking. Regardless of the motives I wanted you to provide an answer. Thank you.
As to your question of what I would tell a 15 year-old bent on committing suicide. First I would ask him "Why?". In your hypothetical, the teen would respond by referencing Atheist philosophers.
My response would be "What the hell do they know?!?"
Presuming the teen would tell me he believes it, I launch into making him defend the belief. "Here you are deciding to end your life while you aren't even old enough to adequately defend an opinion you clearly don't understand."
"Think of all the things you don't know yet. Think of all the things you can do. Think of all the love you have yet to experience. I am 52 and I am still learning to love and relishing the experiences of life, even the experience that are ugly".
"It has been noted more than once, that it life's extreme ugliness and suffering that brings out the best and the worst of each of us. You have so much to learn, why cheat yourself of the chance to learn it?" If worst comes to worst, I ask him if he has ever had a blow job.
By this time, it would be probable the real reason of the teen's decision for attempting suicide becomes apparent. Chances are it will be low self esteem due to not feeling loved (i.e. a broken relationship). However, it could be due to clinical depression, in which case medical intervention would be warranted. In any case, I would assure the teen that his feelings weren't unusual and that he was normal i.e. he isn't "bad" or "evil" for having these feelings. I would assure him that he is loved and that there is love out there to be found. Even if he thinks it is practically non-existent, I would argue makes in all the more precious making the search more imperative.
But, let me provide a scenario that would be more in line with your agenda. Let's say the teen has fallen victim to Group Think pressure and has signed a suicide pact with other Atheists. To this I think something like "Even though you don't believe in God, you are going to kill yourselves to spite him?" would be a good opening. While I might not be successful, I think I would stand a better chance of arguing the illogic of teenagers taking their life as an Atheist talking to an Atheist than someone trying to argue they are precious because they were made in the image of a deity they have rejected.
Ok, your turn.
What do you say to the 15 year boy who is convinced life isn't worth living because he no longer has Jesus in his heart and never will again and, therefore, doesn't want to infect the world with his evil presence? He considers this his parting gift to God and an expression of love for his religious friends.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 27, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
TP,
For one, I do not 'fix the teen's suicide problem with religion'. My attitude in this thread has been that the problem with a truly atheistic outlook and suicide is real. This isn't the first survey to point out as much - it is a real, serious problem, hardly new, and hardly controversial. It and the intellectual problems it touches on probably lingers as one of the biggest problems for an atheistic outlook, as the problem of evil lingers for theists. Even if I happen to believe the PoE no longer exists.
I reason with him. I ask him why he thinks what he does, I talk about the problems with his view, the reasons to hope. If he's religious, I appeal to religious tradition and history. I discuss reason, I quote Hamlet. But in the end, everything comes down to reasons to hope in an ultimate sense. In that vein, I have an arsenal at the ready. Anti-atheism, maybe. Call it 'reasons to doubt hopelessness'.
TP, your view on the answers theists can respond with is boggling to say the least. Do you really think we have nothing but bible quotes and simplistic reasoning to fall back on? You implying that the only response a theist can give to the suicidal is 'God will damn you' is one thing if you're just trying to rack up spin. But if you honestly believe that, all I can say is 'look again'. It's as uninformed as suggesting that the only argument atheists rest on is 'Can God make a rock heavier than He can lift?'
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hi Gore,
Earlier you provided the situation…
Later, you wrote to me…
I think the term you might be looking for is an "enabler". At least I tend to think of a crutch as a device artificially props someone up, at least temporarily.
Since you are talking about your "little brother's" 17 year old friend, I am presuming you might not be that old yourself. I hope you are not going to be affended by what I have to say. If a teen asked "Why does it matter when we die?" he is probably either iching for a fight or making a plea for help. You didn't provide insight into how you or your brother reacted to this.
For the record, Raevmo is not me and I disagree with some of the things he said. I suspect some of the things Raevmo meant as sarcasm you took seriously. At any rate, you need to deal with it using your loving, Christian ways.
In my post to Nullasalus, I have provided some insite into how I would have treated the situation you described.
I have also explained how I raised my four children.
Did you have any questions on these?
I also agree with the US consitutional policy preventing the governmental promotion of religion. After school bible studies are fine, so are atheist clubs.
While you might be able to indocranate children into dogmatic beliefs that would lower teen suicide rates, that becomes an ends justifies the means argument to some of us.
So, what is your solulion to the problem?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 27, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Nullasalus:
It is actually a bit controversial. Did you read the quote above from a study controlling for socio-economic factors? Here is part of it again:
That means no effect of religiosity, after controlling for s-e factors. The point being that the world is not as simple as you might like to believe. It is therefore quite uncertain whether atheistic teenagers are more easily troubled by suicidal tendencies compared to their religious peers, all else being equal. The evidence seems to indicate that other factors are probably far more important.
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Raevmo,
What you quoted me saying was a specific reference to a philosophical issue that's a very live problem for atheists. I placed it in context with a reference to the problem of evil.
Of course I don't think the world is simple. Far from it - a religious household and outlook is going to have more factors at work than mere belief. Maybe there will be differences in family stability, economic factor, general perspective. I remember EO Wilson (I believe) talking about the particular economic advantages that came up with followers of.. I think Jainism.
As for the claim: http://www.adherents.com/misc/... has more on this, though the article itself strikes me as poorly written.
There's plenty of ground to argue about the specifics. My favorite line in that particular link is along the lines of 'Scientists don't believe that lack of religion is a causative factor in suicide, only that religious belief and views of suicide as immoral reduces the likelihood', which is an interestingly delicate way to put it.
EDIT: And before anyone jumps on it - I'd be perfectly willing to believe that there are some disadvantages you'll be more likely to find with religious people, or religious households. Again, I think this is complicated, but the atheism-suicide link isn't some unimaginable problem. It's discussed, it's covered, both in studies and in philosophy. Hopefully we can keep on talking about it here for a bit - it's worth pondering, not dismissing.
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
Ok, then what would be your solution to a 15 year-old Atheist teenager bent on suicide?
Ethically, I would think you would have an answer to a question you provided. W