I have decided to start cataloguing the studies I come across regarding Atheism. Atheists get quite excited to learn that a study attributes 2 extra IQ points to Atheists; but there are other studies on Atheism too, including the following, which relates non-belief with lowered self esteem.
The results of this study are as follows:
RESULTS
Both measures achieved satisfactory Cronbach alpha coefficients (Rejection of Christianity Scale, .88; Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, .80). After controlling for sex differences by means of partial correlations, the data demonstrated a small, but significant, correlation (r= -0.14, p <.05) between self-esteem (M = 15.3, SD = 4.9) and rejection of Christianity (M = 62.7, SD = 13.2) indicating that as teenagers’ endorsement of negative statements concerning Christianity increases, their scores of negative self-esteem also tend to increase.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The present study has explored the relationship between rejection of Christianity and self-esteem among adolescents in Wales. After controlling for sex differences a small but significant negative correlation is found between high-self esteem and rejection of Christianity, as hypothesised. This finding strengthens the conclusions drawn from studies like that of Jones and Francis (1996), which demonstrated a positive correlation between high self-esteem and a positive attitude toward Christianity by demonstrating that the association is not a function of the valency of the measure of religiosity. Evidence of this nature appears to be suggesting that the Christian tradition is supportive of the development of self-esteem among young people rather than detrimental to it.
7 comments:
Something is wrong with the conclusion:
"Evidence of this nature appears to be suggesting that the Christian tradition is supportive of the development of self-esteem among young people rather than detrimental to it."
What about the kids that have a low self-esteem because they don't feel included in the Christian tradition, and then leave it as a result?
What about the kids that get their self-esteem destroyed because of Christianity, simply because they are gay?
More importantly, the conclusion does the mistake of equating correlation with cause&effect. Who says that Christianity has anything to do with the self-esteem among these young people? Do Christian communities present a higher percentage of kids with self-esteem compared to non-Christian communities?
"Who says that Christianity has anything to do with the self-esteem among these young people? Do Christian communities present a higher percentage of kids with self-esteem compared to non-Christian communities?"
Good Grief. Go to the link. Read what it says. It references other studies on exactly that. C'mon, at least click a link before you puke on it.
You almost posted the entire thing here!. It's only 5 pages, including the title page, a blank page at the end and 2/3 of a page with sources, so yes, I had went through it already... did not take very long.
So because they refer other studies that show the same correlation you think their conclusion is valid?
No argument. No logic.
I didn't say that I thought it was valid. What I said was,
"...but there are other studies on Atheism too, including the following, which relates non-belief with lowered self esteem."
Atheists love studies which show them favorably, and they are not skeptical of those. When the tables are turned, however, the reaction is what we have seen here.
It's the same concept as presenting Atheists with the evidence which they demand, in the form of the claims at Lourdes. It doesn't matter what I think of the claims; what matters is the Atheist reaction to them: entirely irrational, full of anger and emotion and attacks on the presenter but not the presentation - no contrary evidence of the type they demand, or irrefutable logic based on the facts presented and grounded, rather than circular or infinite regressive.
Attacks on the process would be credible, but only if they also attacked the process on studies favorable to themselves. But they don't; and their attacks are not credible, scientifically, unless the attacker presents a contrary set of accepted rules that should have been followed, and the reason for the rules.
Atheists are ideology-driven and evidently cannot stand being in a position where their own concepts are questioned. This is confirmed by the Atheist reactions here, where the objections are vehement, but contain no substance.
For example, the objection that this study conflates correlation with causation applies to virtually all psychological studies because causation is embedded too deeply to ferret out reliably, especially regarding groups of people. So correlation processes are used to infer causation within the statistical limitations provided. Thus that objection can't be a valid refutation unless all psychological studies are refuted too (a definite possibility).
I would love to reply to your other points in order to continue a civil discussion, but that one point is really annoying:
...full of anger and emotion and attacks on the presenter but not the presentation...
Where do you see anger or emotional reactions?
eternal,
This is not intentionally about you; it referred to other commenters, which you can read for yourself. I was thinking of the Mill response to Vitz, and Mill's defenders, which is a pretty typical scenario.
However, your name calling in the past, as well as your tone in general in the past has been pretty hateful, sarcastic and condescending and I probably should not have put up with it. Some times you seem to have mellowed, other times not so much. At least now you use caps... you have capitulated to a rule-based communication system?
eternal,
This is not intentionally about you; it referred to other commenters, which you can read for yourself. I was thinking of the Mill response to Vitz, and Mill's defenders, which is a pretty typical scenario.
Ah I see, but you used the wrong thread then...
However, your name calling in the past, as well as your tone in general in the past has been pretty hateful, sarcastic and condescending
I don't recall any name calling to be frank; I never ever intend to insult anybody, unless saying 'nooooooo you are wrong' or 'nooooooo you misunderstood' is taken as an insult...
Tone in general? Never aggressive, never hateful, never with the goal of making you or any other theists in general look stupid. You see that's the big difference between you and me, and I insist YOU and ME, not alllll others: you think atheists in general cannot be trusted along with a bunch of other negative things, while I have absolutely nothing against theists in general...
Sarcastic and condescending? Oh yes totally. Well condescending especially. I should have used more sarcasm, it's always fun.
and I probably should not have put up with it.
I don't think you did. You said you were done with me, remember? And you banned so many people before that clearly you don't put up with it usually.
Some times you seem to have mellowed, other times not so much. At least now you use caps... you have capitulated to a rule-based communication system?
You are correct. I did mellowed over the past few days I think. I think it's because I don't have as much fun anymore... That weird debate on the other thread about what's objective or not really puzzled me. These 7 points you posted were so strange. I wish there was a better format for that kind of discussion because there was so much more to clarify.
At the same time though, since you will never be able to consider anything I, or any other atheist, write as being honest, there is not much point to it.
I guess that's why I preferred to fool around and have fun, putting comments here and there on the things that made me smile on your blog. I have fallen prey to your fake attempts to discussion, your fake 'this will be interesting' when you really don't give a flying f... about what anybody has to say the minute they tell you, 'no, I don't believe in gods'. Their statements are necessarily illogical, grounded in philosophical materialism, entirely subjective, and so on...
Dam, here I am, writing a long text again when I told myself that I would just use short sentences to stick to the point, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggg
Gone for a few days. Bye!!!
Post a Comment