Humanist Parenting: Analysis
The Analysis section of this site will offer thoughtful examinations of research related to religious and nonreligious parenting. When the research is solid, we"ll say so. When it's not, we'll try to point out where it went wrong. And when the fault lies with the messenger media, we'll show how and where it happened.
In This SectionIntroduction to Analysis by Dale McGowan
A Wellness Perspective On Scientific Studies by Dr. Don Ardell
Religion and Child Development by Dr. Jean Mercer
Religious Benefits to Children Unproven by Amanda Metskas
Introduction, by Dale McGowan, Ph.D.
The scenario is a familiar one. Results of a research study are released, adding one piece to the vast and ever-changing puzzle of the scientific enterprise. Media outlets—with varying degrees of integrity and objectivity, and a constant pressure to sell—announce either a silver bullet or the end of the world as we know it. Seldom is the tentative and cumulative nature of scientific research mentioned. Tentative results don"t drive the Nielsen ratings up, so research is spun into trumpeted certainties.
Add to this the troubling trend of political advocacy dressed up as "fair and balanced" news and it becomes ever more difficult to sort silver bullets from blanks.
Recently a new trend has surfaced—a steady, concerted drumbeat of research claiming that religion is good for kids, and/or the lack of it is bad for kids. Children raised in religious families have supposedly been found to exhibit less delinquency, more positive attitudes, and better relationships with their fathers. Religion is said to buffer the effects of poverty, to make kids better behaved, and to make twelfth graders (I kid you not) more likely to exercise.
Some of this research is solid; some is, shall we say, liquid; and some is pure gas. In some cases good research with tentative and mixed results is misrepresented in the press as a single outcome slam dunk. In other cases, evangelical researchers or funding lead to shoddy methodology and biased study designs. In many cases—perhaps most—correlation is fatally confused with causation.
It goes both ways. Recent studies purporting to show that religious teens are more likely to engage in risky behaviors or are more likely to have a lower IQ often show signs of the same correlation and causation error. In still other cases, good research points to genuine benefits of religious parenting, and humanist parents can study and learn from the practices involved, finding nontheistic ways to achieve the same benefits.
The Analysis section of this site will offer thoughtful examinations of research related to religious and nonreligious parenting. When the research is solid, we"ll say so. When it's not, we'll try to point out where it went wrong. And when the fault lies with the messenger media, we'll show how and where it happened.
Dale McGowan, Ph.D. holds degrees in the arts and sciences from UC Berkeley, UCLA, and the University of Minnesota. He is the author of Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion.
Dr. Don Ardell gives us general guidelines for assessing research, as well as a first glimpse at the ongoing National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR). Excerpt:
One other alarm bell I got from perusing the website of NSYR is that they are none too anxious to suffer skeptics like me poking around looking for bias or other methodological flaws. A site message provides the following stern admonition: "We strongly suggest that anyone interested in analyzing the NSYR data invest time studying all of the supporting documentation provided and in reading through the NSYR methods report….The NSYR survey data set is complex. Conducting analysis using the data requires familiarity with the survey instrument, the variables, the data formatting and the general study methodology." Translation: Give up your day job if necessary in order to devote hours if not days of study of our work before you dare ask questions. I'm hard-pressed to think of another scientific study that has couched itself in such pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain warnings.
Dr. Jean Mercer looks at a recent study that indicated, according to Fox News, that "Religion is Good for Kids." Excerpt:
The summary statement "religion is good for kids" is not justified by the evidence Bartkowski et al. offer. In addition, it should be considered that religious activity or discussion may be without importance in themselves, but affect development only as members of broader classes of parental behaviors. Membership in a religious group, said by Bartkowski et al. to provide a nomos or meaning system, may have functions similar to those of membership in secular groups such as the Sierra Club or a bowling team; the appropriate comparison may not involve religion, but the organization of family life around shared interests.
Amanda Metskas looks at a sound and sober Harvard study that was badly oversimplified in the media. Excerpt:
The [ Boston ] Globe describes the families in the study as "religious" and "nonreligious" when it would be more accurate to describe them as "church attending" and "not church attending." This is important because with the language the Globe article uses it suggests that the study differentiates between people of different beliefs, when really the study differentiates between people of different behaviors.