How religion generates social conservatism.

[laconicsax]

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.

...

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.

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

(Cross-posted in GD: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5053468&mesg_id=5053468)

[izquierdista]

1. A special purpose?

Wait til those kids find out what their "special purpose" is for! :rofl:

[TlalocW]

4. Just be sure to see a doctor and get rid of it

Also, the Lord loves a working man and don't trust whitey.

TlalocW

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Interesting. K&R

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. How spirituality generates social liberatism

spirituality, at the core of every religion, is direct experience with That. One's heart must be open, one's mind bent in that direction to catch it, you know. What a religist may put in a box, that Experience takes out and blows the box away. And what is left is a worldview more encompassing, more embracing, of all things.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. nt

[laconicsax]

6. Care to suggest an alternate cause?

I don't disagree that correlation does not imply causation, I'm just interested in actual discussion of the study. In two threads on the topic, there's just "interesting" "I agree" and "I disagree."

[Occam Bandage]

8. Sure. I believe that religion is primarily an adaptive and not a creative entity.

Cultural conservatism is reflected in religious conservatism, and not the other way around, just as fundamentalism is a product of (and not the creator of) backlashes from periods of socioeconomic instability.

Specifically considering the children in this article? Culturally conservative people are more likely to hold conservative religious beliefs. Children who grow up in culturally conservative households are more likely to hold conservative religious beliefs; as they mature the two reinforce each other, increasing the likelihood that both are maintained.

[skepticscott]

7. But what exactly IS "social conservatism"

other than merely a euphemism for policy attitudes based largely (if not solely) on the tenets of fundamentalist religion?

[Occam Bandage]

9. Conservatism is a political philosophy aimed at the preservation of existing/traditional methods,

cultural standards, and economic policies. It has been the political philosophy held by the overwhelming majority of humans throughout history, for good reason: before the rise of capitalist society and thus fluid investment, cultures simply could not afford the process of rapid change that social liberalism allows. Change is inherently risky, and an agrarian society cannot afford risk.

Fundamentalism is a somewhat recent phenomenon, in which religion is used as the focal point for a blowback against sudden change. You are correct that both are fundamentally opposed to social change, but neither is built upon the other.

[skepticscott]

11. You're talking about conservatism in general

but the OP is asking about social conservatism as that term is applied today.

[Occam Bandage]

13. I know. I believe the general holds to the specific.

Social conservatism is the belief that social mores should not be changed from, or should be reverted to, their traditional status. It's true that fundamentalism often latches onto aspects of a society that have changed, and that fear of or dissatisfaction with such change drives people towards fundamentalism, but I think there's a distinction between the two allied movements.

There is little practical policy-based distinction between an American social conservative and an American Christian fundamentalist. However, I'm talking about the sociology and not the policy.

[laconicsax]

10. I'd say that it's a set of values centered around two things:

1) Nostalgia for an idealized past where discrimination and inequality were socially acceptable and/or enforced.
2) The notion that equality allows for undeserving persons to succeed.

The resulting policy attitudes stem from a wish to return to that idealized past and the consolidation of power associated with an inherently unequal society.

A study funded by the NSF and NIH agrees. (link) (The Study itself...I think)

[skepticscott]

12. I think that misses a lot

When the media refer to "social conservatives" as a group, or to a particular politician as a "social conservative" they're usually talking about people who are anti-abortion and anti-gay, and who favor the injection of religion into all aspects of public and political life. Those (religiously based) issues are the fundamental core of social conservatism, as that term is used today. There is no attempt behind the use of the term to legitimize people who long for the good old days of slavery and Jim Crow, or readily acceptable anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism. It is intended (like the use of the term "faith-based") to try to downplay the influence of fundamentalist Christianity on American politics.