"Scientific studies" on spanking

I'm going to quote some representative excerpts of "scientific study" on spanking and corporal punishment:

However, this perspective began to change as studies found links between “normative” physical punishment and child aggression, delinquency and spousal assault in later life...Physical punishment is associated with a range of mental health problems in children, youth and adults, including depression, unhappiness, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, use of drugs and alcohol, and general psychological maladjustment.26–29 These relationships may be mediated by disruptions in parent–child attachment resulting from pain inflicted by a caregiver...

75% of substantiated physical abuse of children occurred during episodes of physical punishment. This finding was replicated in the second cycle of the study (CIS 2003).40 Another large Canadian study41 found that children who were spanked by their parents were seven times more likely to be severely assaulted by their parents (e.g., punched or kicked) than children who were not spanked. In an American study,42 infants in their first year of life who had been spanked by their parents in the previous month were 2.3 times more likely to suffer an injury requiring medical attention than infants who had not been spanked. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3447048/

1. There's been a highly successful movement by secular progressives (cheered on by "progressive Christians") to use the totalitarian power of the state to deny parental authority and Christian ethics, even in the private sphere of the family.  

2. I don't concede the premise that you need a scientific study to be justified in many of your common sense beliefs. 

3. I'm of two minds about scientific studies. On the one hand, there's a need for scientific studies on many topics. On the other hand, many scientific studies are unreliable. Many influential studies, which became the received wisdom in academia and certain professions, studies which became the basis for law or public policy, have been debunked over the years. Consider the replication crisis in the social and life sciences. So just quoting a study or studies has no particular cachet with me. It's an unfortunate dilemma. We need studies, but which studies can be trusted, given their checkered track-record? It's not possible to endorse scientific studies in general. 

4. In addition, some studies are like the professional expert witness hired by defense attorneys. You can hire someone with impressive credentials to defend both sides of any position. 

5. A basic flaw in the study is the equivocal use of "physical punishment". Needless to say, that ranges along a very wide continuum. You can't lump all forms of physical punishment, then tar a light spanking with the same consequences. There are degrees of physical punishment, from slight to severe. It's willfully methodologically irresponsible not to draw necessary distinctions. 

Take the difference between swatting a child on the backside with your hand 1-3 times and whipping him on the backside with a belt or ruler. Those just aren't comparable. 

6. Likewise, I doubt pain is the primary factor in the efficacy of spanking. Breaking your arm when you fall from a tree or scraping your knees when you fall off your bike is far more painful then getting swatted on the backside by hand. Do scientific studies which hype the psychological harm of spanking say the same thing about painful childhood accidents? 

I suspect the impact of spanking is primarily psychological rather than physical. Because young children are so emotionally dependent on their parents, to be physically rebuffed by a parent is (temporarily) traumatic. It's easy to reduce a child to tears. 

7. Apropos (6), in biblical anthropology, mothers and fathers play different roles. They have overlapping roles, but there are differences as well as commonalities. In a qualified sense, it's not bad for kids to be afraid of their fathers. I don't mean they should live in a state of fear. But it's good for them to fear the paternal reaction if they cross certain lines. To take a comparison, although a lion protects his cubs, cubs must be more respectful to the lion than the lioness. You don't mess with the lion! 

8. The studies need to be far more selective. For instance, what's the long-term impact of spanking an extroverted, strong-willed boy? Children vary in temperament. Likewise, there are stereotypical psychological differences between boys and girls. What's effective discipline for one child may be ineffective for another.   

9. Do the studies screen out other variables for delinquency, depression, self-harm, domestic abuse, substance abuse, incarceration, and suicide? What about kids from high-crime areas? Kids from broken homes? Fatherless boys (due to divorce and maternal custody)? Kids with stepdads? Kids where mom has a live-in boyfriend, or string of boyfriends? 

10. How do rates of delinquency, depression, self-harm, domestic abuse, substance abuse, incarceration, and suicide for kids who experience moderate spanking compare with their counterparts in secularized nations where spanking is illegal? What's the comparative data? 

11. Do psychologists and sociologists who deplore spanking think a propensity for violence is innate–or the result of social conditioning? Do they think a violence-free society is possible with different socialization?

12. What's their model of a socially well-adjusted or maladjusted male? Consider the faddish misdiagnosis/overmedication for attention deficit syndrome for rambunctious boys. Do they think an aggressive streak is "toxic masculinity"? 

Suppose an aggressive streak or potential for violence is a necessary trait in males who take the initiative. What if the nature of boys to be adventurous, inventive, competitive, and take a risk is inseparable from an aggressive streak or potential for violence?  

13. Is there any correlation between declining crime rates and declining levels of testosterone? Is there any correlation between declining crime rates and a graying population? During the baby boom, young males were a larger percentage of the population. 

What Is Race? Four Philosophical Views

What Is Race?

Four Philosophical Views

Joshua Glasgow, Sally Haslanger, Chike Jeffers, and Quayshawn Spencer

Table of Contents

Introduction
Chapter 1: Tracing the Socio-Political Reality of Race, Sally Haslanger
Chapter 2: Cultural Constructionism, Chike Jeffers
Chapter 3: How to be a Biological Racial Realist, Quayshawn Spencer
Chapter 4: Is Race an Illusion or a (Very) Basic Reality? Joshua Glasgow
Chapter 5: Haslanger's Reply to Glasgow, Jeffers, and Spencer
Chapter 6: Jeffers' Reply to Glasgow, Haslanger, and Spencer
Chapter 7: Spencer's Reply to Glasgow, Haslanger and Jeffers
Chapter 8: Glasgow's Reply to Haslanger, Jeffers, and Spencer

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/what-is-race-9780190610180?cc=us&lang=en&

Is Christianity dying in America?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/

Instant community

In this post I'd like to make two different but interrelated points, one substantive and one sociological. I'm struck by how Thomism has taken hold in some contemporary Reformed circles. Yes, you already had that in Reformed scholasticism, but I'm talking about the current fad. 

I see many Calvinists in social media passionately defending Thomistic  simplicity. That's due in part to the nature of social media. When you adopt a position for which there's a preexisting constituency, that gives you instant community. You don't just adopt that position. Rather, you join a community of like-minded people. Overnight, your membership gives you social status within that community. All of a sudden, you have a range of contacts with whom you share that belief or cause in common. A virtual community where you receive personal affirmation and reinforcement. Because humans are social creatures, that's psychologically appealing.

And this is true for anything. There are Facebook groups and discussion forums for just about any topic that catches your fancy. Or take how Ed Feser's blog becomes a social watering hole. Like an internet tavern where folks hang out to shoot the bull. 

I'm not saying that's good or bad. Depends on the issue. But we should examine our motives. Do we champion a cause du jour because that's a worthy cause, or because it gives us a sense of belonging? 

As I observe some Calvinists jumping on this bandwagon, I wonder what motivates them. All of a sudden, adherence to Thomistic simplicity is becoming a litmus test of orthodoxy in these theological circles. Have they thought about the implications of this position? Or is it that some folks are just swept up in theological fads, facilitated by the crowd psychology of social media? 

For instance, as I understand it, Thomistic simplicity denies any internal metaphysical distinctions in the Godhead. Here's one question I have about that. Scripture attributes many world events to divine agency. The Bible is replete with examples, but for convenience, consider the ten plagues of Egypt. According to Exodus, Yahweh brought about the ten plagues. God willed each plague. Each plague is the result of divine intention. 

But if Thomistic simplicity is true, then isn't God's will to bring about the plague of darkness identical to God's will to bring about the death of the firstborn? If, however, there's no internal, metaphysical distinction between God willing the ninth plague and God willing the tenth plague, then how did the same undifferentiated will select for two different outcomes? 

If God willing the ninth plague is indistinguishable from God willing the tenth plague, then the effect is the same. That makes the ninth plague identical to the tenth plague. These can't be two separate events, but one and the same event. But that's incoherent. 

What is race?

Our nation is transfixed by debates over race relations. But what is racial identity in the first place?

i) On one theory, there are no races; race is just an arbitrary social construct.

ii) Some theories view races as natural kinds. They define race biologically, in terms of ancestry or similar genetics.

Some theories define race geographically in terms of country of origin.

Some theories define race culturally, in terms of a people-group with a distinctive culture. 

But these are not clear-cut demarkers. They can overlap in complex ways.

iii) It might be more accurate to speak of racial characteristics rather than races. On the one hand, people-groups can have objective characteristics. 

On the other hand, the characteristics we select for and combine to identify and distinguish one "race" from another is a social construct. 

We might compare that to sports. Pro basketball players are taller than average. Pro football players and pro wrestlers are larger than average. 

How you group people depends on your selection-criteria. Although the defining characteristics may be objective, the selection-criteria are social conventions, based on what is deemed to be relevant for the purpose at hand. Different sports value different physical traits. 

Likewise, racial categories may pick out certain objective characteristics, but why that particular combination is chosen, rather than some other set of commonalities, is a social construct. 

The whole notion of "mixed race" presumes the notion of a pure race as the standard of comparison. But what some people consider a pure race is just the dominant racial status quo–after the dust settles. 

Is there such a thing as a pure race even in principle? To my knowledge there are roughly two or maybe three sources of racial differentiation:

i) Random mutation might be a possible source

ii) Interracial breeding creates a new variety

iii) Environmental adaptation

Consider (ii). Suppose the world was 99% Amerasian. Suppose that had been the case for 10 generations. Would that be mixed race? How could you tell? That would be the norm. 

If, on that scenario, an Amerasian married a member of the 1% (let's say, "Aryan"), that would be an interracial marriage. 

If you didn't already know that Amerasian kids were the result of biracial parentage, if you only had the result to judge by, how could you even tell that was "mixed race"? 

Consider (iii). That's relative to the country of origin. But how could any particular region furnish an absolute standard of comparison? If it's due to environmental adaptation, then it's relative to any given region. To privilege one regional adaptation as "pure" is arbitrarily selective. What makes that purer than any other regional adaptation? 

The younger generation

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2015/07/stop-talking-about-young-people/

Some charismatic demographics

I emailed a widely respected charismatic scholar about charismatic demographics. They've graciously granted me permission to post their response (slightly edited for anonymity).

Some things are a matter of definition. Some reports dump non-Christian movements (e.g., they see their founder as the messiah) in the "charismatic" category for sociological reasons.

But among charismatics as more traditionally defined, prosperity teaching and often extreme demonologies are very common in much of Africa and Latin America (and some of these go beyond the charismatics to the church more generally). At the same time, though these people have been taught wrongly on these issues, they often have embraced the true gospel regarding salvation. So (contrary to MacArthur et al.) many of these are sincere Christians whom God is using, and some are learning the hard way about other errors. Also, a large proportion of those polled as believing that faith brings prosperity actually were saying that they depend on God to supply their needs, which is quite different from prosperity teaching. [Another scholar], who is African but not charismatic, said that most Africans would answer that question Yes but not mean it the way those whom we call "prosperity preachers" do.

The mixed teachings are widespread and with maybe 50% of the population in many countries being teenagers or children we must teach the next generation rightly. But there is a shortage of Bible teachers and hard cessationists don't help when they divide those with the gift of teaching from others because we need teachers who can communicate with (rather than berate) those charismatics. The explosion of evangelism and of population makes it hard to disciple, and unfortunately it was the Western prosperity teachers who invested in getting themselves on African TV ... :-( So much work needs to be done. Prosperity teaching emerged as syncretism with Western materialism, but hard cessationism proliferated as syncretism with Western deism. Rather than choosing our poison, it would be better to just seek to bring people back to the Bible in every respect.