[xyzelement]

I used to kinda buy these things until I started getting to know religious people in the last few years. An average secular couple living in Brooklyn has all the problems you're describing, and then their religious Jewish neighbor lives in the same world but has 6.6 kids on average.

The thing that I think is different - even when I was an atheist, I had the value of "children" very strongly - that they are my way to bring life and perpetuate my ideas and contribute to the world. This was always strong with me, and I see similar concepts strong with my religious friends. Meanwhile my secular friends are much weaker on their motivation "oh... yeah maybe I'll be OK with kids if it happens" - because the value is not there, they aren't motivated to deal with the things you're listing - even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids.

[andrewmcwatters]

Yeah, every time I read people saying stuff like the OP, I’m like, “Yeah, sure if you’re an atheist.” The religious world is chugging along just fine.

All of my religious friends have two, three kids, perfectly fine or above average incomes.

It’s just not a priority for non-religious people, and there was never a loss of third spaces. Church hopping to date is a thing. People share values. Congregations celebrate new babies and chip in. Community exists.

It’s a comparatively bad experience for those without that support. The secular world has none of this except maybe immediate family, and even then I don’t see support from non-religious parents to their non-religious children. So of course these people think these things. They’re basically thrown into the world with no social net.

[xyzelement]

Really sad - it's a sort of tangible vision of what it means to have forsaken Gd and be forsaken by him.

[andrewmcwatters]

Yeah, I think that’s a fair argument. It’s easily been the most clear indicator of social connective health I’ve seen over the course of my life regardless of faith background.

[whatajoke69420]

Nah, I think that's a really inane argument. Religious fervor (loosely defined as "Religion is a good thing") is the most clear indicator I've seen of social decay over the course of my life, regardless of which particular faith it is.

[dh2022]

I think you need to go out more often:). But seriously: this type of social connection works for some people and does not work for others. At church you are not allowed to question. When people pray you are supposed to bow your head. You are supposed to be quiet.

I went to a few church services when a few of my friends invited me. I stuck out like a sore thumb. At the door on my way out the church greeters wished me well-while avoiding any eye contact. To each his own, I guess.

[xyzelement]

I would compare the experience you had in church to dropping in on an advanced math class or a powerlifting gym. When it's your first time, of course you don't know what to do and what it means - but that's a reflection of your being a novice rather than a comment on the thing itself or your ability to benefit from it.

I can try to make an example. The reason people bow their heads in prayer is to acknowledge our finite mortality and limitation, in the face of the eternal. It puts us in our place, and creates the correct mindset for the prayer. For someone who prays, the bowing of the head isn't just "what you're supposed to do" but an indication of something much more significant and impactful on one's life.

In fact, the idea represented by bowing down in prayer, and the topic of this thread (relationship between religiocity and stance on grief) can be connected.

[dh2022]

Bowing your head in church and keeping your mouth shut when the pastor says something silly is very different than behavior in an advanced math class (I do not know about powerlifting gym).

In the advanced math classes I attended discussion and clarification was encouraged. In my stochastic calculus class the professor once made a mistake - which the brightest student caught. The professor thought about it for a few seconds, said this is a mistake indeed and he does not know how to fix at that time; then kept going. At the next class the professor came up with the solution to the mistake.

Imagine standing up in the middle of the church and saying something about evolution. Very different behavior / attitude. Like I said, to each his own.

[dh2022]

How does the congregation chip in for new babies? Does the congregation provide cheap daycare? Or cheap college ? Lack of both was the main reason me and my wife have only 1 child.

My religious friends also have 3 kids for each family. College (or vaccination for that matter) is not in the cards for these kids. The wives stay at home to take care of the kids. The families live out in the boonies - the dads have 1 hour commute.and even so they are leveraged to the hilt: they bought their homes with a regular loan + HELOC. The kids are very religious-they shun Halloween and video-games for example (but the girls have their Instagram accounts ). For each his own I guess.

[xyzelement]

I think I just replied to you on a different thread, but I'll also comment here.

It's a matter of priorities. ~4 years ago I moved from NYC to the burbs to have room and a high quality of life for my (now 3) kids. It lengthened my commute and increased my housing costs but I perceive it as unquestionably WORTH it, and I suspect your friends do too.

If your friends were given the choice to not have a HELOC and not have one of their kids - they'll take the HELOC and the kid. It's not an unreasonable choice.

Kids shunning video games and probably less device addiction in general and more face-to-face engagement with friends and family -- weird to talk about that as a negative in this day and age. I suppose you were the same guy that saw it as negative that your religious friends sang songs around the piano?

>> Does the congregation provide cheap daycare? Or cheap college ? Lack of both was the main reason me and my wife have only 1 child.

frankly if it was important you'd figure it out. I have a cop friend who had 7 kids (3 own, 4 adopted). How do they make it work on a cop's salary? They make it work. He's got a long commute and a beater car but there's no part of him that'd trade those things for a nice car but only 1 kid.

[kashunstva]

> even though these things are NOTHING compared to what people dealt with in history and still had kids

Until recent human history, though, humans had far less control over childbearing than now. And children in the past were relied on to provide supplemental labour to maintain the household which was, much more often than now, a farm. So at times there were very practical reasons for childbearing.

But agree, deeply held values enable some to overcome obstacles.

[xyzelement]

I realize these arguments are very common but I think they are more than likely bullshit. Again, I think religious people today are a good proxy for how people were "back then" especially since faith was almost universal.

For example, religious people don't use birth control and have more kids - but it's because that's what they want. To believe that someone has the discipline to adhere to the tenets of religion (eg respecting the sabbath, dietary laws) but keeps having unwanted kids due to uncontrolled lust for his wife, seems bullshit on its face.

The "farm help" thing... I think most people then and now see kids primarily as another mouth to feed in perpetuity, and not some sort of revenue generating asset. Certainly people who have a lot of kids today, aren't doing it for financial reasons.

And when I think back on my grandmother who was one of 5 or my wife's grandparents who were one of 10, it wasn't because their parents were harnessing them to a plow.

People today have kids because they love them, and because they want to cast a vote of influence into the future. I think people in the past primarily had similar motivations. The "farm help/birth control thing" is cope for the childless primarily, no parent actually thinks this way.

[Jensson]

> Certainly people who have a lot of kids today, aren't doing it for financial reasons.

Because its illegal, people did certainly use kids as financial assets back then. Your kids was what took care of you when you grew old, there were no pensions or old folk homes, it was just your kids.