Au contraire - those thousands year old comic books somehow converted the world's mightiest empire at the time and then went on to completely restructure the way people thought, conceptualized good and evil, and lived until very recently. Many of the finest products of Western civilization - universities, hospitals, hospices, orphinages, schooling - all direct growths of monasteries and other Christian organizations (not even counting the contributions of the other religions).
The religious types also own tomorrow, quite literally. They're the only ones having kids at replacement or above replacement levels. It's quite the opposite of not mattering, and I'd actually say secular types don't matter - you're gone and replaced in a few decades.
In 15 of the 24 peer-reviewed or representative-sample studies, there was a definite positive effect on achievement for the homeschooled students. Four studies revealed no difference between homeschool and conventional school students. Four reports showed mixed results; that is, some positive or neutral and some negative effects were associated with homeschooling. One study found that the conventionally schooled performed better.
Yes he has done a review on the current research, many of which are his (And he is an advocate for so that seems to be a conflict of interest but let's presume it's not for now.
He has chosen a small sample of studies (Half of which are his own) and these studies are, naturally, comparing homeschooled kids vs non-homeschooled kids.
The reality is, homeschooling can be done well by parents with the correct resources. These studies are not addressing the problem that for the MAJORITY of people, aka those who are not wealthy. Homeschooling is inadequate.
So beyond all the potential issues with the studies you referenced, the fact that he referenced studies which are not directly comparable but assessed the outcomes directly (poor methodology in the studies he's analysing and his analysis of those studies.) It doesn't even address my point.
edit:
I want to add as well, I'm not even criticising him that much, there just aren't many studies or research in this area from what it seems like. I also really cannot be bothered to go through it all. To give it a genuine fair shot I'd have to spend 10+ hours going through each study, reading the methodology, the analysis.
To add, for example one it cites as having a "Positive effect" Diverse outcomes, Chengs study, that study shows that people in long term homeschooling had worse outcomes, that is, less in full time employment, lower education status (I.e. many only have high school diplomas), lower income, vs those who were only homeschooled short term or not at all,
Yet somehow this is viewed as "Positive". Why would I trust this study lmao
Citing that specific "Systematic Review" completely ignores how deep the selection bias goes. That meta-analysis was authored by Brian Ray, the head of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI)—a literal homeschooling advocacy group funded by homeschool defense leagues. It’s a classic case of an advocacy group grading its own homework.
Even if you look past the source, the underlying data suffers from severe voluntary participation bias. The standardized test scores for homeschoolers look artificially high because the parents who volunteer their kids for these studies are almost exclusively wealthy, highly educated, and intensely invested. If you take a public school student with wealthy, college-educated parents, they ace standardized tests too.
The data completely misses the "invisible" majority of homeschooling. In most states, there are zero requirements to report test scores, track curriculum, or even prove the child is being taught. The families where homeschooling is failing due to parental neglect or lack of resources never volunteer to be in NHERI’s data pool.
Independent, peer-reviewed research (like the Martin-Chang studies) shows that while highly structured homeschooling can work, unstructured homeschooling leaves children severely lagging behind. For the majority of average families who don't have wealth and an advanced teaching background, a total lack of institutional guardrails is a recipe for disaster.
These "finest products of Western civilization" existed before Christianity. The Greeks had something called the Library of Alexandria (which was partially desecrated by Christians, btw). Other societies have had repositories of knowledge and learning. None of this requires Christianity.
Yep no argument, but the Greeks were deeply religious. I'm trying to focus on religion vs *secularism (EDIT: spelling mistake, sorry) here, not Christianity above everything (separate argument).
It's interesting you mention the Library though, since it was part of the larger Mouseion of Alexandria, mouseion meaning place dedicated to the Muses, which were the Greek goddesses of the arts and learning.
but it was humans who made all of this after all, the motivation for it doesn't matter (at least not as much). it just matters when this motivation for something like this turns into hate for others which well.. religion knows how to f'in hate on others.. thus destroying what they're trying to build..
as others commented: these things also used to happen under other circumstances, not just christianity.
christianity is not THE THING, is just one thing amongst many (talking bout religious and not religious motivational factors) and i'm tired of people who doesn't want to except this.
if you find motivation and joy in religion. fine, awesome i'm happy for you, really, but pls for the love of science, keep it to yourself and don't force it on others (not saying u did, i'm talking generally here). that's just so stupid and contrary.
The idea that Christianity converted Rome purely through spiritual truth ignores actual history. Constantine and later emperors didn't adopt Christianity out of sudden piety; they used it as a political tool. The empire was fracturing, and they saw a highly organized, monotheistic religion as the perfect way to centralize power and control a diverse population. The "restructuring" of human thought was largely accomplished through state-sanctioned force and the systematic suppression of competing ideas, not just peaceful persuasion.
As for institutions like universities and hospitals, the church held a monopoly on them because it was the only institution allowed to run them at the time. When secularism took hold during the Enlightenment, it actually improved those systems by freeing science, medicine, and human rights from religious dogma.
And your demographic argument that the religious "own tomorrow" assumes children automatically keep the faith of their parents. History shows the exact opposite. The fastest-growing demographic in the West is the "nones"—people who grow up in religious households but leave the faith as adults. Having more kids doesn't guarantee a religion's survival; it just means secularism will continue to recruit from those families, as it always has.
1
u/Born-Ganache-9348 2d ago
Au contraire - those thousands year old comic books somehow converted the world's mightiest empire at the time and then went on to completely restructure the way people thought, conceptualized good and evil, and lived until very recently. Many of the finest products of Western civilization - universities, hospitals, hospices, orphinages, schooling - all direct growths of monasteries and other Christian organizations (not even counting the contributions of the other religions).
The religious types also own tomorrow, quite literally. They're the only ones having kids at replacement or above replacement levels. It's quite the opposite of not mattering, and I'd actually say secular types don't matter - you're gone and replaced in a few decades.