New study explains the best way for young people to avoid sexual risks

Story from Life Site News.

Excerpt:

A new study from Marquette University has found that religious attitudes toward sexuality, parent-based sexual education and intact two-parent households have a positive influence upon youth in their sexual practices and the onset of first sexual intercourse.

Researchers took a nationally representative sample of 3,168 men and women ages 15-21 years old from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and obtained the data from 60-90 minute interviews with participants from the 2002 survey.

The study’s findings confirmed previous research literature, which suggests “religiosity” – defined by the authors as a set of institutionalized beliefs, doctrines and rituals, and ethical standards for how to live a good life – is “a protective factor that appears to contribute to decreased sexual risk behaviors.”

According to the study, those who viewed religion as “very important” reported an average of 1.9 lifetime sexual partners and on average began sexual activity at 17.4 years. In contrast, those who viewed religion as somewhat important or “not important at all,” began their first sexual activity at 16.9 years and had an average of 2.9 lifetime sexual partners.

However, researchers found that high religious attitudes toward sexuality (RAS) “appeared to be the most protective religiosity variable in terms of decreasing sexual risk.”

Good parenting from both parents in an intact family and a teleological outlook on life works well during the teen years, because teens sometimes don’t respond to arguments and evidence. They tend to think that bad things won’t happen to them, no matter how much evidence you show them. I would still show them the evidence, though.

But these numbers from the study do surprise me, because it seems as though not very many young people are abstaining from sex before they are married. I am in my thirties and radically, radically chaste. So it is definitely possible to abstain from sex and hold out for a more solid commitment and radical intimacy.

Related posts

Share

Can atheists make sense of good and evil?

Here is a post by Michael Egnor at Evolution News. He is responding to complaints by an atheistic evolutionary biologist named Jerry Coyne about the problems of evil and suffering.

Excerpt:

There are, of course, countless attempts to understand how an infinitely good God can allow evil. I believe that it is because he gives us freedom, and freedom entails the possibility of evil. My dilemma is with natural evil. Why did God not stop the Indian Ocean tsunami? Why does he allow innocent kids to die from accidents or disease? There are theories to account for natural evil. I still don’t know.

But there’s an issue with Coyne’s question. This is it: I believe in God, and as such the question, “Why is there evil?” is a natural question for me.

But what warrant has Coyne to ask that question? Coyne is an atheist, and therefore he believes that there is no transcendent purpose in the world. And Coyne is a Darwinist, so he believes that there is no purpose in the origin of man. And Coyne is a materialist, so he believes that the human mind is, in some way, merely the brain — evolved meat.

Does it make sense for an atheist to ask, “why is there evil?”

This might might be a fun question to ask your co-workers, family and friends who are atheists. What do they mean by good and evil? Is there a way humans ought to be that is independent of personal preferences and arbitrary cultural conventions? Is there a way that the universe ought to be? If there is no way the universe ought to be, then what are we to make about atheist complaints about evil and suffering?

Leave a comment with your story, but try not to get fired. Just ask questions, don’t fight. Unless you know what you are doing!

I’ll leave some hints in the tags for the post about what I would say to answer the problem of natural evil. Here is my full response to the problem of evil. Here is my full response to the problem of divine hiddenness. And my full response to the problem of those who have never heard of Jesus. And my full response to the problem of religious pluralism. These are all from the index of Christian arguments and rebuttals.

Share

Reports on Stephen Meyer’s intelligent design lecture at Oklahoma University

Post with links is here on Evolution News.

Excerpt:

Well, the news out of Oklahoma about Stephen Meyer’s intelligent design presentation at the University last night is quite encouraging. Over three hundred people reportedly turned out for the lecture and discussion following. For all the potty-mouthed bluster that local Darwin activists offered up ahead of time, almost everyone in attendance, whether for or against ID, was civil and respectful during the presentation and discussion last night.

The local daily paper, The Norman Transcript, has two stories today, one about the event last night and one about the screening of Darwin’s Dilemma this evening.

[…]Over at the OU IDEA Club’s website last night club president Josh Malone live-blogged his notes and thoughts about the event and gave a brief rundown of the Q&A session that followed. The photo here was sent in by him.

I’m pretty happy because I just received a free DVD of “Darwin’s Dilemma” in the mail from the Discovery Institute. I donate to DI to support scholars, like Stephen Meyer, in their research, speaking, and debating. Yesterday, I received a debate featuring William Lane Craig that he asked me to transcribe for his web site. (I transcribed a previous debate for him). There are lots of little ways a layman can help out the really smart guys and gals!

Share