Does religion improve behavior?

[Zzyzx]

.

Being religious does not make you better behaved, researchers have found.

A new study found 'no significant difference' in the number or quality of moral and immoral deeds made by religious and non-religious participants. 

The researchers found only one difference - Religious people responded with more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

To learn how people experience morality and immorality in everyday life, the researchers surveyed more than 1,200 adults, aged 18 to 68, via smartphone. 
For three days, the demographically diverse group of U.S. and Canadian citizens received five signals daily, prompting them to deliver short answers to a questionnaire about any moral or immoral act they had committed, received, witnessed or heard about within the last hour. 

In addition to the religion variable, the researchers also looked at moral experience and political orientation, as well as the effect moral and immoral occurrences have on an individual's happiness and sense of purpose. 

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: How moral and immoral deeds made them feel

Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds. 

The study also found little evidence for a morality divide between political conservatives and liberals. 

'Our findings are important because they reveal that even though there are some small differences in the degree to which liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral priorities, the moral priorities they have are more similar than different,' Skitka said. Both groups are very concerned about issues such as harm/care, fairness/unfairness, authority/subversion and honesty/dishonesty, she said. 

'By studying how people themselves describe their moral and immoral experiences, instead of examining reactions to artificial examples in a lab, we have gained a much richer and more nuanced understanding of what makes up the moral fabric of everyday experience,' Skitka said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... uilty.html

Do you agree or disagree with the bold items above? Why?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 40 by Wordleymaster1]

Well I mean that can be the only implication based on the following

1. She disagrees that religious and non-religious individuals are equally moral.

2. She disagrees that non-religious are more moral.

So if non-religious are no equal and not greater they can only therefore be less than.

I also don't understand how she keeps making the assertion that the people who recorded the moral acts in the study did not measure the type of moral act given the study stated in its abstract

the quality of the moral acts are the same

i.e person B lies and person NB lies therefore they both have the same quality of immoral act

person B gives X to charity person NB gives X to charity ergo they have the same quality of moral act.




qual·i·ty (kwl-t)
n. pl. qual·i·ties
1.
a. An inherent or distinguishing characteristic; a property.

If the moral acts committed have the same quality they have the same inherent distinguishing characteristics and properties.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 41 by DanieltheDragon]

I know I've been guilty of thinking one thing and saying another accidentally. Who knows Hopefully she will clarify?

[Willum]

Oddly enough I assert that it encourages worse behavior in this topic.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=26482

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 31 by dianaiad]



So if I follow you correctly religious people are more moral/ have better morals than non-religious folk?

I think that religious people who actually adhere to the moral/ethical codes have better morals than non-religious folk who either don't have one, have one but haven't identified it, or have one and ignore it, yes.

However, by that token I also believe that non-religious folk who have moral/ethical codes and abide by them are more moral/have better morals than religious folks who ignore the codes taught in the religion they claim to believe in.

The upshot is, if religious folk actually live by the moral codes of the faiths they claim, they tend to be more moral/have better morals than those who don't abide by the moral/ethical codes they claim.

So yes, religion does improve behavior if the believer 'walks the walk,' and doesn't if he doesn't.

But getting rid of religion as a path to 'better' morality?

Blaming the belief system for the actions of those who break its rules has always seemed to be an illogical argument to make, seems to me.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

How do you know the moral codes you adhere to are strictly religious but instead your own personal subjective moral values?

Its not the rule breakers that worry me it is the rules themselves which do not fit in a modern civilized society.

After all you aren't executing homosexuals and burning witches are you?

The bible specifically is a worrisome piece same with the koran and book of mormon.

There are some eastern religions that seem rather benign though

[Zzyzx]

.

I think that religious people who actually adhere to the moral/ethical codes have better morals than non-religious folk who either don't have one, have one but haven't identified it, or have one and ignore it, yes.

However, by that token I also believe that non-religious folk who have moral/ethical codes and abide by them are more moral/have better morals than religious folks who ignore the codes taught in the religion they claim to believe in.

The upshot is, if religious folk actually live by the moral codes of the faiths they claim, they tend to be more moral/have better morals than those who don't abide by the moral/ethical codes they claim.

So yes, religion does improve behavior if the believer 'walks the walk,' and doesn't if he doesn't.

How 'bout that:

1) Some religious people follow a strong moral code and some do not
2) Some non-religious people follow a strong moral code and some do not.

Does that mean that being religious improves behavior?

If so, it MUST also mean that being non-religious improves behavior

[dianaiad]

.

I think that religious people who actually adhere to the moral/ethical codes have better morals than non-religious folk who either don't have one, have one but haven't identified it, or have one and ignore it, yes.

However, by that token I also believe that non-religious folk who have moral/ethical codes and abide by them are more moral/have better morals than religious folks who ignore the codes taught in the religion they claim to believe in.

The upshot is, if religious folk actually live by the moral codes of the faiths they claim, they tend to be more moral/have better morals than those who don't abide by the moral/ethical codes they claim.

So yes, religion does improve behavior if the believer 'walks the walk,' and doesn't if he doesn't.

How 'bout that:

1) Some religious people follow a strong moral code and some do not
2) Some non-religious people follow a strong moral code and some do not.

Does that mean that being religious improves behavior?

If so, it MUST also mean that being non-religious improves behavior

Only if each one actually identifies, and then follows, their respective moral codes.

Or, 'faith without works is dead."

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 47 by dianaiad]



So instead of religious people(because that's the blanket statement you used) You mean good hard working committed christian people who strictly adhere to its tenants?

Because religious clan include and is not limited to

Satanists
Islam
Wicca
Norse gods(thor is still worshiped by some people)
Hindu
Buddhism
Rastafari
Shinto
Taoism
Setianism
Scientology
and various other cults throughout history

Scientology I find actually incredibly troubling I don't want scientology as a moral standard.

Or what about Jehovah's witnesses they believe in depriving blood transfusions as t heir moral code?

come on Dianiad I know you realize you have made an obviously bad blanket statement because I know you wouldn't want satanists to adhere to their strict moral code of hedonism. When you say religious you get the whole moral enchilada try being more specific next time.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

What, that people who actually follow the moral codes to which they claim to adhere are more moral?

Q.E.D.

How do you know the moral codes you adhere to are strictly religious but instead your own personal subjective moral values?

I would sincerely hope that the values and moral codes that I, personally, adhere to and claim are religious are, actually, taught by my religion. The word for it being otherwise is 'hypocrisy.'

Its not the rule breakers that worry me it is the rules themselves which do not fit in a modern civilized society.

Really. ...and you get to decide what the rules are, why, precisely?

After all you aren't executing homosexuals and burning witches are you?

(sigh)

It's been a rather long time since Christians practiced the Law of Moses.

I wonder: should you toss out all the laws and rules of morality because, way back when, the Laws of Hammurabi stated that if you put out the eye of one man, your eye was to be put out in return (literally 'eye for an eye') unless the man whose eye you put out happens to be a 'freeman,' in which case a 'manna of silver' would do, and if it is a slave's eye, then you have to come up with half the price of the slave.

I would sincerely hope that the moral code one lives by is one's own moral code, no matter where one learned it.

In fact, it is.

In the New Testament there are a few mentions of behavior and moral codes, when 'faith' is discussed.

Something about knowing folks by their fruits, and how believing isn't sufficient; one must behave according to one's beliefs. It mentions that even the devils believe, and they tremble; basically, one's moral code is the code one acts on, not the code one claims.

.........

The bible specifically is a worrisome piece same with the koran and book of mormon.

There are some eastern religions that seem rather benign though

You have actually read the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the Koran, have you?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 47 by dianaiad]



So instead of religious people(because that's the blanket statement you used) You mean good hard working committed christian people who strictly adhere to its tenants?

Because religious clan include and is not limited to

Satanists
Islam
Wicca
Norse gods(thor is still worshiped by some people)
Hindu
Buddhism
Rastafari
Shinto
Taoism
Setianism
Scientology
and various other cults throughout history

Scientology I find actually incredibly troubling I don't want scientology as a moral standard.

Or what about Jehovah's witnesses they believe in depriving blood transfusions as t heir moral code?

come on Dianiad I know you realize you have made an obviously bad blanket statement because I know you wouldn't want satanists to adhere to their strict moral code of hedonism. When you say religious you get the whole moral enchilada try being more specific next time.

Wow. Judgmental much?

Every single group that you have mentioned, above, has a basic moral code that is pretty close to that which, I hope, you adhere. Even Satanists. (Well, depending upon the type of Satanism addressed. The official "Church of Satanism" actually has a pretty good one.)

Do not confuse beliefs with moral codes. Do ANY of those folks that you mention teach that stealing is OK? That it's OK to murder with impunity? That one should NOT be kind to others?

Even the most extremist group has rules of behavior that apply to the group.

Again, do not confuse 'moral code' with doctrine. You may not like Scientology. I don't like it. I think the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong, but I sure don't see them as an immoral people.

...........and their choice not to have transfusions is not immoral. You have an, I'm sorry, rather weird definition of 'moral,' if you count as immoral any belief about deity with which you disagree.

In fact, you are now defining 'morality' the same way you criticize theists fore defining it, as "any belief with which I disagree, whether or not it has anything to do with ethical behavior."