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?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

Is believing that apostates should be killed a higher moral standard?

Is slavery a higher moral standard?

Is butchering children a higher moral standard?

I really don't think religious people have higher moral standards.

They might have absolute inflexible moral standards but I wouldn't call them higher. They might also just be different it doesn't necessarily entail that one is better than the other.

I gave you examples of what I meant by that....still you distort with examples of Muslim extremism, and outdated "Christian" practices.

(religous folk also speaheaded the abolishionist movement, remember the picture of fiery abolishionist John Brown with a rifle in one hand, and a Bible in 'tother?)

Here's another one for ya. Some people (mostly non-religious) don't even bother to get married anymore before having kids.

Is that a higher standard? And kids growing up without a mother AND a father?

Is either dispensible?

[Deidre32]

If the only reason you do ''good deeds'' is because a religion is instructing you to, then is it really purely intentioned?

[Zzyzx]

.

Some people (mostly non-religious) don't even bother to get married anymore before having kids.

Are you pretty sure about the non-religious unmarried people having more babies?

Despite the fact that many religions encourage abstinence and saying no to premarital sex among teens, the teenage pregnancy rate is actually higher in states with a stronger religious presence.

http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org/teenage ... -religion/

The article discusses many aspects of teen pregnancy

[Elijah John]

.

Some people (mostly non-religious) don't even bother to get married anymore before having kids.

Are you pretty sure about the non-religious unmarried people having more babies?

Despite the fact that many religions encourage abstinence and saying no to premarital sex among teens, the teenage pregnancy rate is actually higher in states with a stronger religious presence.

http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org/teenage ... -religion/

The article discusses many aspects of teen pregnancy

-I didn't say they had MORE babies, just that they are more likely to not bother to get married before having kids.

-And I think the non-religious are more likely to forgo the legal and RELIGIOUS ritual of getting married in the first place.

-Many of these folks are nominally religous only, and do not actually practice the faith. Example... in college it was a laugh to see who got ashes on their forheads on ash Wednesday, and on the immdediate following Thursday, return to their loud, obnoxious, drunken and bullying ways.

-It's hard to say what is a more religious area in comparison to what is not. The so called religous areas (like RCC Northeast)many are religious out of habit and upbringing, and not out of conviction. I wish such folk would be discounted as "religous" in these surveys.

[Vanguard]

It reminds me of how the Christian message has become distorted from what I believe should have been the message all along - that being, belief in the Christian God should make that individual better than he would have been had he not become such.

Hmmmm

1) People tend to come out about the same in behavior

2) Christians have become better than they would have been without belief in God

3) After improvement by belief in God Christians are about equal to others.

Shall we, therefore, conclude that Christians MUST have been pretty terrible to begin with?

Taking the study at face value, yes, it would reliably follow that Christians MUST have been pretty terrible to begin with. The trick is arriving at some sort of consensus as to whether the study really reflects what you seem to be suggesting. I do belief your suggestion has some merit though. You know, the gospel is the hospital for those who recognize they are ill and all that sort of thing... It would also naturally follow that those who are blessed with an even-temper, sharp intellectual faculties, and free of any significant childhood traumas would shun the Christian message at a higher rate than those saddled with such burdens - burdens that are many times no fault of their own.

[dianaiad]

.

It reminds me of how the Christian message has become distorted from what I believe should have been the message all along - that being, belief in the Christian God should make that individual better than he would have been had he not become such.

Hmmmm

1) People tend to come out about the same in behavior

2) Christians have become better than they would have been without belief in God

3) After improvement by belief in God Christians are about equal to others.

Shall we, therefore, conclude that Christians MUST have been pretty terrible to begin with?

Without being able to judge the study...and I really suspect it, btw...it's begging the question big time about whether they ARE 'equal to others.'

Mind you, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Christians who actively try to live according to the standards they claim are probably as good...or as bad...as those who actively try to live according to other standards, if, that is, we can place equal weight on the standards described.

I mean, really...

You take a Mormon who feels guilty about, oh....

wearing a bikini to the beach or
drinking a glass of iced tea.

From what I read of the study, that Mormon would be classed in the same category as the guy who felt guilty about shoplifting and/or watching an old lady try to cross the street and laughing at her.

But are they really in the same category there?

Is the atheist who feels guilty about missing a day on his assigned highway pickup route in the same category as the fundamentalist who feels guilty about missing a day picketing funerals?

Who sets the standards for, er, the standards?

[Zzyzx]

.

It would also naturally follow that those who are blessed with an even-temper, sharp intellectual faculties, and free of any significant childhood traumas would shun the Christian message at a higher rate than those saddled with such burdens - burdens that are many times no fault of their own.

I do not disagree.

But WHY should the more advantaged / less burdened shun the Christian message?

[Vanguard]

It would also naturally follow that those who are blessed with an even-temper, sharp intellectual faculties, and free of any significant childhood traumas would shun the Christian message at a higher rate than those saddled with such burdens - burdens that are many times no fault of their own.

I do not disagree.

But WHY should the more advantaged / less burdened shun the Christian message?

If my analogy of the hospital holds (see my previous post), why would those who do not consider themselves "ill" seek out the services of a hospital? Before exploring that, do you agree my analogy is relevant?

[Wordleymaster1]

.

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?

Religious people are more emotional which is probably why they respond so well with guilt. Oh and they use it too.
Improving behavior? It would depend on how you define improving. For some, standing on a picket line screaming at women who have had abortions is a good thing. For these people, screaming at these women would be an improved behavior.
One thing's for sure, speaking from experience religious people wear their hearts on their sleeves a lot more than others as a general rule

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 16 by dianaiad]

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1340

There you go I googled it for you it's the same study. Looks pretty solid to.

It appears that while self reported they had to supply the details of the deed. Researchers found similar quality of the specific deeds performed. In other words we are looking at apples to apples.
your concerns have been addressed as they were assessing the differences between the deeds themselves.