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?

[dianaiad]

I have seen religious people (we all have) whether it's on the news, or in our own communities, do ''immoral'' (for lack of a better word) things...and I have seen religious people do astoundingly beautiful and positive things to better the world around them. Helping their fellow men and women.

I have seen atheists on both sides of that fence as well.

Your code of conduct boils down to choices. If you are a religious person, that doesn't automatically mean you will make good choices. (ie: priest sex scandal, Jim Baker, etc...)

Something to note, most incarcerated people identified themselves as Christians when they were convicted, and then incarcerated (as opposed to ''finding God during their prison sentences) over atheists. Atheists make up the smallest populations in American prisons.

Hmmm......

lol

Dierdre...

Unfortunately, that's not quite true.

Atheists do make up the smallest population in American prisons...but they make up the population at arrest in approximately the same percentage as the population at large.

AFTER imprisonment, atheists, not being stupid, will often claim to 'find religion,' because doing so gets them benefits. Places to go that they could not go. Shortened (possibly) prison time. More privileges.

Case in point: Jeffrey Dahmer who was rather adamant about his atheism until after his conviction and imprisonment, but who decided that he was 'born again' in prison.

Having been involved with the prison system for quite some time as a teacher and from having friends and acquaintances in all levels, from guards to teachers to, yes, inmates, I can tell you that it's pretty common. Prisoners find religion in prison.

They tend to lose it again as soon as they leave the gates, though.

So there's that.

There's also this: what one is 'born into' does not dictate one's future beliefs and habits. If I have heard once, I've heard a hundred times that Stalin, for instance, can't possibly have been an atheist because his mother was Russian Orthodox and raised him that way.

Or that Hitler was a Catholic (never mind that he targeted Catholic priests and nuns...he was baptised Catholic at birth and that's all that counts)

Or that Ted Bundy was a Mormon for a whole year...he was excommunicated..and claimed to be a Presbyterian.

HOW many atheists on this forum claim to have been Catholic, or Protestant of some sort, at some time?

Does that mean that they cannot, possibly, then be atheist?

[Zzyzx]

.

I can tell you that it's pretty common. Prisoners find religion in prison.

They tend to lose it again as soon as they leave the gates, though.

Diana, we often have your OPINION that jailhouse conversions are common and do not last beyond incarceration.

Is there SUBSTANTIATION for how common? Is it one in three, one in ten, one in a hundred? How has that been determined? Sure you can "wing it" and provide anecdotal "proofs", but this is debate in which such things have minimal to negative value.

How often are conversions lost after release from incarceration? How do you know?

Can you provide verification, studies, numbers, verifiable information? Or do your claims fit the definition of "repeated unsubstantiated claims?"


Note: I do not doubt that SOME jailhouse conversions happen and that SOME of them may be sincere and SOME insincere. Likewise, I do not doubt that some of the general population who claim to be Christians (or Mormons, or Catholics, or Muslims) are sincere and some are insincere. However, I have not encountered any means to determine who is and who is not sincere and who is or is not a believer as they claim.

Do you have access to such information or a means to make the determination?

[Peter]

Maybe the answer is just to let religion run its course like Ebola. If it doesn't kill us all in one way or another the survivors will be immune.

Y'know, mankind has been around for rather a long time, and we've always, and I do mean, ALWAYS, had religion. Every single time we try to do without it, that is, make religion illegal, people die by the job lots. Now whether that is the direct result of anti-theism, or simply because the brand of atheism that replaced religious beliefs didn't stop the mayhem, makes little difference; people were not better off without religion.

Who said anything about making religion illegal? I'd like to make religion unnecessary. Have you checked the news lately? We're headed for a holy war to end all holy wars.

We WILL be better off with freedom OF religion, absolutely. That is, when all mankind is free to believe as they wish about God…and recognizes that right for everybody else, we'll be a lot better off.

I agree. People can believe in pixies for all I care but please, don't try to mold the world around pixie belief.

Supporting the irrational belief in a god and hoping that people will believe in the "right" god is absolute lunacy.

Then mankind as a whole has been utterly insane since we became self-aware.

It's time to grow up and realize that Santa doesn't exist. It was just a childhood wish.

Oh, and Peter? I see absolutely no difference in results or actions between someone who has a specific theistic belief he wants to promote, and the guy whose belief regarding deity is 'there ain't one and anybody who does is crazy."

From where I sit, at least, there is no difference in attitude, in actions…or in rhetoric.

Oh, and Dianaiad, anyone who claims there is no god is just as foolish as someone who claims to know there is a god. It's quite impossible to know either way.

[Deidre32]

[Replying to post 31 by dianaiad]

Christians make up the majority of the American population, at least identify themselves as such. It stands to reason, they make up the largest prison population. (not withstanding those who 'convert' during their sentences)

I'll find a link tomorrow, it's pretty interesting.

[OnceConvinced]

Having spent the majority of my life (around 38) years as a committed member of chuches I would have to say the study is very accurate. I found that people tended to put on a mask at church, appearing a lot holier than what they were behind the scenes. Once you get to know people and they became more relaxed in your company you get to see that they aren't anything more special than those who aren't Christians. The "holy spirit" is clearly doing little to enhance them.

Are they trying to become better people? That's a different question again. Many were trying to be better and overcome their failures, no doubts about that and I can speak as one who was one of those. But then again trying to be a better person isn't something that is specific to religious folk. There are plenty of atheists out there trying to be better people too.

[janavoss]

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?

I am in agreement with Vanguard on this, and the previous post.

I think this line of thinking is also consistent with Jesus' teachings, some of the beatitudes for example - the poor in spirit, the meek, etc., are the blessed ones as opposed to their more well-adjusted counterparts, because they can more clearly see their "illness," to continue Vanguard's analogy.
And the parable of the two debtors, as well as the example of the 'sinful' woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears. "Those who have been forgiven much love much, but whoever has been forgiven little loves little" (paraphrased).

............
I would be very interested to see what kinds of questions the study subjects were asked to respond to. Just curious to see how I might have responded.

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

It makes sense that those who do not consider themselves ill would not seek the services of a hospital.

It also makes sense that hospital personnel might increase business by convincing people they are ill when they are not.

Before exploring that, do you agree my analogy is relevant?

Yes, it seems as though your analogy is relevant.

From earlier:

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.

I agree that Christianity appears to have greatest appeal to those who are NOT "blessed with even-temper, sharp intellectual faculties, and free of any significant childhood traumas"

And that Christianity appeals to those who are saddled with burdens (of their own making or not).

Where does that leave us? Is Christianity most appealing as an aid to sick, disadvantaged, burdened, discouraged, uneducated people who are not intellectually sharp?

If that is true (and I just assemble what has been said), why is that the case? If religious belief is valid and useful why should it appeal less to people who are NOT sick, disadvantaged, burdened, discouraged, uneducated and who ARE intellectually sharp? It would seem as though the "advantaged" would be attracted to a beneficial system.

Could it be that the "benefits" of religion are largely imaginary – concocted by preachers and those they convince? It seems as though promising a wonderful "life after you die" fits that category and would appeal to the downtrodden.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 31 by dianaiad]



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

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 31 by dianaiad]

Atheists do make up the smallest population in American prisons...but they make up the population at arrest in approximately the same percentage as the population at large.

Can you provide a source for us please?

AFTER imprisonment, atheists, not being stupid, will often claim to 'find religion,' because doing so gets them benefits. Places to go that they could not go. Shortened (possibly) prison time. More privileges.

Case in point: Jeffrey Dahmer who was rather adamant about his atheism until after his conviction and imprisonment, but who decided that he was 'born again' in prison.

Having been involved with the prison system for quite some time as a teacher and from having friends and acquaintances in all levels, from guards to teachers to, yes, inmates, I can tell you that it's pretty common. Prisoners find religion in prison.

They tend to lose it again as soon as they leave the gates, though.

That seems to be very common among most everywhere. I've seen family members become religious during trying times and then revert out of it once things quiet down. Even after 9/11 we saw that happen. Funny how people are ain't it? It would seem common, though I wouldn't be able to point an exact # on it.

what one is 'born into' does not dictate one's future beliefs and habits.

Thankfully true!!
Cycles it's all about cycles

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 38 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't know if she said that but I know a lot of people seem to believe it. In truth, they should be if they're following their God right (or even following the RIGHT God right) but we don't see that a lot of times. At least I don't.
Plus, their morals can be a lot different than mine. Sometimes they're even the exact opposite. Maybe the indoctrination of some people just doesn't take?