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 dianaiad]

Yes do you have data that religious people who strictly adhere to their respective religion are more moral than non religious people.

Yes i have read the bible the book of mormon and the koran did i stutter when I said they were troubling?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Yes do you have data that religious people who strictly adhere to their respective religion are more moral than non religious people.

Where did I make THAT claim?

Read more carefully. I did not claim that religious people who strictly adhere to their respective religion are more moral than non-religious people.

Look up what my claim actually is, then get back to me.

Yes i have read the bible the book of mormon and the koran did i stutter when I said they were troubling?

I have found that most of the people who find these books 'troubling,' turn out not to have actually read them. So I asked.

Perhaps you could reference some of the things you find 'troubling' from the Koran and the Book of Mormon...

....without referencing some website that has fed you the information and commentary that goes with it?

You know, chapter and verse, in context, referencing the cultures described and using your original thoughts, showing that you did, indeed, read the book, and not an anti-description of it?

Because, and I am sorry about this, but as to your actually having read the Book of Mormon and the Koran?

I don't think I believe that. I don't know that I believe that you have read the bible cover to cover, either.

I realize that my belief has nothing to do with whether you have, actually, read these books or not, but there it is.

[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?

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.

Perhaps we should address my knowledge of the book of Mormon and Koran separately in PM as that we be off-topic.

As for the bible i have spent most of my life strictly adhering to the bible and studying it deeply. Really it wasn't until the past 3 years that I have been an Atheist. Honestly I have better biblical knowledge than knowledge of science. I know its hard to believe but some atheist have pretty deep biblical knowledge.

As to your public attempt at calling me a liar in the nicest way possible, I expect better of a moderator. I think we can both agree many religious people don't read the books they ascribe to their religion. So when anyone says they read the bible we should cast doubt on them to right? Or is it just because I am an Atheist and you have a preconceived and inappropriate bias towards me.

[Peter]

Who is fundamentally more moral? The person who attempts to follow the rules interpreted from an old book written by a god or the person who naturally empathizes with their fellow man and follows the golden rule? IMO it's not even close. For those that can't fully empathize, rules out of an old book are sometimes an acceptable fall back position.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to dianaiad]

I said the systems not the people, and yes scientology as a system is pretty bad imo. I don't find all scientologists immoral but I do find the system itself.

The point of that list, was precisely this you are using morality as a ruler.

The listed religions above have conflicting morals. What one groups find as immoral another group finds moral and vice versa. You can't say religious people are more moral simply because they have a moral system.

Further more

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.

I don't think you have to be religious to realize that murder is bad that you should be kind to others and that stealing can be wrong. In fact even the animal kindom(the most non-religious group in existence) understands these concepts. Its not exclusive to religion or humans.

Moral codes and religious beliefs go hand and hand. For example the bible says that male homosexuals are an abomination this in turn informs a religious believer that homosexuality is wrong.

The belief informs the moral code any morality derived outside of the belief is not religious morality as it is not based on that religious teaching. As I astutely pointed out that you don't follow the law of moses, yet that is where most of the Abrahamic moral codes come from. So you are not strictly adhering to your religion then are you? Why don't you think that LGBT individuals should not be stoned to death?

Could it be that a non-religious belief informed your personal moral code?

[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.

Perhaps we should address my knowledge of the book of Mormon and Koran separately in PM as that we be off-topic.

As for the bible i have spent most of my life strictly adhering to the bible and studying it deeply. Really it wasn't until the past 3 years that I have been an Atheist. Honestly I have better biblical knowledge than knowledge of science. I know its hard to believe but some atheist have pretty deep biblical knowledge.

As to your public attempt at calling me a liar in the nicest way possible, I expect better of a moderator. I think we can both agree many religious people don't read the books they ascribe to their religion. So when anyone says they read the bible we should cast doubt on them to right? Or is it just because I am an Atheist and you have a preconceived and inappropriate bias towards me.

At least you admit that it was done in 'the nicest way possible.'

In fact, I did not call you a liar. I said I don't believe you, but am quite willing to acknowledge that my belief and fact don't necessarily coincide.

the problem here is the same as the problems many atheists have; they see no evidence for deity, and I have seen no evidence, other than your claim that you 'find these books troublesome,' that you have actually read them. Indeed, you didn't claim to have read them. You simply said that you 'found them troublesome,' and in my experience, statements like that generally come from folks who have NOT read the books being referred to.

All you have to do to get me to believe you regarding your having actually read these books is to give me evidence that you have. I think that's fair.

BTW, thank you for posting the claim I actually did make, which was, as you can see, not quite the same as the one you claimed for me.

[instantc]

I don't think you have to be religious to realize that murder is bad that you should be kind to others and that stealing can be wrong. In fact even the animal kindom(the most non-religious group in existence) understands these concepts. Its not exclusive to religion or humans.

Do the animals understand that some things are wrong, or are they just biologically inclined to help each other in certain circumstances?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

I said the systems not the people, and yes scientology as a system is pretty bad imo. I don't find all scientologists immoral but I do find the system itself.

The point of that list, was precisely this you are using morality as a ruler.

The listed religions above have conflicting morals. What one groups find as immoral another group finds moral and vice versa. You can't say religious people are more moral simply because they have a moral system.

Further more

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.

I don't think you have to be religious to realize that murder is bad that you should be kind to others and that stealing can be wrong. In fact even the animal kindom(the most non-religious group in existence) understands these concepts. Its not exclusive to religion or humans.

So....your position is that if non-religious people believe that murder is bad and that one should be 'kind to others,' that these principles are, then, not found in religion?

BTW, you lost credibility with me with the ''even the animal kingdom...understands these concepts.'

The 'animal kingdom' consists of a vast number of animals (including humans, btw) and as far as I am aware, only humans have a philosophical objection to murder, etc.

.....and I know of NO animal (other than humans) who expanded the golden rule so that it applied to enemies: Matthew 5:38:48

27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. 30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. 33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. 34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. 36Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Moral codes and religious beliefs go hand and hand. For example the bible says that male homosexuals are an abomination this in turn informs a religious believer that homosexuality is wrong.

The belief informs the moral code any morality derived outside of the belief is not religious morality as it is not based on that religious teaching. As I astutely pointed out that you don't follow the law of moses, yet that is where most of the Abrahamic moral codes come from. So you are not strictly adhering to your religion then are you? Why don't you think that LGBT individuals should not be stoned to death?

Could it be that a non-religious belief informed your personal moral code?

You have read the bible, you claim. You used to be a Christian, you claim.

But having been one, why aren't you aware that Christians do not follow the law of Moses, or the Law of Hammarabi?

there is NOTHING in the NT about stoning homosexuals. Now, I happen to believe that same sex marriage isn't marriage in the eyes of God, so I won't go get married to another woman. I believe that homosexual sex is sinful, so I won't have any.

Now if the gay rights folks would be as reasonable with me, I'd be perfectly happy.

[Wordleymaster1]

BTW, you lost credibility with me with the ''even the animal kingdom...understands these concepts.'

The 'animal kingdom' consists of a vast number of animals (including humans, btw) and as far as I am aware, only humans have a philosophical objection to murder, etc.

.....and I know of NO animal (other than humans) who expanded the golden rule so that it applied to enemies: Matthew 5:38:48

Well I don't think animals have enemies like the human concept, but the book Cheating Monkeys and Citizen Bees has some interesting info on this concept. I have seen a few scientists believe, at least in many higher animals (dolphins, chimps, etc) have a sense or moral quality though not totally like humans. I don't think we can rightly compare people with any other animal since we are unique. The best we can do is come close

Now if the gay rights folks would be as reasonable with me, I'd be perfectly happy.

There are no gay people reasonable with you - at all? I find that hard to believe if that's your claim!
Though, if true, maybe it's because you're not reasonable with them? After all, you can't expect reasonable treatment if you're not reasonable yourself.

You have read the bible, you claim. You used to be a Christian, you claim.

But having been one, why aren't you aware that Christians do not follow the law of Moses

You are aware that many Christians do follow, at least some, of the Old Testament laws? Does that mean they aren't a Christian? I mean, Christians do a lot of things other people think they shouldn't and don't do a lot of things people think they should.
And what makes one person's claim of what Christians are or aren't supposed to do any better or worse than another's? Isn't Christainity in part about personal revelation and relationship with God? Surely God speaks to them - he did to Joseph Smith per your own religious claims so why not to you or me or the cashier at the local supermarket?!?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 58 by dianaiad]

You claim to be a Mormon You claim to have read the book of mormon in fact you claim lots of things Dianiad in fact I don't believe your a mormon and I don't believe your a christian. I don't believe you have read the bible. There is no evidence to suggest this. I don't believe your a woman. I don't believe your an American. I certainly don't believe you are civil.

I don't believe a single word that comes out of your mouth. In fact I don't believe your a really nice person. I believe your civility is just a veiled attempt at insulting my character.

I really thing the moderating group really needs to reconsider your position as a moderator.


When someone says as I did:

[Replying to dianaiad]
Yes i have read the bible the book of mormon and the koran did i stutter when I said they were troubling?

ITS ON THIS PAGE

and then you say

You have read the bible, you claim. You used to be a Christian, you claim.

YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO CAST DOUBT TO OTHER PEOPLE.

IF I SAY I READ THE BIBLE AND YOU SAY "I DONT BELIEVE THAT". YOU ARE CALLING ME A LIAR. LETS NOT PLAY COY JUST BE UPFRONT ABOUT IT YOU ARE SAYING I AM A LIAR.

YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CIVILITY YOU HAVE JUST CROSSED THAT LINE. I CAN BE NICE UP INTO A POINT. I CAN BE CIVIL UP INTO A POINT. I DON'T HAVE TO TOLERATE YOUR COY ATTEMPT AT INSULTING ME.

I Don't think you are nice and I really feel you have some prejudices about atheists that is impinging on your ability to moderate on this forum. There is a point in civility where you have to accept another persons claims about their personal selves you don't have to believe it.