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]

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?

You could say the same thing about humans. It is really a very interesting subject. Brain scans on pyschopaths reveal that they have some brain certain brain structures that are significantly reduced compared to the general population. If you would like I would be happy to start a thread in the science section about brain structure and morality. There are some very interesting case studies on this.

[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?

You could say the same thing about humans. It is really a very interesting subject.

Could you though? I am biologically inclined to do a lot of things, sometimes good sometimes bad things. Unlike animals, I am capable of recognizing which ones of the inclinations I should follow and which ones are wrong.

Brain scans on pyschopaths reveal that they have some brain certain brain structures that are significantly reduced compared to the general population. If you would like I would be happy to start a thread in the science section about brain structure and morality. There are some very interesting case studies on this.

Obviously the understanding of morality can be causally traced to the brain. I don't think anyone would dispute that. That does not even mean that morality itself originates from the brain, let alone that it would consist of mere biological inclinations.

[Peter]

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?

This is actually a very interesting angle on behavior. It's interesting to note that in the animal kingdom intelligence level is positively correlated with social behavior and social behavior is positively correlated to what we generally consider to be moral behavior. One example of what I mean could be that the female preying mantis generally devours the male after copulation while the human female generally does not. However, there is no guarantee that evolution will evolve only moral behavior because it's entirely possible that some specific immoral behavior actually results in some evolutionary advantage. Perhaps polygamy falls into this category. It would definitely result in a reproductive advantage (likely an evolutionary advantage too) but it's definitely immoral to most people today. Oh well, don't want to drag us off topic, just thinking out loud.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 63 by Peter]

Yeah I agree polygamy is a really interesting example indeed there is genetic evidence to suggest much of our ancestors behaved this way. As a species we are at an interesting cross-roads with industrialization and the advancement of health care to such a point that there are no longer significant disparities with gender populations.

Could it be that at one point in our history that polygamy was a useful and moral trait but now as we evolve as a society that it is less useful and to many an immoral thing?

Or is monogamy an imperfect trait for our species? After all more than 50% of marriages end in divorce and at least in the United States infedelity is not the most frequent cause. People simply just can't stand each other after a while its seems!

[dianaiad]

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!

then it's a good thing that's not my claim, isn't it?

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.

Well, if one group thinks that 'reason' means they have the right to force others to participate in religious ceremonies which violate their beliefs, then I'm not reasonable.

If one group thinks that they may impose their religious beliefs upon people who do not share those beliefs, and force this by force of law, then I'm not reasonable.

If by 'reason' you think that it is permissible for the government to impose its idea of marriage upon religious groups, then I'm not reasonable.

So, I guess I'm not even a little bit reasonable. SOMEONE is going to be mad at me, no matter what.

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?!?

Well now, there you have me. I fell into the same rhetorical trap I am criticizing; writing as if 'all' Christians eschewed the Law of Moses, when of course some do keep it.

A minority do. More don't. In fact, the vast majority don't. I feel a bit silly for doing this, and for being sloppy. The thing is, the argument here SEEMS to be that "ALL" Christians do follow the Law of Moses, (or should) and should, therefore, be stoning homosexuals and putting out eyes, which of course is seen as immoral, and if we don't, we are called hypocritical...

Talk about 'damned if you do, damned if you don't!"

The fact is, though, Christianity, for the most part, does not follow the Law of Moses, and has not for quite awhile. You don't see anything about stoning homosexuals, for instance, in the NT or the teachings of Jesus.

[dianaiad]

[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.

Actually, I think you believe every item, above, that you claim not to believe, except perhaps the 'civil' part.

I also believe that I have struck a nerve here, as in 'the [gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks."

I repeat: I was not calling you a liar. I was saying I don't believe you. That is a quality I have, not an accusation against you...but the more you use the sort of language you are using, the more I think that I am right not to believe you.

I don't think you have read the Koran or the Book of Mormon...and indeed, you claimed that you found those books troubling, but didn't claim to have read them. So I asked if you had, and you became angry. You didn't say 'yes, actually, I have," you wrote '...did I stutter.." when you wrote that they were 'troubling?"

I then told you that I found that most people who find books to be troubling have not actually read the books. I refer you to all those folks who campaigned against Huckleberry Finn, and the Harry Potter series, and...and....and....

I REALLY run into it with the Book of Mormon. I just haven't run into that many folks who find it to be problematic who actually HAVE read it. They get their information from anti-sources, and never bother to pick up the book themselves. The same thing goes for the Koran, actually.

So it was reasonable for me to ask.

.....and in fact, you've never actually answered the question. HAVE you read either book? Is the problem here that you are basically too honest to lie and say that you have, and so are retreating to indignation, attempting to deflect attention?

I mean, really; have you? As in, picked them up, opened them and read them, for themselves? Or has your knowledge of them come from third party, mostly inimical, sources?

As for the rest of your post, I will leave it to others to judge which of us is being 'civil.'

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 65:

...
You don't see anything about stoning homosexuals, for instance, in the NT or the teachings of Jesus.

Nor do we see Jesus tellin' us all about how allowing homosexuals to get married is so wrong.

Cognitive dissonance comes to mind...

"We don't follow them laws there, in the book we hold so sacred, but we sure want y'all to follow ours!"

Alas, having a book present differing sets of laws is apt to confuse and confound even the most brilliant minds.

[dianaiad]

From Post 65:

...
You don't see anything about stoning homosexuals, for instance, in the NT or the teachings of Jesus.

Nor do we see Jesus tellin' us all about how allowing homosexuals to get married is so wrong.

Cognitive dissonance comes to mind...

"We don't follow them laws there, in the book we hold so sacred, but we sure want y'all to follow ours!"

Alas, having a book present differing sets of laws is apt to confuse and confound even the most brilliant minds.

Just a note:

The 'Bible' is not A book. It's a collection of a bunch of different books. "Bible" comes from 'biblio,' which is more like 'library' than 'book,' and it is divided into books and THEN chapters,

So are all those different books within this larger collection going to be about different things, different times, cultures and outlooks?

Of course.


As for me, I don't think that the government should have anything to do with marriage as religion sees it, and HAS seen it, from time immemorial.

Marriage predates any government that exists on the planet to day, Joey, and all religions have different views of what it is.

The government...all it does or can do is recognize it and issue certain rights and obligations to those who are. No government has the right to take over a religious rite and make it official for every belief system there is.

Government DOES have the right to issue civil rights, contractual rights and obligations to folks, and it has the right to do so to anybody it wants.

So...'marriage' should be private, religious and of absolutely no legal force.

Civil unions or domestic contracts or whatever you want to call 'em should be obtained from the government to get the civil rights. If religions want to 'bless' such unions, fine. If it doesn't, fine.

Until then, however, everybody has a problem. I see it as being forced to participate, BY LAW, in religious ceremonies which violate my beliefs. I find that to be unconstitutional, and so should you.

Separate the civil and contractual obligations from the religious and cultural ones. Then everybody wins.

[KenRU]

Well, if one group thinks that 'reason' means they have the right to force others to participate in religious ceremonies which violate their beliefs, then I'm not reasonable.

The vast majority of same sex couples I’ve read about (and the few that I do know) had no desire to force a religious group to perform their wedding. They just wanted the legal right to wed.

If one group thinks that they may impose their religious beliefs upon people who do not share those beliefs, and force this by force of law, then I'm not reasonable.

The only ones trying to do this are the legal challenges by the religious right who are trying to deny the right for same sex couples to wed. Ironic how this argument seems to be the reverse of actual reality.

If by 'reason' you think that it is permissible for the government to impose its idea of marriage upon religious groups, then I'm not reasonable.

Dianaiad, please show me where this argument has been made. I often hear this argument, and never understood the fear. I never once heard or read about a legal challenge that would force churches, synagogues or mosques to do this.

So, I guess I'm not even a little bit reasonable. SOMEONE is going to be mad at me, no matter what.

I won’t be mad at you. : )

[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?

This is actually a very interesting angle on behavior. It's interesting to note that in the animal kingdom intelligence level is positively correlated with social behavior and social behavior is positively correlated to what we generally consider to be moral behavior. One example of what I mean could be that the female preying mantis generally devours the male after copulation while the human female generally does not. However, there is no guarantee that evolution will evolve only moral behavior because it's entirely possible that some specific immoral behavior actually results in some evolutionary advantage. Perhaps polygamy falls into this category. It would definitely result in a reproductive advantage (likely an evolutionary advantage too) but it's definitely immoral to most people today. Oh well, don't want to drag us off topic, just thinking out loud.

I'll make a quick remark on that. The trouble is, I think, that moral behavior cannot be established on external criteria. Morality of an action lies in the motive. Saving the life of another in hopes of a reward hardly constitutes moral behavior, while the exact same action in the exact same circumstances does constitute moral behavior if the person saving the life does so because he thinks that it is the right think to do.

With regard to animals then, we cannot possibly know for what reason they do what they do. We cannot even know whether they are conscious like we are in the first place. If they act out of sheer biological inclination like a robot that is programmed to do certain things, then we can hardly call their behavior moral behavior.