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?

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 69 by KenRU]

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.

Same here. But the religious right likes to make claims like this to bolster their (for some reasons unknown) fear of gay people.

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.

People fear what they don't understand. And religious people don't typically understand gay people beyond what they're told in their sermons. Religion breeds fear and ignornance and feeds on it at the same time.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Wordleymaster1]


I also find it odd that they dont want to be forced to participate in gay weddings while simultaneously forcing non religious kids to pledge allegiance to their god in schools....

[Danmark]

Tho' I've met Christians who have been in prison and agree that some try to "Ride the Bible Out," my personal experience with people in jail is that they correlate their crimes with not going to church. My impression is that they are sincere when they talk about getting into Bible study and church groups in jail with a genuine effort to try to get their lives back on track.

On the other hand, far too many times I've heard a client justify his innocence and claims of telling me the 'truth' by proclaiming his 'Christianity,' as in "I'm a Christian so I'm telling you the truth." Generally just the look on my face at that malarkey is usually enough that they don't bring that one up again.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to Wordleymaster1]


I also find it odd that they dont want to be forced to participate in gay weddings while simultaneously forcing non religious kids to pledge allegiance to their god in schools....

Who is 'they?"

Yes, there are some Christians who want to keep gays from marrying and to keep mandatory prayer in schools. This is, at least, consistent.

There are those Christians, like me, who don't want mandatory prayer in schools.

By the same token, I don't think that it's right to force others to participate in religious ceremonies, like weddings, that violate their religious principles, whether they violate MINE or not.

that, too, is consistent.

What I find to be inconsistent, and downright hypcritical, is the idea that it is permissible to ban even voluntary prayer in schools and public venues because being exposed even to such a voluntary prayer is violating the freedom of those who might happen to hear it, but it is perfectly permissible to force, upon pain of fines and penalties, to force someone to participate in a ceremony that violates his or her religion, just because it is politically correct, or approved of by the folks who don't want to be exposed to a prayer.

THAT is unconscionable.

As for the businesses have no freedom of religion..''baloney. All businesses are run, and owned, by PEOPLE. If a business is owned, entirely, by one person, or a group that have the same religious beliefs, then it is THEIR religious beliefs that are being violated.

I would defend the right of an atheist owned business to refuse to participate in a religious meeting, either through catering, or renting facilities or goods.

What I do not support, and find utterly unacceptable, is this 'more inclusive than thou' attitude of the crowd that sees no harm in prohibiting people from praying or referring to God in schools, commencement exercises or in public speeches--because they themselves don't want to listen to such things, but haven't got any problem with forcing others to participate in religious ceremonies that violate their beliefs. After all, the thinking seems to go: I can keep you from performing your ceremonies because I don't approve of them, but I can force you to participate in ceremonies of which I do approve.

How does that make you any different from the Pilgrims who would put people in stocks for not attending church on a Sunday?

How does that make you ANY different from the old governments that would tax Jews more highly and not allow them the use of their proper last names?

..........look up the history of the Rothschild family. Ever wonder why their name means 'red shield?"

How does that make you any different from the folks who made voting and owning property a matter of religion?

I contend....

It does not. You are exactly the same.

[Zzyzx]

.

Tho' I've met Christians who have been in prison and agree that some try to "Ride the Bible Out," my personal experience with people in jail is that they correlate their crimes with not going to church. My impression is that they are sincere when they talk about getting into Bible study and church groups in jail with a genuine effort to try to get their lives back on track.

Could it be, then, that religion can (at least occasionally) be useful in keeping in line those who are criminally inclined? If so, that might be a positive influence of religion.

Several members who posted here over the years indicated that they would run amok if it was not for fearing eternal punishment (or whatever).

Does "ride the bible out" or jailhouse conversion (or seeking favorable treatment) explain why Christians are so predominant in prisons -- as Diana seems to be trying to suggest?

On the other hand, far too many times I've heard a client justify his innocence and claims of telling me the 'truth' by proclaiming his 'Christianity,' as in "I'm a Christian so I'm telling you the truth." Generally just the look on my face at that malarkey is usually enough that they don't bring that one up again.

Same here. Whenever someone says anything like "Trust me because I am a Christian" GREAT BIG RED FLAGS go up all over the place for me. If anyone in a business transaction touts their religion I always ask the attorneys to keep an especially close eye on them (because in my experience the "announcers" are often using that as distraction from their nefarious intent).

[Danmark]

.

Tho' I've met Christians who have been in prison and agree that some try to "Ride the Bible Out," my personal experience with people in jail is that they correlate their crimes with not going to church. My impression is that they are sincere when they talk about getting into Bible study and church groups in jail with a genuine effort to try to get their lives back on track.

Could it be, then, that religion can (at least occasionally) be useful in keeping in line those who are criminally inclined? If so, that might be a positive influence of religion.

Several members who posted here over the years indicated that they would run amok if it was not for fearing eternal punishment (or whatever).

Does "ride the bible out" or jailhouse conversion (or seeking favorable treatment) explain why Christians are so predominant in prisons -- as Diana seems to be trying to suggest?

On the other hand, far too many times I've heard a client justify his innocence and claims of telling me the 'truth' by proclaiming his 'Christianity,' as in "I'm a Christian so I'm telling you the truth." Generally just the look on my face at that malarkey is usually enough that they don't bring that one up again.

Same here. Whenever someone says anything like "Trust me because I am a Christian" GREAT BIG RED FLAGS go up all over the place for me. If anyone in a business transaction touts their religion I always ask the attorneys to keep an especially close eye on them (because in my experience the "announcers" are often using that as distraction from their nefarious intent).

My father was a very devout evangelical Christian, and a 'Christian Businessman,' but he would never apply that term to himself. He did not trust those who called themselves such.

As I understand, conversions to Islam are more common in prison these days. The latest beheading was done by a Muslim prison convert, right here in the good ol' U S of A.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ading.html

Prob'ly not the best example of religion making people more moral.

[dianaiad]

As I understand, conversions to Islam are more common in prison these days. The latest beheading was done by a Muslim prison convert, right here in the good ol' U S of A.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ading.html

Prob'ly not the best example of religion making people more moral.

Probably not.

But I'll tell you what: I'll see you one Alton Nolen, and raise you Jeffrey Dahmer.

Religion makes people more moral if they adhere to the precepts. Usually. Just like atheistic belief systems make people more moral if said atheists identify, and abide by, some code of ethics (usually humanist).

but neither atheism nor theism will do didley squat for those folks who only give lip service to the ethical system they claim to follow, or who actively twist them to serve their own purposes.

.....and at least I, unlike the non-believers here on this forum, am not dumb enough to make such sweeping declarations as that all theists are immoral (or all atheists), that theists require religion to be 'good' out of fear because without it they'd be evil monsters incarnate, or that it doesn't matter how 'good' a theist is, it doesn't matter because at least when an atheist is 'good,' he's 'good' for the RIGHT REASONS.

Gahhhhhh.

[Danmark]

As I understand, conversions to Islam are more common in prison these days. The latest beheading was done by a Muslim prison convert, right here in the good ol' U S of A.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ading.html

Prob'ly not the best example of religion making people more moral.

Probably not.

But I'll tell you what: I'll see you one Alton Nolen, and raise you Jeffrey Dahmer.

Religion makes people more moral if they adhere to the precepts. Usually. Just like atheistic belief systems make people more moral if said atheists identify, and abide by, some code of ethics (usually humanist).

but neither atheism nor theism will do didley squat for those folks who only give lip service to the ethical system they claim to follow, or who actively twist them to serve their own purposes.

.....and at least I, unlike the non-believers here on this forum, am not dumb enough to make such sweeping declarations as that all theists are immoral (or all atheists), that theists require religion to be 'good' out of fear because without it they'd be evil monsters incarnate, or that it doesn't matter how 'good' a theist is, it doesn't matter because at least when an atheist is 'good,' he's 'good' for the RIGHT REASONS.

Gahhhhhh.

Another factor that I rarely hear argued is that many non theists grew up in Christian homes and communities. They have rejected the theology, but retained many of the good values they were indoctrinated with. Despite the many literally minded 'Christians' who seem intolerant and hateful, focusing as they do on the 'rules' instead of the principles behind the rules, there is very much in the Christian ideal that can be admired. I think it is well nigh impossible for the non theist former Christian to make the case that his own values do not owe a debt to at least some of his Christian background.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to Wordleymaster1]


I also find it odd that they dont want to be forced to participate in gay weddings while simultaneously forcing non religious kids to pledge allegiance to their god in schools....

Should we though? I find Christianity to be maybe the ultimate form of hypocrisy. Should we really be surprised?
Also, many times these Christains want less government but want the government to tell OTHER PEOPLE what to do in their personal lives from gay marriage to pot. Oh and don't forget gun control and the FACT that people believing in the samge God can't even all agree on HOW to believe in Him or what He wants.
Hypocrisy breeds hypocrisy I guess.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 69 by KenRU]

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.

Same here. But the religious right likes to make claims like this to bolster their (for some reasons unknown) fear of gay people.

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.

People fear what they don't understand. And religious people don't typically understand gay people beyond what they're told in their sermons. Religion breeds fear and ignornance and feeds on it at the same time.

Agreed. I have yet to hear this fear justified, despite my best efforts to have it explained to me.

And, oddly enough, this seeming tangent can very easily be tied to the OP. Refusing another the right to wed (with equal benefits under the law), for unjustified fears, is very much the subject here. Don't ya think?