3 ms·

See my comments below for links to articles. There is overwhelming evidence that religious people, particularly those who attend services are less likely to be

See my comments below for links to articles. There is overwhelming evidence that religious people, particularly those who attend services are less likely to be involved in criminal activity. Your assertion that the religious or church attenders are mostly about 'belief in paranormal activity' is really quite missing the ball, to the point that it's almost offensive - though it's a common misunderstanding. Most classical Churches, Synagogues etc. are basically old-school community centers, where morality, behavior, contentiousness is passed on from generation to generation. Devotion to 'a higher purpose' and 'the community' is basically paramount and instituted into all ideals. FYI - it's actually not that much about 'belief', funny enough it's mostly about 'behaviour' which is highlighted in the research that hints that 'attendance' is the strongest predictor, less so 'faith'. (Sorry, I tried to find that specific article and could not). I'm not some kind of 'holy roller' or whatever, I'm just constantly shocked at the odd misunderstanding many super secular types have about religion. The original posters bit about 'God wanted me to keep the wallet' triggered me because that's basically the opposite of what most religious people would instinctively think: to most service attenders, that the 'wallet belongs to someone' is a most obvious observation. Most mainline religious groups are like 'boy scouts' and 'girl guides'. A little conservative, generally very conscientious.

peteforde 8y ago
I actually am the OP, and I just wanted to say that while I suspect we disagree on some fundamentals... I am extremely impressed by the quality, tone and effort to link to research evidenced in your two replies. As you deduced, I missed your initial reply because we both posted at the same time. For what it's worth, I'm also in Canada and my best friend is a Christian. She was not born into it and has always been really great about being willing to admit when she doesn't know the answers to something. This has, in turn, inspired me to be less of a judgemental asshole. Don't get me wrong: I still have a really hard time with the idea that intelligent people can justify worshipping malevolent invisible sky wizards. And a lot of my bias against religious influence in modern society comes from the organizations themselves, and not their members. Evil priests, etc are over-staying their welcome. However, I am heartened to know that research suggests religious people are less likely to be criminals. Happy to acknowledge that I learned something. I do wonder if causation/correlation are skewed, here... as in, would those people still be good if they'd grown up in secular families? Anyhow... great chat. Feel free to update if you think of anything else.
- kelvin0 8y ago
  What constitutes a 'Criminal Act' in generally accepted terms? We can probably agree that there are some cases which generally considered 'bad': Stealing, Killing and others. But even some instances of these 'bad' acts are also up to debate (stealing to feed your kids, killing in war or self defense...). But it's also worth noting that what constitutes a criminal act is largely dependent on the laws that are enacted by a majority (this is also a broad generalization). Taking into account that a majority votes these laws, these laws will also reflect that same majoritie's Religious (or lack thereof) beliefs. This 'hypothetical' religious majority will probably never vote for laws which 'criminalizes' their beliefs and actions! Thus it's quite easy to see that Religious folks from this majority will never be deemed criminal. As a thought experiment: imagine that attempting to obstruct or make it more difficult for someone to have an abortion was illegal. How many more religious people would become 'criminals'? In conclusion, one person's definition of criminal is another's person definition of a 'hero'. Claiming that religious people are less likely to be criminals is based on shaky assumptions in my opinion.

peteforde 8y ago

I actually am the OP, and I just wanted to say that while I suspect we disagree on some fundamentals... I am extremely impressed by the quality, tone and effort to link to research evidenced in your two replies. As you deduced, I missed your initial reply because we both posted at the same time. For what it's worth, I'm also in Canada and my best friend is a Christian. She was not born into it and has always been really great about being willing to admit when she doesn't know the answers to something. This has, in turn, inspired me to be less of a judgemental asshole. Don't get me wrong: I still have a really hard time with the idea that intelligent people can justify worshipping malevolent invisible sky wizards. And a lot of my bias against religious influence in modern society comes from the organizations themselves, and not their members. Evil priests, etc are over-staying their welcome. However, I am heartened to know that research suggests religious people are less likely to be criminals. Happy to acknowledge that I learned something. I do wonder if causation/correlation are skewed, here... as in, would those people still be good if they'd grown up in secular families? Anyhow... great chat. Feel free to update if you think of anything else.

kelvin0 8y ago
What constitutes a 'Criminal Act' in generally accepted terms? We can probably agree that there are some cases which generally considered 'bad': Stealing, Killing and others. But even some instances of these 'bad' acts are also up to debate (stealing to feed your kids, killing in war or self defense...). But it's also worth noting that what constitutes a criminal act is largely dependent on the laws that are enacted by a majority (this is also a broad generalization). Taking into account that a majority votes these laws, these laws will also reflect that same majoritie's Religious (or lack thereof) beliefs. This 'hypothetical' religious majority will probably never vote for laws which 'criminalizes' their beliefs and actions! Thus it's quite easy to see that Religious folks from this majority will never be deemed criminal. As a thought experiment: imagine that attempting to obstruct or make it more difficult for someone to have an abortion was illegal. How many more religious people would become 'criminals'? In conclusion, one person's definition of criminal is another's person definition of a 'hero'. Claiming that religious people are less likely to be criminals is based on shaky assumptions in my opinion.