8 ms·
I for one would like to see a study that shows that people who read bible are more moral than people who don't read bible (or people who play video games). In m
by fijal 13y ago
I for one would like to see a study that shows that people who read bible are more moral than people who don't read bible (or people who play video games). In my anecdotal evidence, there is no real correlation, but hey, science.
- meric 13y agoThe key I think is people reading the bible have their minds engaged in the thoughts of morality.
- pseut 13y agoThis was software aimed at people seriously studying the bible with a reminder that would come up when they're reflecting on their religion. And you think that's irrelevant? They've already pirated the software so it's not morality, it's guilt.
- hobbes 13y agoIs it even meaningful to talk of guilt without morality?
- existencebox 13y agoWhile both are social responses derived from some societal "standard" and ones interaction with it; the former, I typically think of, as being more of an involuntary reaction, whereas the later is thought of as motivating conscious behavior. The often hypocritical actions of people who will do something until they get caught, is the big example. Clearly it is not against someones personal morals, but it does generate a response due to a negative interaction with another member of society, which in many cases might be motivated by guilt. Terrible wording aside, I think the two have both intersecting and unique qualities, guilt and morality, that depending on the person will be called into play at various points in the decision making process. Disclaimer: IANAbehaviorist, I was just raised by one, and nearly married to one.
- TeMPOraL 13y agoIn my anecdotal evidence there's actually huge, but hey, that's exactly what we have science for.
- mcv 13y agoAnother factor might be that it's probably easier to admit you're illegally reading the bible, than illegally watching porn.
- ye 13y agoThe evidence is actually to the contrary. The incarceration rates of atheists vs christians in the US are quite telling.
- QuiteMouse 13y agoYou don't want to be an outlier in the prison system. If you're not on board with everyone else, there is a real possibility that you're going to get hurt. I think this is part of the reason Atheists are so underrepresented in the prison population. Simple self-preservation.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 13y agoCare to provide a reference to some numbers for the lazy folks like me? ;).
- mike_esspe 13y agohttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what... Seems like 0.07% from survey by Federal Bureau of Prisons.
- mistercow 13y agoThere are two problems with that: 1. I don't think the data actually exists. The commonly cited figure of 0.2% atheists is extremely dubious. 2. There are too many confounding factors and hidden variables. A plurality of Hindus speak Hindi, but believing in Hinduism neither causes, nor is caused by speaking Hindi. Likewise, if atheists are underrepresented in prisons, there are just too many simple demographic explanations to draw any conclusions about morality.
- ye 13y agoYour opinion about the cited figure is much more dubious than the data we got from an independent research analyst who didn't care for the data.
- mistercow 13y agoI read a study a while back (and I cannot seem to find it now, annoyingly) that found that people with high moral status (priests, judges, etc.) behaved less morally than ordinary people. Which makes sense in terms of evolution; if you're already viewed by everyone as moral, acting morally is a waste of resources and opportunities.
- ams6110 13y agoYour morality is how you behave when nobody's watching.
- Flimm 13y agoWhich set of morals were used? How were people's morality assessed? How comprehensive was it? What about secret behaviour? In terms of evolution, surely there are benefits to behaving morally other than reciprocation and social status.
- rmc 13y agoA study like that would be almost impossible to do. A lot depends on how you define "moral". Is telling a gay person "Homosexuality is wrong" moral or immoral? Is admitting that "Mohammed is the final messanger of God" moral or immoral? Is calling the Pope God's representative on earth moral or immoral? Is calling Jesus devine moral or immoral? Until you can define what you're trying to measure, you cannot do any study.
- mcherm 13y ago> Is telling a gay person "Homosexuality is wrong" moral or immoral? Maybe. Because it is a question on which significant numbers of people differ, it would be a poor choice for such a study. > Is admitting that "Mohammed is the final messanger [sic] of God" moral or immoral? No. > Is calling the Pope God's representative on earth moral or immoral? No. > Is calling Jesus devine [sic] moral or immoral? No. > Until you can define what you're trying to measure, you cannot do any study. Not every action is moral or immoral, and some actions have a moral component but it is debated which is preferable. On the other hand, LOTS of actions have clearly defined and widely accepted morality. Construct your study so you measure whether participants take more than their share of M&Ms or whether they cheat on the test when they think it will be undetectable.
- rmc 13y ago> Not every action is moral or immoral True, but there are some actions which some people think are moral, and some think are immoral. The religious questions I gave are like that. People disagree about whether an action is moral or immoral. Some Christians will think that it's moral and right and good to call Jesus divine (and a sin and immoral to claim the opposite), whereas some (say) Muslims will think that it's blashpemy and wrong and immoral to call Jesus divine (and a moral and good thing to claim the opposite).
- Fargren 13y agoAsumming that a subset of moral questions have black an white answers (or nearly), couldn't the study just look only at those questions?