Religion Doesn't Make People More Moral, Study Finds

The moral high ground seems to be a crowded place. A new study suggests that religious people aren't more likely to do good than their nonreligious counterparts. And while they may vehemently disagree with one another at times, liberals and conservatives also tend to be on par when it comes to behaving morally.

Researchers asked 1,252 adults of different religious and political backgrounds in the United States and Canada to record the good and bad deeds they committed, witnessed, learned about or were the target of throughout the day.

The goal of the study was to assess how morality plays out in everyday life for different people, said Dan Wisneski, a professor of psychology at Saint Peter's University in Jersey City, New Jersey, who helped conduct the study during his tenure at the University of Illinois at Chicago. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]

http://www.livescience.com/47799-morality-religion-political-beliefs.html

What was the goal of the study???

Survey research is the last means I would use to get at the matter. It's like asking people how beautiful they are, in order to determine what is beauty.

Hi Quill

Well for one, the goal is on the link, which I guess means you did not read open thus you would better placed to do so before making any point.



The goal of the study was to assess how morality plays out in everyday life for different people, said Dan Wisneski, a professor of psychology at Saint Peter's University in Jersey City, New Jersey, who helped conduct the study during his tenure at the University of Illinois at Chicago

Religion doesn't make people more moral.

Duh! Course it doesn't.

eddie wrote:Religion doesn't make people more moral.

Duh! Course it doesn't.

Hi Eddie

The study was more on about morality itself in everyone's daily life, hence I found interesting, I think the worst morality that can be found is within religion.

I think it's a valuable insight, Didge.  But so often we forget the general caution we learned in first-year methods class: survey research (asking questions of respondents) is inevitably filtered through the human mind, and it is subject to all the limitations that implies.

We are learning so much about 'speech' and what it means to say something, in everyday life.  Speech is not necessarily 'meaning', but also it is an act...a speech act.

Take politics.  How often do you hear someone say, I hate the president!  But then you find the same person just voted for the president.  On the rare off-chance you get to ask him, why?...he might answer: Meh, overall he was the better choice.  

WTF does that mean?  It means that No. 1 was a speech act; No. 2 was an actual choice. The mind is a lot of things, and not just a choice.  That same ambiguity is played out every time survey research is employed in fields of economics, psychology, sociology...everywhere.  When speech can mean so much in everyday life, survey research has a very limited depth.

And yet, one of the main defenses of religion I hear even from the skeptical is, "Well, maybe God's bunk but I think some people need to believe because it makes them behave better."

Obviously bullcrap -- the main thing I see religion doing to people is making them feel superior and special, and serving as justification for doing bad things.

Ben_Reilly wrote:And yet, one of the main defenses of religion I hear even from the skeptical is, "Well, maybe God's bunk but I think some people need to believe because it makes them behave better."

Obviously bullcrap -- the main thing I see religion doing to people is making them feel superior and special, and serving as justification for doing bad things.

From the 'Chosen People' to 'predestination'...we find a lot of that in religion.

Good morning folks.
What we must do is define what we mean by 'morality.' So many people seem to think it is only religious observances which enables a person to be moral, ie good behaviour and helping others etc etc. But surely, moral values must go back to ancient and primitive times, when co-existence and survival depended upon people within a tribe or community, or/and family, co-operating, sharing, and helping each other. As so often quoted, 'do unto others as you would be done by.' Reciprocation is the backbone of morality. Usually doing good, behaving oneself, helping others, brings it's just rewards, other people treating you in the same manner. (hopefully!)

In past discussion in the forums we've had people like Dibley and co. saying we evolutionists have no morals. Rubbish! Of course we have moral standards. I wouldn't be enjoying the life I have had I not been moralistic in my behaviour.

End of lecture...coffee time.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:And yet, one of the main defenses of religion I hear even from the skeptical is, "Well, maybe God's bunk but I think some people need to believe because it makes them behave better."

Obviously bullcrap -- the main thing I see religion doing to people is making them feel superior and special, and serving as justification for doing bad things.

From the 'Chosen People' to 'predestination'...we find a lot of that in religion.

And in science:



https://youtu.be/f9AiPuIsqck

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/mathematician-says-hes-proven-free-will/

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/finding-quantum-way-make-free-will-possible

stardesk wrote:Good morning folks.
What we must do is define what we mean by 'morality.' So many people seem to think it is only religious observances which enables a person to be moral, ie good behaviour and helping others etc etc. But surely, moral values must go back to ancient and primitive times, when co-existence and survival depended upon people within a tribe or community, or/and family, co-operating, sharing, and helping each other. As so often quoted, 'do unto others as you would be done by.' Reciprocation is the backbone of morality. Usually doing good, behaving oneself, helping others, brings it's just rewards, other people treating you in the same manner. (hopefully!)

In past discussion in the forums we've had people like Dibley and co. saying we evolutionists have no morals. Rubbish! Of course we have moral standards. I wouldn't be enjoying the life I have had I not been moralistic in my behaviour.

End of lecture...coffee time.

And to that point, we see a basic concept of fairness present in many animals. Then you factor in that human beings aren't really ferociously strong with sharp teeth and claws, and you see how other basics of our "universal morality" (i.e. helping out threatened people, protecting kids, altruism) have helped our species survive.

Morality is the expression of value. Any kind of value, not just religious or etiquette. It is distinguished from...

Facticity, the quality or condition of being fact.

In philosophy, this discussion goes back to the mind/body distinction and the difference between ontology and epistemology. Morality is a perspective, or voice, given to feelings, which are values after all. The world of facts is that which can be empirically realized or apprehended.

Talking about religion doesn't make one moral. Religion--ie, the moral subject--can be easily treated as a kind of fact. When I say that Mormonism does not believe in the trinity, that is a fact. I can point to the Book of Mormon and 'prove' that fact. However, if I say I am a Mormon, or I don't believe in the trinity, I am committing to a religion or religious tenet, which is a value and hence a moral act.

That's why I question any empirical scale that treats as fact, any value question. And, in particular, I question survey research, which is based upon simple questions. How can you be assured that people mean the same thing as you do when they answer the question?

No Ben, I didn't mean all humanity follows the same pattern. Indeed not as we all know only too well these days. All animals and humans are a mix of both negative and positive behaviour and mental patterns. Those who control their emotions and stop short of abuse, verbal or physical, are using the moral values learned over the years, usually through life's experiences. They know the difference between what is right, what is wrong. Then of course there are those who have no moral values and will follow their own selfish and negative desires, and being immoral no matter what the cost to other people.