Study Debunks Myth Of The Need For Religion

[Mriana]

Study debunks myth of the need for religion

 

I thought about putting this in the science and religion section, but I really don't see much statistical data,except in secondary articles, in which to place it there, so I thought it would make for good conversation here. The secondary articles I've posted at least one of them in science and religion.

 

For century after century, there has been an unchallenged belief that social problems would be greatly diminished if only more people fervently believed in a god.

 

The basis for all moral behavior had to originate with what were given as the laws of the god.

 

It turns out the opposite is true. A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Religion and Society at the Catholic Church's Jesuit Creighton University (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html) and a more recent paper in the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology (www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP073984414.pdf) should be required reading for everyone interested in reducing a wide range of violence and other social problems.

 

Apparently the studies' author, Gregory S. Paul, is the first person to ever objectively look at the correlation between prosperous democratic countries' conservative religiosity (measured by the unquestioned belief in a god and the rejection of evolution) and a wide range of indicators of social dysfunction, including the rates of murder, rape, teen-age pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, divorce, economic disparity, life expectancy, child mortality and others. What Paul found is that, in country after country, as the prevalence of conservative religiosity increases, so do the rates of these dysfunctional behaviors. The United States, as the prosperous democratic country with the highest percentage of citizens with the conservative religious beliefs defined above, ranks at or near the top (or should I say bottom) in many of the categories of dysfunctional behavior.

 

It has been suggested that the values and behavior taught by religions are imposed on the individual from without, that the only reason certain behavior should be done or avoided is because a spirit being wants it that way, and if the individual believes in the existence of the spirit being, he or she will be rewarded upon death. The values "belong" to the spirit being, not the individual. To complicate this, most religions have also taught that it is sometimes very virtuous to kill, destroy and take property, etc. when it is done against those people who do not believe in the one true religion.

 

By contrast, the nontheist individual's values are generated from within. They arise from the individual's reasoning and logic, leading to the understanding and acceptance of most of the same behaviors taught by religions. In other words, the right and wrong then "belong" to the individual, not to some spirit being.

 

At the same time, the problems such as venereal disease, teen-age pregnancy and abortions are more prevalent in the religious population because of the lack of effective sex education. Too often their youngsters are simply taught that sexual activity is prohibited until marriage and therefore the young person has no need for any information until then. In addition to open dialog in the home, the secular community is in favor of incorporating comprehensive sex education into the public school system, along with meaningful classroom education on the negative consequences of impulsive, premature sexual activity. Once again, knowledge and reason prevail over ignorance.

 

Some religious groups have not placed a high value on higher education. This has had the effect of causing more religious believers to be employed in jobs that require less knowledge and skills. This in turn means they have lower incomes, the lower incomes mean lower standards of living and more poverty. That pushes more people into committing property crimes and the accompanying violence. By contrast, the more education a person has, the less likely he or she is to be religious, commit crimes, engage in violence or be imprisoned.

 

Click link for full article.

 

It would seem the more religious a country the higher the crime. Humm... This really doesn't look good for Xians and other religious groups.

[Astreja]

By contrast, the nontheist individual's values are generated from within. They arise from the individual's reasoning and logic, leading to the understanding and acceptance of most of the same behaviors taught by religions. In other words, the right and wrong then "belong" to the individual, not to some spirit being.

Not only that, but when one is utilizing an internally-generated morality I think that moral behaviour will simply feel more natural, with little or no resentment. It's a matter of wanting to do the right thing, versus having to do the right thing.

[Petrel]

From Paul's paper:

 

Instead popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions.

 

Religiosity may contribute to the social stresses that cause people to turn to religion, but I think in the US religiosity is more an effect than a cause.

[Crazy Donna]

Nice article.

 

I think that some religious people see this life as temporary, and then proceed to act however they like, regardless of how it effects others. I unfortunately know people like this. They are bound by 'god's laws' but don't actually have to follow them because they think that god will forgive them regardless of what they do. So they behave like the jerks they are.

 

My parents go on and on about how Asians are all criminals and bring all their gang violence and crime to Australia, but yet won't recognise that Japan and China have lower crime rates than Australia. Obviously being 'godless heathens' makes them all criminals, at least in my parent's eyes.

 

Giving people a set of rules, and a punishment for not obeying those rules, and then giving them a get out of jail free card if they believe in jesus, means that those rules are meaningless. And because these people believe that god's rules trump society's rules, there's not much of an incentive to do the right thing.

 

If you're only doing the right thing because you're afraid of punishment, you're not really very moral. If you're doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do, that's got to be an improvement.

[Shyone]

Giving people a set of rules, and a punishment for not obeying those rules, and then giving them a get out of jail free card if they believe in jesus, means that those rules are meaningless. And because these people believe that god's rules trump society's rules, there's not much of an incentive to do the right thing.

 

If you're only doing the right thing because you're afraid of punishment, you're not really very moral. If you're doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do, that's got to be an improvement.

Hear, Hear!

[Phanta]

It has been suggested that the values and behavior taught by religions are imposed on the individual from without, that the only reason certain behavior should be done or avoided is because a spirit being wants it that way, and if the individual believes in the existence of the spirit being, he or she will be rewarded upon death. The values "belong" to the spirit being, not the individual. To complicate this, most religions have also taught that it is sometimes very virtuous to kill, destroy and take property, etc. when it is done against those people who do not believe in the one true religion.

 

By contrast, the nontheist individual's values are generated from within. They arise from the individual's reasoning and logic, leading to the understanding and acceptance of most of the same behaviors taught by religions. In other words, the right and wrong then "belong" to the individual, not to some spirit being.

 

This jumped out at me. Makes a lot of sense.

 

Thanks, Mriana.

 

Phanta

[Mriana]

It does to me too. You are very welcome.

[Phanta]

It does to me too. You are very welcome.

 

Mriana -

 

I've been thinking on this more.

 

The piece stated, "By contrast, the nontheist individual's values are generated from within. They arise from the individual's reasoning and logic, leading to the understanding and acceptance of most of the same behaviors taught by religions."

 

When I thought about this more, I remembered my psych studies. We actually get our values from our first caregivers/parents. That's an external source that we internalize until those external values "belong" to us. Some also arise from our experiences (not exactly "within", but co-creative with external forces). Many theists do internalize some values of their spirit being concept in the same way, and in that way, I don't see much difference between theists and non-theists on the level of ownership of those particular values (the internalized ones).

 

In a rigid religious system, however, it's not usually about picking and choosing. The spirit being is absolute and perfect, so you have to accept it all, and so, very often, many values are then not internalized. Not ALL values...some ARE "belongings" of the theist...but many aren't. The non-theist, on the other hand, is less likely to bend their lives to values they don't own deeply.

 

That's a more intricate view than presented here, and I'm more comfortable with it.

 

I'm also thinking about what I've learned here about the "in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit". I wonder how often this is related to the internalization (ownership) of a value assigned to the spirit being. This makes sense to me on so many levels, because think of how many times people do not feel the high of the in-dwelling spirit after feeling it (often in an groupthink atmosphere where they are carried away by emotional manipulation). It's because value change isn't magic, being in line with a certain value system doesn't happen overnight, and it is impossible to be perfectly in line with it, as humans are inherently complex, flexible, adapting beings.

 

Thoughts?

 

This piece brought on some real "A-ha!" moments for me. Thanks again for posting.

 

Phanta

[Mriana]

While what you say is true for most people, how do you explain those of us who somehow never really shared our parents' values? Even as a child, I never could stand harm to others, not even other animals. It would bring tears to my eyes, despite the environment I was being raised in at the time. I've never quite shared all my relatives values towards other animals and we have always been divided on many issues, yet I was raised in an environment that the man could do no wrong, even if he was abusive, abortion no matter what is a sin, homosexuality is a sin, etc etc. Yet I never internalized any of these things. I do and have always felt the complete opposite of these views and as a child felt others were being extremely cruel. I still think humans can be extremely cruel to others, as a matter of fact. We are no better than other animals, IMO.

[Phanta]

While what you say is true for most people, how do you explain those of us who somehow never really shared our parents' values? Even as a child, I never could stand harm to others, not even other animals. It would bring tears to my eyes, despite the environment I was being raised in at the time. I've never quite shared all my relatives values towards other animals and we have always been divided on many issues, yet I was raised in an environment that the man could do no wrong, even if he was abusive, abortion no matter what is a sin, homosexuality is a sin, etc etc. Yet I never internalized any of these things. I do and have always felt the complete opposite of these views and as a child felt others were being extremely cruel. I still think humans can be extremely cruel to others, as a matter of fact. We are no better than other animals, IMO.

 

I relate to your childhood experience in that I never internalized certain values either. I personally believe in a combo of nature and nurture in terms of formation of our core selves (values fall under that), but I don't think we know what percent is what yet, and I suspect it varies from person to person. I also don't think that values which arise more from our DNA or in spite of what is being taught us are inherently more ours than those which we observe or learn from our parents/churches/communities and internalize. I have very little in common with my Mother (my first "God") in terms of values, but there are a few which do have in common which were clearly taught me by her and I now own them. They feel the same to me as those I came by despite her.

 

I am cautious about following a path largely contrary to their inner morality and leadings--those values of the external source (this can be God) which are not internalized. Living in such opposition to the self does real harm (yet we do it on small levels every day to get by in complex human communities, right?).

 

Phanta

[Mriana]

Phanta, I agree. In some respects, I was nurtured by my pets and in other respects my relatives. During times of trauma, it was one or more of my pets that came to comfort me, esp one who was female. However, I think I came by some of my values through DNA- ie I've always been a sensitive person and my mother could not read Bambi to me without me screaming, "It was the humans who did it!" She had to quit reading it to me, but she could read the Lorax to me. I think, over a lifetime, between my older son and myself, we've gone through several copies of the Lorax. Wore it out. My relatives could not understand my great love for animals and even tried to squelch it, but they never succeeded. In the end, I had two BIG arguments with my mother- Once when I was a child after having many numinous experiences between my pets and myself (you know that feeling you get when you feel at one and it transcends everything?). I would have these overwhelming experiences mostly after great trauma. Well one day, and she had no clue what I was talking about and didn't even ask, I pointed to one of my pets and said, "There's God." Instead of asking me what I meant or trying to figure out what I was thinking, she got very upset with me and told me "That's not God. Animals don't have a soul. blah, blah, blah." I was not suppose to say that ever again. To this day, she has never asked me what I meant, but unlike her, I learned what it really was and she was partly right. However, she never learned about neurology and I had to learn about it myself, but as a child, I used the words I comprehended to describe what I did not understand.

 

The second BIG blow up was when I said, and mind you, I was still a child without much knowledge of it being a story, because I was taught it really did happen, "If I had been there (JC's Crucifixion) I would have stopped it." She didn't ask why or anything, she just angrily went off on me and said, "No! You couldn't stop it because that was the greatest and last sacrifice ever for our sins. blah, blah, blah, blah." She still does not know or understand just how painfully barbaric I think such a story is.

 

They all tried hard to get me to stop feeling so disturbed about the Crucifixion and accept it, as well as tried hard to get me to give up my love of animals and nature. Now tell me why I would want to give up my love for animals, when they were there for me, to comfort me after being traumatized by my father or other adults? She wasn't there to step in or even if she was, she didn't, but one of my pets was almost every time I was in extreme emotional pain. So the question is, who raised me? Humans or my various pets? As bizarre as it may seem, there always seemed to be a cat, dog, horse, rabbit, even a runt pig there to make me feel better, but rarely did my mother take on that role.

 

I think other animals know a child, human or otherwise, who is in distress and try to help the best they can. I sometimes think humans do not give other animals enough credit. There was on point, one of my male Chihuahuas tried to take my bio-father on when he was attacking me. Got kicked across the room for it and I ended up trying to go to his rescue. After it was over, I felt those feeling of oneness with that dog as we comforted and empathized with each other. So, there was a reason for this unusual bond, esp as a child, but it was/is one of the best feelings in the world when it happens, no matter why it happens.

 

I can still have those feelings with nature without the trauma, but they aren't as extreme now. I did not learn that from my relatives nor did I learn a great appreciation for animals and nature from them. There is a lot I did not learn from my relatives and because of that, we don't have the same values. So, it really makes me wonder, just how much influence my pets had too. If that makes any sense at all.

[Phanta]

Mriana,

 

Thank you for sharing this story with me. It makes me want to hug the little you who felt all that hurt real tight.

 

My relatives could not understand my great love for animals and even tried to squelch it, but they never succeeded. In the end, I had two BIG arguments with my mother- Once when I was a child after having many numinous experiences between my pets and myself (you know that feeling you get when you feel at one and it transcends everything?). I would have these overwhelming experiences mostly after great trauma. Well one day, and she had no clue what I was talking about and didn't even ask, I pointed to one of my pets and said, "There's God." Instead of asking me what I meant or trying to figure out what I was thinking, she got very upset with me and told me "That's not God. Animals don't have a soul. blah, blah, blah." I was not suppose to say that ever again. To this day, she has never asked me what I meant, but unlike her, I learned what it really was and she was partly right. However, she never learned about neurology and I had to learn about it myself, but as a child, I used the words I comprehended to describe what I did not understand.

 

Sure... It also sounds like you were using them to describe your greatest comfort and feeling of connectivity, relief, understanding.

 

The second BIG blow up was when I said, and mind you, I was still a child without much knowledge of it being a story, because I was taught it really did happen, "If I had been there (JC's Crucifixion) I would have stopped it." She didn't ask why or anything, she just angrily went off on me and said, "No! You couldn't stop it because that was the greatest and last sacrifice ever for our sins. blah, blah, blah, blah." She still does not know or understand just how painfully barbaric I think such a story is.

 

Yeah...that's not the point, to them. I have a similar feeling of revulsion toward the Abraham/Isaac story. Always have, since I was little. I don't know why our brain's judge different than some others, Mriana. The fucked-uppedness of both situations is clear as day to me. It was clear at what, six? I don't get the love for them. I can, sometimes, almost understand it academically...but it's really, really difficult.

 

They all tried hard to get me to stop feeling so disturbed about the Crucifixion and accept it, as well as tried hard to get me to give up my love of animals and nature. Now tell me why I would want to give up my love for animals, when they were there for me, to comfort me after being traumatized by my father or other adults?

 

Of course, calling an animal God is very unChristian. It makes sense they would do their best to quash such heresy, even if it was working for you. Functionality is secondary to conformity to dogma.

 

She wasn't there to step in or even if she was, she didn't, but one of my pets was almost every time I was in extreme emotional pain. So the question is, who raised me? Humans or my various pets? As bizarre as it may seem, there always seemed to be a cat, dog, horse, rabbit, even a runt pig there to make me feel better, but rarely did my mother take on that role.

 

Wow. You were lucky to have them. What a big part they played in your life! How beautiful that you had them in your life when you were little and helpless and scared, especially since the adults fell so far short.

 

I think other animals know a child, human or otherwise, who is in distress and try to help the best they can. I sometimes think humans do not give other animals enough credit. There was on point, one of my male Chihuahuas tried to take my bio-father on when he was attacking me. Got kicked across the room for it and I ended up trying to go to his rescue. After it was over, I felt those feeling of oneness with that dog as we comforted and empathized with each other. So, there was a reason for this unusual bond, esp as a child, but it was/is one of the best feelings in the world when it happens, no matter why it happens.

 

I can still have those feelings with nature without the trauma, but they aren't as extreme now. I did not learn that from my relatives nor did I learn a great appreciation for animals and nature from them. There is a lot I did not learn from my relatives and because of that, we don't have the same values. So, it really makes me wonder, just how much influence my pets had too. If that makes any sense at all.

 

I do not share your intense connection with animals, but it makes total sense that they had a huge effect on you. It sounds like they were among your first Gods--a role usually played by parents or an concept conveyed through indoctrination--and very powerful in your life. Like me, you forged your own code at a young age...lots of influences, and very much based on what worked for you. Lots of survival stuff.

 

This was very moving to read. Thanks again.

 

Phanta

[Mriana]

Mriana,

 

Thank you for sharing this story with me. It makes me want to hug the little you who felt all that hurt real tight.

 

Sure... It also sounds like you were using them to describe your greatest comfort and feeling of connectivity, relief, understanding.

 

Yes, but no adult even tried to prob into my little head to figure out why I said what I said.

 

Yeah...that's not the point, to them. I have a similar feeling of revulsion toward the Abraham/Isaac story. Always have, since I was little. I don't know why our brain's judge different than some others, Mriana. The fucked-uppedness of both situations is clear as day to me. It was clear at what, six? I don't get the love for them. I can, sometimes, almost understand it academically...but it's really, really difficult.

 

I have a revulsion to a lot of the stuff in the Bile. The Crucifixion being the biggest one. It just so violent and cruel.

 

Of course, calling an animal God is very unChristian. It makes sense they would do their best to quash such heresy, even if it was working for you. Functionality is secondary to conformity to dogma.

 

Yes, and the other issue is that I was not using the word in the same manner was they were, but due to my limited understanding and vocabulary, that was the only word I could come up with at the time. I don't think I had the cognitive ability to express it any better at the time and sometimes I still don't think, even with a bigger vocabulary and more knowledge, I have the ability to describe it. I can describe it with better words, but sometimes I don't think others comprehend what I am saying.

 

Wow. You were lucky to have them. What a big part they played in your life! How beautiful that you had them in your life when you were little and helpless and scared, especially since the adults fell so far short.

 

I think I was lucky and I still have pets to this day. I would not want to live without that kind of love in my life. Not that my sons have never come close. They have, ever since they were born and the day my older son was born and we looked into each others eyes, I had the very same overwhelming feeling. However, although both unconditional forms of love, my pets and my sons are quite different and fulfill different needs. My cats can't help me move or lift heavy objects, but my sons can.

 

I do not share your intense connection with animals, but it makes total sense that they had a huge effect on you. It sounds like they were among your first Gods--a role usually played by parents or an concept conveyed through indoctrination--and very powerful in your life. Like me, you forged your own code at a young age...lots of influences, and very much based on what worked for you. Lots of survival stuff.

 

I don't expect people to share my intense connection with animals, but I hope people come to understand me better- most Xians don't though. They only see what they want to see. I truly believe that if I did not have my pets and all, I don't think I would have survived it. I did see my pets as family, my brothers and sisters, even a couple had a mother-like role to me, but that connection, that bond, that overwhelming feeling of transcendence is what I felt as being "God". Of course, this was no theistic/Xian deity and I had no religious text to go by, just gut feelings and the relationship I had with my pets.

 

This was very moving to read. Thanks again.

 

Phanta

 

You're welcome. BTW, if you are curious, I was an only child, so I really didn't have anyone else to turn to but my pets and they were there for me. Unfortunately, when my mother got really entrenched in Xianity, when I was 14, they took all my pets from me. I think those were the hardest years of my life, but it still didn't change me. I left home and eventually got more pets.

[Carmen]

What a great article! Phanta mentioned psych studies, which reminded me of Kohlberg's theory of stages of moral developement:

 

Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment

The earliest stage of moral development is especially common in young children, but adults are capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment.

Stage 2 - Individualism and Exchange

At this stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was whichever best-served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible, but only if it serves one's own interests.

Level 2. Conventional Morality

 

Stage 3 - Interpersonal Relationships

Often referred to as the "good boy-good girl" orientation, this stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships.

Stage 4 - Maintaining Social Order

At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality

 

Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights

At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions, and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards.

Stage 6 - Universal Principles

Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules.

 

Some religious people never get past the first stages; their morality is based on obedience and fear.

[Mriana]

Some religious people never get past the first stages; their morality is based on obedience and fear.

 

I agree and think it is very true.

[oddbird1963]

I remember reading the books on cognitive development and faith. Because I was an ultra rabid 'sola scriptura' fundamentalist type, I thought the books were off base because they weren't "based on scripture." Now I see a lot of the things they described in myself. The irony is sooo . . . uh. . . metallic.

[Carmen]

I remember reading the books on cognitive development and faith. Because I was an ultra rabid 'sola scriptura' fundamentalist type, I thought the books were off base because they weren't "based on scripture." Now I see a lot of the things they described in myself. The irony is sooo . . . uh. . . metallic.

 

Taking a psychology class this year actually contributed to my de-conversion. I'm taking it in this homeschool Christian co-op, but the textbook we're being taught from is secular. The teacher is always talking about how "well, this part isn't really biblical, here's how we should REALLY view it". And it just made me realize that she was trying to fit psychology around her biblical ideas, instead of the other way around.

[StevoMuso]

What a great article! Phanta mentioned psych studies, which reminded me of Kohlberg's theory of stages of moral developement:

 

Some religious people never get past the first stages; their morality is based on obedience and fear.

Brilliant. I have a similar 7-stage system of moral maturity in my book. And yes, the conclusion I reached is that some people who are religious will never progress beyond the lower levels due to the very nature of religion i.e. a list of rules, or "moral absolutes", punishment for disobedience and an authority figure (God) who enforces the rules and dishes out punishment.

 

My seven levels are: Blind Obedience, Fear of Retribution, Knowledge, Consequences (as opposed to punishment or retribution), Limited Licence, Self Responsibility, Cause and Effect. I've also included the Big Brother Factor (people who only do the right thing because they are 'being watched', or 'under an authority'), Pandora's Box Syndrome (if something is forbidden it becomes more attractive) and Little Johnny's Syndrome (if something is compulsory it becomes less attractive).

 

Mriana, thanks for the link. I copied the entire article because it is relevant to my current research and probably one of the best I've ever seen on this topic.

[Mriana]

You're welcome, Stevo. Glad you could use it for something.