Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ennazus · 08-21-2003, 05:58 AM

Quote:

The level of morality seems to be higher among Christians though. Most atheists seem to have little problem with premarital sex, abortions, profanity, pornography, lying, etc. Obviously not all atheists find those things acceptable, and atheists may not see any moral problem with those things, but I do see a huge difference in the moral standards of atheists and Christians ( especially fundamentalist).

I know some premarital-sex-having, lying, cussing, pornography-viewing, abortion-rights-supporting Christians, too. I don't think that atheists of the population can be blamed for so many of society's "ills". (I don't consider them "ills"--Why should anybody else care if I have sex before marriage, look at porn, support abortion rights, lie or cuss?)

I've always maintained that a non-theist morality standard is preferable to any theist decree, since the morals aren't forced. A person should be a good person without promise of reward or threat of punishment. It frightens me that there are some who need a fantasy to force them to behave. Of course, our bulging prisons tell us the fantasy isn't quite working...

PaulPritchard · 08-21-2003, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suzanne**Atheist
I've always maintained that a non-theist morality standard is preferable to any theist decree, since the morals aren't forced. A person should be a good person without promise of reward or threat of punishment. It frightens me that there are some who need a fantasy to force them to behave. Of course, our bulging prisons tell us the fantasy isn't quite working...

Well said...

I've always found that a non-theistic morality is preferable because it tends to be based on a practical view of what works and who gets hurt rather than blind adherence to an easily discredited dogma.

That's not to say that atheists can't be bigots, but we don't have a collection of fairy tales to give credence to our prejudices.

Barcode · 08-21-2003, 09:21 AM

Some rambling thoughts:

I have more or less the same moral values as my Catholic girlfriend. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of abortion, think polygamy is questionable, think sex is best confined to monogamous relationships and lean towards being conservative in some areas.

But .... and this is crucial ... we differ in the following.

I try to recognise my views are *not* objective. For instance, scientific data suggests abortion is far from murder, and it would be irrational of me to try and form a judgement based upon nothing other than what I " feel."

If somebody wishes to sleep around or adopt a lifestyle I couldn't personally contemplate -- then it's presumptous of me to pass judgement upon them. We can only be responsible for our own actions, and should not try to bend the rest of the world to fit in line with how we *wish* things should be.

The religious person however, often seems to think that since God is the ultimate authority, the entire world should defer to his will and adopt whatever morals their religion espouses.

If my girlfriend has the same moral principles has me, then it seems difficult to see how she is deriving hers from her belief in God and not from other cultural factors. If we were brought up in a society where polygamy was encouraged, we may well conclude that it's acceptable.

I'm not sure if it's a case of atheists having " less problems " than Christians regarding morality. In my experience, the atheists I've known tend to adopt the attitude of not interfering in another persons lifestyle unless it is harming them in some obvious way, or those around them.

What I choose to *think* on moral issues, is most certainly different from how I *act* ... whereas the very religious person may think they are doing the Lord's work by trying to close down abortion clinics or lecture on the evils of homosexuality .... and therein lies the fundamental difference for me.

PopeInTheWoods · 08-21-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PaulPritchard
I've always found that a non-theistic morality is preferable because it tends to be based on a practical view of what works and who gets hurt rather than blind adherence to an easily discredited dogma.

Well said yourself....

That in a nutshell summarizes consequentialism vs. deontology.

Donnmathan · 08-21-2003, 10:08 AM

I'd have to agree with PaulPritchard and PopeInTheWoods; the non-theist's approach is going to be held more closely, as it is self-formed rather than imposed.

The problem with the whole discussion is that the two major groups involved (Christians and non-Chirstians) have differing ideas of what morality should be, and tend to ignore those within their own group that violate those ideas. Magus, not cussing or looking at porn may be wonderful things to your worldview, but others may not find them to be important issues. My own moral code, as a pagan, is 'An it harm none, do as ye will'. By that standard, cussing is perfectly alright, but telling someone they are 'vile' or 'sinful' because they don't follow your religion is. Stating, then, that your group (Christians) are more moral will bring automatic disagreement from me, because I am assessing them with my standards, even as you look at all of us non-Christians with yours.

beastmaster · 08-21-2003, 10:15 AM

Courtesy of Google cache, here is a longer survey of the empirical research on the correlation between religiosity and morality:

Quote:

Taken from David M. Wulff, Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary,
2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997), pp. 220-3.

The complications facing correlational psychologists of religion are well illustrated in an area of research that early attracted the attention of social scientists: the relation of piety to social attitudes and behavior. For many, including William James, religion must finally be evaluated by such fruits. Yet according to this criterion, say some of its sharpest critics, religion has been mainly a disaster. Morris Cohen (1946), for instance, in scanning the history of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions, is struck primarily by the "fierce intolerance," the disregard for truth, the "pretended certainties" that prevent "needed change and cause tension and violent reaction." In making a "virtue of cruelty" and a of hatred," religion has proved itself "effective for evil," not good. It is a fact, he says, "that there is not a single loathsome human practice that has not time or other been regarded as a religious duty" (pp. 351-352).

Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1926) is more explicit about some religion's harmful effects.

Quote:

History, down to the present day, is a melancholy record of the horrors which can attend religion: human sacrifice, and in particular the slaughter of children, cannibalism, sensual orgies, abject superstition, hatred as between races, the maintenance of degrading customs, hysteria, bigotry, can all be laid at its charge. Religion is the last refuge of human savagery. The uncritical association of religion with goodness is directly negatived by plain facts. Religion can be, and has been, the main instrument for progress. But if we survey the whole race, we must pronounce that generally it has not been so (pp. 37-38).

Religion's Dark Side Today
While it is tempting to assume that the "dark side of religion," as Cohen calls it, is mostly a thing of the past, today's newspapers regularly remind us of its continuing existence. In some cases the effects are dramatic and lethal: in 1978, the suicide of 913 followers of Jim Jones in the jungles of Guyana; in 1990, the death of more than 2000 people when Hindu fundamentalists in Ayodhya, a small town in India, tore down a sixteenth-century mosque that they believed was built on the birthsite of Lord Rama; in 1993, the death of six people and the injury of more than a thousand in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City by individuals associated with Islamic fundamentalism; later the same year, the death by fire and bullets of 89 adults and children in the well-fortified Waco, Texas, ompound of the Branch Davidians, whose leader, David Karesh, claimed to be the son of God; in 1994, the mass suicide-murder of 53 members of the doomsday cult Order of the Solar Temple, located in Switzerland and Canada, and then 16 more, including three children, the following year; in 1995, the gassing of Tokyo subway stations by members of a Buddhist sect, resulting in the death of 11 people and the sickening of four thousand others; and again and again in the 1990s, the murderous suicide bombings in Israel by dozens of young Palestinians who believed that such acts of "martyrdom" would win for them-and their friends and relatives-unimaginable physical and spiritual bliss in heaven.

Less singularly dramatic expressions of the dark side of religion sometimes also make it into the newspapers, though many times not. There are the recurrent episodes of clergy malfeasance, for example, including a conservatively estimated 400 Roman Catholic priests and brothers charged with sexual abuse since 1982. Long reluctant to acknowledge the problem, the leadership of the Church now faces serious financial problems from the many millions of dollars awarded by the courts to the numerous victims. Yet clergy abuse of congregants is not limited to Roman Catholic circles: various studies have found that it is common in Protestant churches as well, including both conservative and liberal denominations (Shupe, 1995). Adding insult to injury in many cases is the refusal of the church hierarchies to deal appropriately with the abuse and the tendency of many congregants to blame and harass the victims when they make their charges known (Fortune, 1989). Victims of child sexual abuse within their own families often suffer the same treatment by church authorities (Imbens and Jonker, 1985).

Deeply troubling, too, are the stories of the resurgence of repressive fundamentalism in various parts of the world. In Afghanistan, for example, more than half the country is now dominated by the Taliban, an Islamic fundamentalist political and military force that, emerging from the chaos of civil war, is abruptly wrenching this country's millions of inhabitants back into a dark past. Women long accustomed to various freedoms are now being forced back into purdah, the Muslim tradition of secluding women in their homes. Allowed only to work in hospitals and clinics, and then only with members of their own sex, women must shroud themselves from head to toe whenever they go out. Girls, told that education is only for boys, have been expelled from schools and colleges. Television sets and stereo systems have been publicly "hanged"and books thought to be tainted by Western influence confiscated. The Koran is harshly interpreted and enforced through modern means: murderers and "enemies" of the Taliban are publicly hanged from cranes, and the hands and arms of convicted thieves are surgically amputated. Remarked one elderly Afghan scholar, "We are ruled now by men who offer us nothing but the Koran, even though many of them cannot read; who call themselves Muslims, and know nothing of the true greatness of our faith. There are no words for such people. We are in despair" (Burns, 1996, p. A8).

A dark side indeed�but might it not be the case, as the Muslim scholar seems to suggest, that what we see here are not genuine forms of religiousness, but aberrations and perversions of it? Or perhaps they reflect a radically different human impulse that insidiously masquerades as piety. Are not most religious people basically good and kind souls, even those who think of themselves as sinful? Might it not be that, when they misstep, it is in spite of their religiousness, not because of it?

An Elusive Search for Humanitarianism
More than a half century ago, social scientists began exploring the relationship of religiousness to a variety of moral and humanitarian concerns. What they uncovered was disturbing, especially to those who were religious themselves. Abraham Franzblau (1934), for example, found a negative relation between acceptance of religious beliefs and all three of his measures of honesty. Furthermore, religious belief bore no relation to his test of character. Among the nearly 2000 associates of the Young Men's Christian Association who responded to Murray Ross's (1950) questionnaire, the agnostics and atheists were more likely than the deeply religious to express willingness to help the needy and to support radical reform. Hirschi and Stark (1969) discovered that children who attended church regularly were no less likely to commit illegal acts, according to their own estimations, and Ronald Smith, Gregory Wheeler, and Edward Diener (1975), in a quasi-experimental situation, found that religious college students�including a group of Jesus people�were no less likely to cheat on a multiple-choice test and no more likely to volunteer to help mentally retarded children than atheists and other "nonreligious" persons. The religious subjects in Russell Middleton and Snell Putney's (1962) investigation even reported a higher frequency of cheating on examinations than did the skeptics.

In only two areas of moral concern do religious subjects consistently distinguish themselves: drugs and sex. However religiosity is measured, it has proved to be negatively related to the use of illicit drugs (Benson, 1992; Gorsuch, 1995). Similarly, high scorers on religiosity measures are significantly less likely than low ones to approve of or engage in any form of sexual behavior that has traditionally met with social disapproval. Responding to a variety of religiosity scales, unmarried college students have consistently shown themselves to be less permissive concerning premarital sex the more conservative they are religiously (Cardwell, 1969; Clayton, 1971b; Heltsley and Broderick, 1969; Sutker, Sutker, and Kilpatrick, 1970; Woodroof, 1985). Religiousness in married subjects is likewise associated with avoidance of traditionally disapproved practices, such as extramarital sex. Apparently, however, it is not correlated with any other measured dimensions, such as frequency of intercourse or consistency of attaining orgasm (Bell, 1974; Fisher, 1973; Martin and Westbrook, 1973).

Abstention from illicit drugs and disapproved sexual behavior is not paralleled by a corresponding attentiveness to traditional humanitarian ideals. Studies investigating the relation of measures of religiousness to scales labeled "humanitarianism" have consistently found either no relation (Ferguson, 1944b) or a slightly negative one (Defronzo, 1972; Kirkpatrick, 1949). Similarly, Victor Cline and James Richards (1965) report no correlation between their Compassionate Samaritan factor and acceptance of conventional religious teachings, and Bruce Hunsberger and Ellen Platonow (1986) found that higher scorers on a Christian orthodoxy scale were no more likely than lower scorers to volunteer to help charitable groups. Rokeach (1969) found his religious subjects to be preoccupied with personal salvation and relatively indifferent to social inequality and injustice.

The presumed connection between piety and "prosocial behavior" has been equally elusive in the laboratory. Lawrence Annis (1976) found that none of his four measures of religiousness predicted who among his subjects would investigate nearby sounds of a "lady in distress." Similarly, Ralph McKenna (1976) reports that when a "stranded female motorist" claimed to have misdialed in trying to contact her garage, clergymen (or whoever answered their telephones) were no more willing than control subjects to place the needed call.

On the other hand, a few studies do report findings more nearly consistent with religion's traditional image. Warner Wilson and Wallace Kawamura's (1967) student subjects showed a small, positive correlation between measures of religious- ness and social responsibility. In L. D. Nelson and Russell Dynes's (1976) study, both devotionalism and church attendance showed low, positive correlations with self-reported helping behavior, both ordinary and emergency, in a city that had earlier been struck by a tornado. Robert Friedrichs (1960) similarly reports a low but positive relation of religiousness to a rating of altruism, but only when piety is measured by belief in God, not by church attendance. In all three studies, however, correlations are so small that religiousness accounts for less than 5 percent of the variability in humanitarian concern. Upwards to 14 percent of humanitarianism's variance is accounted for by religiosity among the British and American students who participated in Wesley Perkins's (1992) study in 1978-79. Butin comparable student samples ten years later, the proportion dropped to 9 and 1 percent, respectively. In the same study, egalitarianism proved to be virtually unrelated to religiosity, which was operationalized as affirming religion as a source of guidance and of answers to a variety of problems.

Religion and Prejudice
The apparent failure of religious involvement to foster a humanitarian outlook has received its closest assessment in research on conservative social attitudes. The overall pattern of findings here is much like the one we have just reviewed. Using a variety of measures of piety�religious affiliation, church attendance, doctrinal orthodoxy, rated importance of religion, and so on�researchers have consistently found positive correlations with ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, social distance, rigidity, intolerance of ambiguity, and specific forms of prejudice, especially against Jews and blacks (Batson and Burris, 1994; Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis, 1993; Dittes, 1969; Gorsuch, 1988; Gorsuch and Aleshire, 1974; Hunsberger, 1995).

Godless Wonder · 08-21-2003, 10:27 AM

[cheeky monkey mode: ON]

Hmmm. If we were to take it as given that one and only one religion is true, and the rest are wrong, or worse, the TOOLS OF SATAN(!!!), then it might stand to reason that religion as a whole would be negatively correlated with morality. After all, only the ONE TRUE religion (whatever it is) would lead to better morality, and we see that no religion has got a majority worldwide. And, since the major religions in the studies seemed to lead to worse morals, perhaps we can conclude that those religions in the study are not the ONE TRUE relgioin. Hmm, have to keep looking I guess.

[cheeky monkey mode: OFF]

Daggah · 08-21-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
The level of morality seems to be higher among Christians though. Most atheists seem to have little problem with premarital sex, abortions, profanity, pornography, lying, etc. Obviously not all atheists find those things acceptable, and atheists may not see any moral problem with those things, but I do see a huge difference in the moral standards of atheists and Christians ( especially fundamentalist). And after reading the thread on pornography, under the morality forum, and seeing people post that they'd have no problem with parents giving children pornography is absolutely appauling.

Don't confuse twisted Christian morality with real morality, Magus.

Magus55 · 08-21-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah
Don't confuse twisted Christian morality with real morality, Magus.

Don't worry, I wasn't.

Magus55 · 08-21-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barcode
Some rambling thoughts:

I have more or less the same moral values as my Catholic girlfriend. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of abortion, think polygamy is questionable, think sex is best confined to monogamous relationships and lean towards being conservative in some areas.

But .... and this is crucial ... we differ in the following.

I try to recognise my views are *not* objective. For instance, scientific data suggests abortion is far from murder, and it would be irrational of me to try and form a judgement based upon nothing other than what I " feel."

If somebody wishes to sleep around or adopt a lifestyle I couldn't personally contemplate -- then it's presumptous of me to pass judgement upon them. We can only be responsible for our own actions, and should not try to bend the rest of the world to fit in line with how we *wish* things should be.

The religious person however, often seems to think that since God is the ultimate authority, the entire world should defer to his will and adopt whatever morals their religion espouses.

If my girlfriend has the same moral principles has me, then it seems difficult to see how she is deriving hers from her belief in God and not from other cultural factors. If we were brought up in a society where polygamy was encouraged, we may well conclude that it's acceptable.

I'm not sure if it's a case of atheists having " less problems " than Christians regarding morality. In my experience, the atheists I've known tend to adopt the attitude of not interfering in another persons lifestyle unless it is harming them in some obvious way, or those around them.

What I choose to *think* on moral issues, is most certainly different from how I *act* ... whereas the very religious person may think they are doing the Lord's work by trying to close down abortion clinics or lecture on the evils of homosexuality .... and therein lies the fundamental difference for me.

So I guess you don't believe in absolute morality?

And, abortion actually is murder. Hence why in some states, if you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with 2 counts of murder. I don't know how anyone can justify abortion. A baby is a baby, whether its fully formed or not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-21-2003, 09:21 AM	#13
Barcode Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Portugal Posts: 633	Some rambling thoughts: I have more or less the same moral values as my Catholic girlfriend. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of abortion, think polygamy is questionable, think sex is best confined to monogamous relationships and lean towards being conservative in some areas. But .... and this is crucial ... we differ in the following. I try to recognise my views are not objective. For instance, scientific data suggests abortion is far from murder, and it would be irrational of me to try and form a judgement based upon nothing other than what I " feel." If somebody wishes to sleep around or adopt a lifestyle I couldn't personally contemplate -- then it's presumptous of me to pass judgement upon them. We can only be responsible for our own actions, and should not try to bend the rest of the world to fit in line with how we wish things should be. The religious person however, often seems to think that since God is the ultimate authority, the entire world should defer to his will and adopt whatever morals their religion espouses. If my girlfriend has the same moral principles has me, then it seems difficult to see how she is deriving hers from her belief in God and not from other cultural factors. If we were brought up in a society where polygamy was encouraged, we may well conclude that it's acceptable. I'm not sure if it's a case of atheists having " less problems " than Christians regarding morality. In my experience, the atheists I've known tend to adopt the attitude of not interfering in another persons lifestyle unless it is harming them in some obvious way, or those around them. What I choose to think on moral issues, is most certainly different from how I act ... whereas the very religious person may think they are doing the Lord's work by trying to close down abortion clinics or lecture on the evils of homosexuality .... and therein lies the fundamental difference for me.

08-21-2003, 10:08 AM	#15
Donnmathan Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 1,511	I'd have to agree with PaulPritchard and PopeInTheWoods; the non-theist's approach is going to be held more closely, as it is self-formed rather than imposed. The problem with the whole discussion is that the two major groups involved (Christians and non-Chirstians) have differing ideas of what morality should be, and tend to ignore those within their own group that violate those ideas. Magus, not cussing or looking at porn may be wonderful things to your worldview, but others may not find them to be important issues. My own moral code, as a pagan, is 'An it harm none, do as ye will'. By that standard, cussing is perfectly alright, but telling someone they are 'vile' or 'sinful' because they don't follow your religion is. Stating, then, that your group (Christians) are more moral will bring automatic disagreement from me, because I am assessing them with my standards, even as you look at all of us non-Christians with yours.

08-21-2003, 10:27 AM	#17
Godless Wonder Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,197	[cheeky monkey mode: ON] Hmmm. If we were to take it as given that one and only one religion is true, and the rest are wrong, or worse, the TOOLS OF SATAN(!!!), then it might stand to reason that religion as a whole would be negatively correlated with morality. After all, only the ONE TRUE religion (whatever it is) would lead to better morality, and we see that no religion has got a majority worldwide. And, since the major religions in the studies seemed to lead to worse morals, perhaps we can conclude that those religions in the study are not the ONE TRUE relgioin. Hmm, have to keep looking I guess. [cheeky monkey mode: OFF]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.