The corruptive force of religion

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:33 pm

This question came up in another thread, in which it was pointed out that religious people often do good things for selfish reasons (such as getting into heaven). To this, I added the thought that Christ accuses the religious elite of his time of being less ethical than the least religious.
On the other side of the coin, every sociological study I've run across has placed religious groups mostly even with the non-religious in terms of altruism. (Personally, I tend to believe that the religious group is probably more polarized in terms of good and bad persons than the non-religious, but averaging to about the same.)

In any case which is it, and why?

Nilloc James · Post by **Nilloc James** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:25 am

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Atheists make up a smaller amount of the prision population.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:43 am

Nilloc James wrote:http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Atheists make up a smaller amount of the prision population.

I am aware of this statistic, actually. I would argue that it is not really relevant to this particular point for at least a couple of reasons:

Atheists are more likely to be from wealthier demographics, which are also less likely to go to prison.
Probably much more significantly, there is a very high conversion rate in prison.

For more scientifically reliable results, a formal study such as this one would be required. The best keywords to search for more, I've found are: Altruism, Religiosity, Extrinsic, Intrinsic, and (of course) Correlation.

That said, I should probably make it clear that I take no personal offense at the idea that religious people are often very immature - perhaps even more-so than our non-theistic counterparts. That could well be true, but I've found the groups to be relatively equal in maturity thus far.

Nilloc James · Post by **Nilloc James** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:50 am

Yeah it just seems there are more religous extreamists and they get more publicity.

mmm...

or maybe it has something to do with each religion thinking it is supirior causing more petty acts of violence and discrimination against eachother.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:56 am

Nilloc James wrote:Yeah it just seems there are more religous extreamists and they get more publicity.

I can't say I've seen the numbers on that, but tend to believe that they are much better at getting disproportionate attention from the media than are moderates.

Nilloc James wrote:or maybe it has something to do with each religion thinking it is supirior causing more petty acts of violence and discrimination against eachother.

That is a very big problem, though I can't say I have a solution, or would even limit this to the realm of religion. Personally, if I didn't feel that my beliefs were superior to others, I'd change my beliefs (that's only rational). Thus, we all (unless we suffer from a particular brand of irrationality) believe that our ideas are superior.

Of course, I don't see why we have to kill each other over the matter. "Live and let live" strikes me as one of those superior beliefs.

Nilloc James · Post by **Nilloc James** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:58 am

Jester wrote:
Of course, I don't see why we have to kill each other over the matter. "Live and let live" strikes me as one of those superior beliefs.

Live and let live is the logical beleif.

believe that our ideas are superior.

Most religions preach that theirs is correct and others are wrong.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:05 am

Nilloc James wrote:Live and let live is the logical belief.

Yes, if we accept certain premises (which I do), such as the sanctity of human life. I tend to avoid putting the term "logical" on an ethic, however, unless we are speaking of theistic ethics, which (assuming the existence of God), could be logically derived as objective. Otherwise, I feel that ethics are purely subjective.
Just my musings, though.

Nilloc James wrote:Most religions preach that theirs is correct and others are wrong.

I would say that all religions do this. Of course, I would also say that all non-religious ways of understanding the world, life, etc do as well. If one isn't saying that one is right and others are wrong, one is simply not saying anything. Some view this as intolerant (and it can, but need not, be); it is, however, the truth.

Nilloc James · Post by **Nilloc James** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:10 am

Jester wrote:
I would say that all religions do this. Of course, I would also say that all non-religious ways of understanding the world, life, etc do as well. If one isn't saying that one is right and others are wrong, one is simply not saying anything. Some view this as intolerant (and it can, but need not, be); it is, however, the truth.

I just got a major laugh, the only religion (that I can think of at the moment) that says another religion is "right" to some degree is Satanism and christanity...

Both say their deity is right and the other exists but is the deciever.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:16 am

Nilloc James wrote:I just got a major laugh, the only religion (that I can think of at the moment) that says another religion is "right" to some degree is Satanism and christanity...

Both say their deity is right and the other exists but is the deciever.

I can't say I've ever thought of that... that is amusing.
While I'm being all egg-heady, however, I'll assert that all religions have at least some overlap. That would mean that they all acknowledge the others as at least partially right; they simply view their own as most right. I suppose the same goes for non-religious philosophies as well.

Nilloc James · Post by **Nilloc James** » Thu Jan 01, 2009 2:23 am

Jester wrote:
Nilloc James wrote:I just got a major laugh, the only religion (that I can think of at the moment) that says another religion is "right" to some degree is Satanism and christanity...

Both say their deity is right and the other exists but is the deciever.
I can't say I've ever thought of that... that is amusing.
While I'm being all egg-heady, however, I'll assert that all religions have at least some overlap. That would mean that they all acknowledge the others as at least partially right; they simply view their own as most right. I suppose the same goes for non-religious philosophies as well.

Or kill eachother

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Or from the mouth of DRS:

LORD JESUS CHRIST is the only way to GOD and all other ways are false.

Yeah, I'm really not sure how much religions depend on eachother.