Vengeful, Psycho Jesus More Effectively Promotes 'Moral Behaviour'
Offline Different Views of God May Influence Academic Cheating
ScienceDaily (Apr. 21, 2011) — Belief in God doesn't deter a person from cheating on a test, unless that God is seen as a mean, punishing one, researchers say.
On the flip side, psychology researchers Azim F. Shariff at the University of Oregon and Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia found that undergraduate college students who believe in a caring, forgiving God are more likely to cheat.
The findings emerged from two experiments involving a mathematics test in which honesty was put to the test. Students were told about a software glitch in which the correct answer to each problem would appear after several seconds. To avoid seeing the answer, they were told to press the space bar immediately after viewing each problem and before pursuing a solution without scratch paper or calculators.
The results are detailed in the quarterly International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. The research is part of a larger effort to understand cultural development, in particular the role of religion in encouraging -- or even forcing adherence to -- moral behavior.
"Taken together, our findings demonstrate, at least in some preliminary way, that religious beliefs do have an effect on moral behavior, but what matters more than whether you believe in a god is what kind of god you believe in," Shariff said. "There is a relationship: Believing in a mean god, a punishing one, does contribute to cheating behavior. Believing in a loving, forgiving god seems to have an opposite effect."
In the first experiment, 61 undergraduates took a simple "but tedious" math test. Afterward, they were questioned about their religiosity, views of God and demographics. Their views of God, which involved 14 traits, were analyzed and divided to identify the participants' perceptions of their God's being loving, caring and forgiving or harsh, punitive, vengeful and punishing. Their cheating -- whether they used the space bar to avoid getting the correct answer -- was measured.
No differences in cheating were found between self-described believers in God and non-believers. However, students who specifically perceived God as punitive, angry and vengeful showed significantly lower levels of cheating.
The second study was designed to remove other potential variables such as personality and general religious affiliation. The 39 undergraduate participants were surveyed several days before the cheating task about their views of God in a series of randomly asked questions that touched on a number of different topics. The subjects later took the same math test.
Again, students who believed in a loving God were the most likely to cheat. Again, self-described believers were no more or less likely to cheat than non-believers. In both scenarios, the "punitive God" and "loving God" significantly predicted cheating in opposite directions.
Data emerging from social psychology literature tends to find that, as a general disposition, what people believe every day doesn't really affect moral outcomes, Shariff said. Though some recent research on religion's role, which involved unconsciously activating religious beliefs at a given moment, finds that being in a religious situation matters, little evidence shows that the religious disposition contributes to moral behavior
"According to the psychological literature, people who believe in God don't appear to act any more morally than people who don't believe in God," he said. "We wanted to look deeper at particular beliefs. One idea is the supernatural punishment hypothesis: Punishing counter-normative behavior -- immoral behavior -- has been an important part of living in societies. Societies don't get far without regulating moral behavior."
Even though the trend found in the new study was significant, Shariff cautioned, the results are preliminary. Specifically, the research focused on academic cheating, which is only one type of moral behavior. It is unclear whether the pattern of results will generalize to encouraging positive behaviors, such as generosity. Researchers should examine other impacts of how views of God may influence other types of both negative and positive moral behaviors.
In the journal Science in 2008, Shariff and Norenzayan reviewed 30 years of social science research and argued that there is a nuanced, but very important relationship between religion and moral behavior. Before their review of the literature was done, Norenzayan said in 2008, the public debate on whether religion fosters cooperation and trust had been driven by opinion and anecdote. The current studies add to the recent efforts to inject scientific evidence into the debate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420112334.htm
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
But if you believe you're "saved" then it's okay to cheat because God's already forgiven all your sins.
Optimism is reality, pessimism is the fantasy that you know enough to be cynical
Every religious person has a god of convenience. They have a moral code and then shape their god to go along with their code where he always either approves of behaviors or forgives their transgressions. So they are the ones with relative morality, it's relative to whatever version of god they choose.
A person that chooses a code of behavior based on logic, evidence and reason has much more of an absolute morality.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
<moved from General Conversation to Irrationalities>
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I wonder what the original question about belief in God was like...
Did it pitch a spectrum, or did it allow for multiple answers? I think of God as both punitive and loving, and these two traits are both demonstrated in the work of Jesus on the cross.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Don't wonder, just ask yourself; and tell us if you wish. Would you cheat under those circumstance, I would not; I find math easy, as an engineer I used it constantly. For me it is simple pleasure to answer without cheating.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
If jesus was loving then he'd seek correction and reconciliation in his punishment not blanket retribution. Contriving an invisible god for which people will suffer for not believing in is obviously the work of man.
As it stands jesus is morally inconsistent. Some one explain to me why god is so confused about his own attributes like perfectly forgiving and perfectly merciful and perfectly loving. And don't mention perfect justice. Perfect justice would not condemn kids for disbelieving the unbelievable. Nor would it have a single punishment for all crimes.
And please don't drone on about the only sin being rejection of god because 'immortal' jesus took all other sins away by 'dying'. This is an assertion that's unsupported outside of the marketing material of the cult that spawned it. In fact, there are elements to this assertion that are well outside the bounds of ludicrous.
Now, I know you have some belief system that allows you to overlook moral challenges like hell. What do you believe happens to the dhimmis when they die? Do they just go to sleep? What did jesus save you from at calvary?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Blanket retribution? Correction and reconciliation are products of God's grace.
Jesus saves one from death.
Hell is not a moral challenge... What's so difficult about it?
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
I have no reason to cheat... I'm pretty good at math, I think.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Blanket retribution means all who don't believe in god die/go to hell/whatever punishment you choose to believe in. There's no consideration for the quality of their lives or their personal goodness. Blanket retribution. Do you get it now?
As for hell's moral challenge, christians are told to love and forgive but it's not a recommendation they embrace. Most christians are comfortable with the thought that their mighty lord will kill/torture everyone in hell. It's his business, they contend. But they tacitly condone death and torture through acceptance of the doctrine of death and hell. I contend it's morally inconsistent for christians to worship a god who employs a hell.
So - what about you, Wows? I know you have a particular interpretation of parts of the bible and reject hell. Do you believe non christians simply die? And yet again, Wows, what did jesus save you from with his 'work' on the cross? Are you saved from sin or will god just give you a set of eternal telomeres?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I tend to peg it on holiness... a sin, no matter how small, would make one something other than perfectly holy. No matter what you feel about it, that's what it is.
Condemnation is not about belief and nonbelief -- it is about sin. The one who sins is already condemned. The one who believes (and this is more than merely ascenting the fact that something exists) is the one who is not condemned.
What about kids? I'm not absolutely 100% what I think happens to kids who do no believe, but I have reason to believe that God saves children who die.
What does the "immortal" Jesus have anything to do with it? And what about dhimmis? If they do not believe in Jesus then they are in the same boat as atheists. The one thing I can say for atheists that cognitively reject Jesus is that you did it, and did it willfully.
You still haven't produced anything that poses a moral challenge though.
God does take into account the quality of one's life. If at the end of days, god weighed sin against good, he'd be lowering his standard of holiness. God is not looking for a positive balance, rather moral perfection and any sin would detract from that. So unless one has a way to remove his or her sin entirely, they fall short. If one has their sin removed, then God does reward good deeds.
I have no problem with it in light of God's holiness. I'm thankful that I am not counted among the one's who are condemned -- this is because God's love was demonstrated in the person of Jesus.
Jesus saved me from death and sin leads to death. If one says "saved from sin"and "saved from death are saying the same thing.
I believe most will die, and those that have died (including non-believers) will be resurrected again before they are judged. The ones who are not among the believers will be condemned to die yet the others will be allowed to enter into eternal life.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Ultimately at the conclusion of judgment day, your lord will be required to murder all the unbelievers/dhimmis/infidels/atheists in cold blood and you don't care about them but are simply thankful jesus saved you. Thanks for confirming that.
I would never worship any contrived deity that threatened to torture and kill you, Wows. P'raps I'm just not morally inconsistent enough to deactivate my empathy when faced with personal threat.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
And there will be zombies.
One question though, have enough people been born and died yet to overflow off the edge of this flat earth? Hows that going to work if this happens in another 50 years or so?
I could make it work with some made up stuff but I'd rather hear some homemade shit from a theist.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Calling it "murder" doesn't make it murder no matter how you spin it.
I don't feel any more threatened by God than I do by the government who passes laws which have penalties of I break them. I'm being very consistent in my application of this. If you feel "threatened" by God, you should should feel "threatened" by governments too. Otherwise, you'd be inconsistent.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
It is murder, it's not justice by any normal measure. You are special pleading an act that is clearly immoral even by imperfect human standards. Does god have his own standards for killing whoever he disagrees with?
There's no spin on this whatever. In the bible it says thou shalt not kill. You are saying something different, aren't you, Mr Inconsistent.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Okay... what exactly constitutes murder then?
And you still haven't explained how you would feel threatened by God but not threatened by governments.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
some governments all the time but you'd be silly not to see they are all dangerous given sufficient motive. But god is not a government existing in this space time. He has not communicated with me.
Instead men have told me that they know god exists and if I do not agree with them god will murder me for some arbitrary intrinsic wrong linked to the garden of eden or whatever other sin you happen to believe in.
So, Wows. While, there is no god, you believe he is justified in killing me if I don't believe in his invisible, improbable, subjective self, and you accept this for reasons of your own - to facilitate your own escape from mortality, no doubt.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
unlawful killing and by any measure we know of, killing some one for not believing you exist, when you do not obviously exist, is unlawful killing. The central issue, however, is that you are reconciled to killing so long as you can rationalise it away as 'morally' justified. I wonder, if god asked you on the day, would you do some of the killing?
Why not read the UN Charter of Human Rights below. Ask yourself if your concept of god is in breach of it...pay special attention to articles 5, 18, 19 and 30...
And if, as I am sure you will, you choose to claim god is above human morality, please explain how it is that you know this, what supernatural moral laws you are applying to comprehend why it is that god can kill but we should not? What is your frame of reference?
^ Top
Article 1.
^ Top
Article 2.
^ Top
Article 3.
^ Top
Article 4.
^ Top
Article 5.
^ Top
Article 6.
^ Top
Article 7.
^ Top
Article 8.
^ Top
Article 9.
^ Top
Article 10.
^ Top
Article 11.
^ Top
Article 12.
^ Top
Article 13.
^ Top
Article 14.
^ Top
Article 15.
^ Top
Article 16.
^ Top
Article 17.
^ Top
Article 18.
^ Top
Article 19.
^ Top
Article 20.
^ Top
Article 21.
^ Top
Article 22.
^ Top
Article 23.
^ Top
Article 24.
^ Top
Article 25.
^ Top
Article 26.
^ Top
Article 27.
^ Top
Article 28.
^ Top
Article 29.
^ Top
Article 30.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Way to dodge, you fucking apologist con artists.
Your imaginary daddy says 'thou shall not murder', and then commands people to murder.
Checkmate.
Case closed.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
You did not define murder.
Nor did you explain why you don't feel threatened by government. All you did is give reason why you don't feel threatened by God -- namely because you don't believe that God exists, but that's a given in the fact that you're an atheist.
I don't feel "escaped" from morality, but all the more compelled to live morally by the example God gave us in the person of Christ. I'm not under threat or feel that I have to do something to earn recompense for something I did wrong.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Non sequitur.
Special pleading.
The Christian god is not moral, but immoral.
He's a psychopathic rageaholic.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I've already said murder is unlawful killing. As for fear of governments, well, yes, I do feel threatened by the governments of China, Japan, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and many, many others. These governments have arbitrary interpretations of the rule of law based on fun things like a literal interpretation of religion, or corruption. I am fairly ok with the governments of Australia and NZ. All the others, including the U.S., I reserve judgment on.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Did christ use murder of dissenting voices as part of his ministry? Aside from the swine and the fruit tree he struck dead, I can't think of any other killing jesus did as part of his moral instruction...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Under the framework I gave concerning God's holiness and one sin be sub-par to this, it is not unlawful, so it does not fit your definition of murder.
At least you're consistent then on fearing governments. But concerning God, there is no arbitrariness there. If you feel threatened because of the arbitrariness, then your feeling is unfounded.
But like I said, I do not feel anymore threatened by the government than I do God. At least I know by my own intuition where I stand with God.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
You know by your own intuition. How do you know? Do you feel better? Are you simply convinced? Do you call the feeling of being in control, god? You obviously can't be detecting any of this using your material senses?
Additionally, on judgment day, would you kill if god expressly asked you to? I ask because I think you will say no and I want to know why you would not kill sinners you think deserve to die.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Not in your eyes...
going any further into this Wows, but a one-sin ticket to death? Really? This is just as silly and unfounded an assertion as original sin. By the bible's definition of sin, our very existence is a sin, our attempt to survive in a hostile world an outrage to the god who created it. It makes no sense whatever unless you really, really want it to.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Jesus was threatened by death because he was a dissenter. The legalism that had been propped up. But being a dissenter does imply that one is right... one could be dissenting for reasons contrary to what is right.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
was that christ's ministry was not one that used violent bashings and murder as an educational tool to leverage the dubious masses. Admittedly jesus did dress down the empiricist Thomas in a most undignified manner but he didn't attempt to slay him for his doubts.
I always had trouble reconciling the furious war god of the old testament with the social revolutionary in (parts of) the new. How about you?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Silly and unfounded in what respect? Because of original sin? And who is affirming Original Sin? (I'm assuming you're talking about Augustinian Original Sin). But that aside, I do not have to postulate original sin to get that all men are sinners. And what does God creating man and the world have anything to do with it?
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
I think the belief one sin equals death is just as silly as the concept of original sin/the garden of eden you say you don't believe in.
Wows, your definition of sin is so profound, your insistence a single sin earns death so impossible to avoid, that to be born is to be assured of being in sin, to live a life is to sin, to cause god to wish you dead.
This sounds very close to original sin to me. In any case, it's silly and unfounded. Feel free to prove the wages of sin is death anytime you like using acutal evidence.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Would a superbeing even make up this concept of sin? The whole thing is stupid and could only be fully believed by a mind weakend by self inflicted ignorance.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
What it always boils down to.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Could you answer this one for me?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Original sin suggests that people inherit sin from their parents...
Actual evidence? Jesus' death is the evidence for the matter. Otherwise, why did Jesus die?
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Does one hold the executioner accountable as a "killer" when performing capital punishment? If I did, what difference would it make? The instrument of judgment is really not the issue, and I think this is a red herring.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Do you know that you are sinner or not? That's the issue.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
I simply think your moral standards would not allow you to kill in cold blood - same as mine. And I wonder why you think something that's morally wrong for you is morally right for god.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
It's clear men are incapable of living without sin. They were destined to sin as the sparks fly upward. Do you think it's possible for humans to not sin? To be devoid of lust, anger, moments of hate? Dead people, maybe. But not living. Humans are designed to sin. Call this a birthright or not.
As for jesus dying being proof of the wages of sin being death, this is another issue altogether. Personally, I'm not convinced jesus lived, let alone died on the cross and rose again on the third day. I don't see how the mythology can prove the mythology. The NT is a polluted source and almost entirely unsupported outside itself.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I would not kill in cold blood... but you're assuming that it is, and I'm not. It still does not answer the question about an executioner accountable as a "killer" when performing capital punishment though.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Do I think it is possible for human's to live without sin? I don't think so... But I don't need a doctrine of original sin to establish that all men are sinners, that's all I'm getting at.
But your problem then is not with evidence, but with the quality of the evidence that exists.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
as an executioner nor would I want to be around some one who took a human life outside of justifiable self defense of their own or another's life. Of course, I fish spiders out of the toilet so that's no great surprise.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Handy that your definition of sin happens to encompass the entire human race and qualifies everyone as a sinner. Very convenient, but there is so much about religion that is convenient.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
with original sin, aside from the silly symbolism of the garden of eden, is that it proffers a non existent free will and expects pre-apple Eve to comprehend the nature of right and wrong, to comprehend the repercussions of disobedience, a word she would have had no understanding of as a complete innocent.
People with sex drives and internal defense mechanisms and competitive urges operating in support of their own loved ones in search of scarce resources in life and death scenarios are not free to act as they would like. We are torn in multiple directions by layers of cognition and instinct. It's only in the prefrontal cortex that we start driveling about universal morality as if something that is possible to loosely and momentarily conceive should be the governing standard for all human behaviour on pain of death.
The nature of life in this place has not shaped us for universal altruism, nor has it shaped any other form of life in this way, nor could it. I can't but feel the central tenets of original sin, or unavoidable sin, constitute a lie, a manipulation of the human urge to make sacrifices for those we are closest to while struggling to survive in a world that is hostile to all life.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
What does something being "convenient" have to do with anything? It does not change facts.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
You're dodging the issue though...
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Now sin is a fact, how convenient.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
a killer. And thou shalt not kill.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I grant that this world is hostile and ae all make decisions -- good, bad, or indifferent -- to survive and have to live with the consequences. I don't think that makes every decision justified though.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
but it's hard not to feel that 'good' in a hostile competitive world peopled by humans with limited cognitive capacity must always be subjective and biased towards in-group self interest.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I see...
I think the actual command is "thou shalt now murder". Hebrew has a particular word for this as in premeditated killing, provoked killing, or manslaughter by and animal or a person.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal