I suspected as much.

It’s not the best article. It’s just what I came up with after a 1-minute Google search. It’s a complicated issue. Many variables are involved.

The essential point is this. Suppose we have two identical groups. One goup is repeatedly subjected to aversion therapy against behavior X. The other group isn’t. It would be very strange if both groups had exactly the same propensity to engage in behavior X.

Religion is just a type of aversion therapy intended to reduces one propensity to engage in uncivil behavior.

You are correct that it need not involve a belief in God. Buddhist are atheists, for example. But we really don’t know how to reliably suppress uncivil behavior in large masses without religion — godless or not.

Most atheists don’t understand this.

Well, I take back my snotty remark. But I’m disappointed by the article, which relates “religiosity” to “delinquincy” with certain definitions. I’m not surprised if the activities associated with religiosity (prayer, Bible studies, etc.) correlate negatively with a person’s penchant for crime. What I question is how belief in God (i.e. not being an atheist) directly affects whether a person commits crime. Even the authors admit that the positive effects of “religiosity” are really linked to a “loosely defined concept of hope combined with a positive self concept and happiness.” Granted, for the average person, this is probably easier to achieve through religion, but it is by no means necessary.

Actually, when the Romans conquered a city, they would keep the city’s gods and not displace them. The main concession that the Romans wanted was recognition of their own gods; and in a polytheist milieu this was rarely a problem. The problem arose only with the exclusive god of the Jews and the Christians – followers of Yahweh don’t recognize any other gods.

The something-BC advice by master statescraftman Kautilya to the Hindu who would be king was “He shall adopt the way of life, dress, language and customs of the people [of the acquired territory], show the same devotion to the gods of the territory [as to his own gods] and participate in the people’s festivals and amusements..”

-Arun

I’m truly shocked that they claim to have found a (small) negative correlation between religiosity and delinquency (after what was evidently quite a bit of tweaking of the definition of “religiosity”).

Remember the Crusades, the War on Terror, the inquisistion, all were/are ran by people with purticular mindsets trying to control how other people think and “encourage” them to think along there line.

i like christians on the whole, alot of them a really nice people. what i don’t get is how some of them (sorta like what i’m doing now) tell people if u don’t think in a certain way u will go to hell because u have to believe in certains tenets of a religion, that in christianity for example there is this ting saying thou shalt Not Kill. didn’t stop the popes, the followers of Martin Luther etc. what i’m trying to say is, christians have the same capacity for evil as commies, its just how u define good and evil.
one last thing, earlier this year the secutary of the christian heritage party in NZ wrote and internal memo that was leaked to the media concerning brian capill. capill was a staunch believer in christian values for over 10 years until it came oput he had been sexuall abusing young girls. what this secutary said was what capill did was not rape until the biblical definition baceuase ther was no penetration. just because something is writen in the bible does not make it right. just because something is adhered to by atheists doesn’t mean its inherently always right and always wrong. its how people go about there lives (rosemary mcloud wrote some interesting stuff how atheists tend to be the moral, upstanding people she knows, but she is just slightly odd).

apoligies if this as been a bit tooo incoherent.

Belizean, this sounds like a great hypothesis… now refer me to the actual study that was done. I won’t hold my breath…

Religion and its Effect on Crime and Deliquency”, C.O. Butts III, et al, Med Sci Monit, 2003; 9(8): SR79-82

In my opinion, the whole of comment #44 is baloney. The basis of morality is a recognition of yourself in the other. If I cause another to suffer, then I suffer too, in so far as I can imagine what another is feeling. None of this has anything to do with the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods.

The basis of morality can be anything. Stalin and Castro are highly moral with respect to a suitably chosen basis. What I think you mean to say is that the basis of civilized behavior is empathy (“recognition of yourself in the other”). What you, as a civilized person, fail to understand, however, is that such empathy extended to strangers is completely unnatural. Like all species, humans are by nature primarily concerned with ensuring that their genes are maximally represented in future generations. Killing a stranger for his food or other resources can be an obvious means of achieving this end.

The means of synthetically cultivating beings in which this impulse to murder for gain is suppressed is called “religion”. You are correct in realizing that this means of suppression need not involve deities or even, in principle, supernatural entities.

        Europeans               1 in 274
        Eurasians               1 in 509
        Native Christians       1 in 799
        Mahommedans             1 in 856
        Hindus                  1 in 1361
        Buddhists               1 in 3787

These statistics were reprinted in the leading Catholic organ in Britain, The Tablet, with the comments:

“The last item is a magnificent tribute to the exalted purity of Buddhism…It appears from these figures that while we effect a very marked moral deterioration in the natives by converting them to our creed, their natural standard of morality is so high that however much we Christianize them, we cannot succeed in making them altogether as bad as ourselves.”"

(The above is from an introduction to “The Light of Asia” (Sir Edwin Arnold’s biography of the Buddha) , according to “Reincarnation: The Phoenix Fire Mystery”, compiled and edited by Joseph Head & S.L. Cranston, 1977, Warner Books).

PS – this is something I came across over 10 years ago; I have no
idea if it is factual. I haven’t had a chance to look up the census or find The Tablet. Just thought it was amusing.

1). In judging the effective of any influence on behavior, one must control for other suspected influences. Given that economic and social factors are equal between two groups, the religious group is less disposed to commit crimes.

Belizean, this sounds like a great hypothesis… now refer me to the actual study that was done. I won’t hold my breath…

Imagining another’s happiness too, of course! I do suspect, though, that if I didn’t believe other people (and higher animals) feel pain and happiness, then I wouldn’t care much about what happens to them.

The basis of morality is a recognition of yourself in the other. If I cause another to suffer, then I suffer too, in so far as I can imagine what another is feeling.

So one who cannot imagine what another is feeling has no reason to be moral?
Moreover, if the above is the case, shouldn’t we also add the idea of imagining another’s happiness; or does morality only have a negative aspect?

By this perspective, atheists can’t win; they’re deserving of condemnation either way. Either they’re just plain immoral, or if they are moral they’re still being immoral by in some sense stealing their morality from the morality utility. It’s kind of like having an illegal cable descrambler.