TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Does Religion Create A More Moral Society? Not According to This Study
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Chechnya is relatively in the south!

The climate is not cold in Chechnya.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Chechnya is relatively in the south! The climate is not cold in Chechnya.

However, Chechnya is colder than South America or any country along the equator. Why is crime worse in Chechnya than? Furthermore, there are plenty of South East Asian countries with relatively little crime as opposed to say, even the most Northern parts of Russia. Additionally, the carribean nations should technically be festering hot spots for crime yet there's probably more crime in Colorado.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Additionally, the carribean nations should technically be festering hot spots for crime yet there's probably more crime in Colorado.

Carribean nations though area also more religious...


That's what I'm saying about this research.

It is conducting this study based on an unrepersentative body... you can not have a "control" group and an expiremental group in this regard to test out this theory. It is best done on both macro and micro levels to verify if there is even some truth, otherwise it is rubbish.

Hey Occ, I'm not too crash hot on the findings of this study.. You wouldnt have the outputs from the econometric models, would you?

I have a feeling that we might see some biased estimates coming from the model.. maybe a heteroskedasticity problem?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Carribean nations though area also more religious... That's what I'm saying about this research. It is conducting this study based on an unrepersentative body... you can not have a "control" group and an expiremental group in this regard to test out this theory. It is best done on both macro and micro levels to verify if there is even some truth, otherwise it is rubbish.

There is no statistical theory that has been proven with statistical significance. There is correlation that has been identified in the data. In other words, we�re not out to prove that religion causes amoral data. What is suggested by the data is that religion does not reduce amoral behavior and consequently the absence of religion does not induce amoral behavior as evidenced by the lack of negative correlations. In other words, this isn�t drug study where we�re trying to prove some grand theorem to describe the effects of religion on any kind of population, this is a social study where we�re observing the entire population of prosperous democracies, and it just so happens that the facts of life has churned out a situation whereby there is a positive correlation between religion and amoral behavior. Which tends to make some sense in certain aspects such as teen pregnancies and stds where you have a wealth of more specific statistical evidence to demonstrate how faith based initiatives fail miserably � see MisterOpus for more references.

quote:

Hey Occ, I'm not too crash hot on the findings of this study.. You wouldnt have the outputs from the econometric models, would you? I have a feeling that we might see some biased estimates coming from the model.. maybe a heteroskedasticity problem?

Woah, Gauss-Markov Theorem doesn�t even enter the equation of this study. It�s not conducting regression or OLS. It�s simply identifying correlation, which does not assume that the variance of the error term is constant for all observations and all time periods to the best of my knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider However, Chechnya is colder than South America or any country along the equator. Why is crime worse in Chechnya than?

Nooo, it's not worse. Apparently you have no idea how much crime happens in Brazil alone. Or Panama, or Ghana, Paraguay, any Central/South American country. Have you heard of "honor killings" of cops in Brazil? Central-American gangs?

And the most dreadful place in terms of crime? South Africa. The southernmost country you can imagine.

BTW, let's also distinguish between wars and "pedestrian" crimes like rape, murder, theft, etc.

In Italy, there's no wars right now but Sicily (the southern part) is the most religious AND the most criminal part of the country, while the north is more developed. In Russia, St.-Petersburg in the North has barely 1/10 of the crime of the Southern city of Rostov-on-Don (the only major city in the southern part of Russia).

quote:

Originally posted by occrider There is no statistical theory that has been proven with statistical significance. There is correlation that has been identified in the data.

I understand the part above, I disagree with this part:

quote:

What is suggested by the data is that religion does not reduce amoral behavior and consequently the absence of religion does not induce amoral behavior

There was a study one of my psychology professors always liked to cite (to make the point about causality and correlation) out which I forgot. It uncovered that the correlation between people who drink orange juice and people who do crack cocaine was 1.

Can we conclude that crack concaine makes you want to drink orange juice then? No. (i.e. does religion make a society moral?) Can we conclude that drinking orange juice makes you want to do crack cocaine? No. (i.e. does the absense of religion makes a society moral?)

And all I am saying is that since the sample set is so small (The USA being according to the testament of the scientist the only "religious" country in the sample) you can simply not conclude whether his is true or not.

It very well maybe that religion has a negative effect on society (it makes you say more criminal and what not) and due to phenomena such as access to weapons, criminals behind bars, etc, we we wouldn't know the difference. Or it could very well be that religion does have an positive effect on society. But to what extent?

If say religion only increases a societies morality by 5% while the death penalty decreases a societies morality by 10%, gun-control increases it by 3%, cold tempatures increase it by 6%, Renegade living in your country increase morality by .01%, free speech increase it by 3%, and being a UN-member nation decreases it by 26%, it would be almost impossible to know why one society is say 25% more moral than another without having the stated metrics above.

What the study is doing is saying:
Country A is 10% moral.
Has a 5% death rate.
Has a 2% crime rate.

Country B is 15% moral.
Has a 2% death rate.
Has a 10% crime rate.

Country C is -192,000% moral
Has a 1% death rate
Has a .1% crime rate

And then trying to explain base on those three example why morality has a positive correlation with death and crime. ..

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I have to agree with Yoepus on this one. Plus the study contradicts itself. In order for a society to be religious, they need to actually follow the teaching of that religion. If they don't, it's not a religious society. (Perhaps religious is a poor choice of terms to use here, what I mean by religious is practicing.) Just going to church/temple/mosque and believing in God doesn't make you religious. Practicing your faith does.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r +1

We agree on something!

EDIT: I forgot this one.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z We agree on something! EDIT: I forgot this one.

I know eh?

I'll just watch for falling meteors and buses when I step out the door tonight...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus There was a study one of my psychology professors always liked to cite (to make the point about causality and correlation) out which I forgot. It uncovered that the correlation between people who drink orange juice and people who do crack cocaine was 1. Can we conclude that crack concaine makes you want to drink orange juice then? No. (i.e. does religion make a society moral?) Can we conclude that drinking orange juice makes you want to do crack cocaine? No. (i.e. does the absense of religion makes a society moral?)

You're getting it backwards. You're saying that the causality thesis in this case is that religion or, the absence of religion, has no impact on morality. Thus according to your logic, the claim that religion has an impact, or in other words, causes morality to shift up or down, does not imply causaulity???

Well christ, so if I claim that my burps causes global warming and the data suggests that there is no such correlation, your claim that it doesn't implies causality??? Please explain that to me.

quote:

And all I am saying is that since the sample set is so small (The USA being according to the testament of the scientist the only "religious" country in the sample) you can simply not conclude whether his is true or not. It very well maybe that religion has a negative effect on society (it makes you say more criminal and what not) and due to phenomena such as access to weapons, criminals behind bars, etc, we we wouldn't know the difference. Or it could very well be that religion does have an positive effect on society. But to what extent? If say religion only increases a societies morality by 5% while the death penalty decreases a societies morality by 10%, gun-control increases it by 3%, cold tempatures increase it by 6%, Renegade living in your country increase morality by .01%, free speech increase it by 3%, and being a UN-member nation decreases it by 26%, it would be almost impossible to know why one society is say 25% more moral than another without having the stated metrics above. What the study is doing is saying: Country A is 10% moral. Has a 5% death rate. Has a 2% crime rate. Country B is 15% moral. Has a 2% death rate. Has a 10% crime rate. Country C is -192,000% moral Has a 1% death rate Has a .1% crime rate And then trying to explain base on those three example why morality has a positive correlation with death and crime. ..

This is not a simple comparison between two countries. If you had read my post, I made that clear. The correlation is not just between the US vs. all other countries. The correlation was present in virtually all countries. In other words, the more religiosity was present in a European country, that country experienced greater amoral behavior relative to less religious European countries. In other words, the correlation exists even excluding the US entirely. The fact that there is no negative correlation for religiosity and amoral behavior, even among European countries, suggests that religion has no impact on morality. That does not imply causality. In fact it does the exact opposite. What you are doing is defending a thesis (that religion has a positive impact on morality) with no data to support it. What I am doing, is saying hmmm here is a study that suggests that there is no indication that religion does that at ALL ... perhaps religion has no effect on morality. And from that, you're suggesting that my claim is invalid because I am the one implying causality???

Edit: Methinks people's judgement are becoming clouded by the fact that there was a positive correlation between religion and amoral behavior. Simply assume that there was no correlation whatsover (or in other words the absence of any negative correlation) and my argument is perhaps more palatable without the bombastic implications of a positive correlation.

I would chalk this up to people putting more emphasis on being religious-as in going through the motions of a person with morals- than actually instilling a moral base into people. There is having a religion and there is being religious, and I think it makes a big difference.

We have way too much emphasis on acting religious in this country, and it is disappointing to say the least.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I would chalk this up to people putting more emphasis on being religious-as in going through the motions of a person with morals- than actually instilling a moral base into people. There is having a religion and there is being religious, and I think it makes a big difference. We have way too much emphasis on acting religious in this country, and it is disappointing to say the least.

I agree completely. I have absolutely nothing wrong with religion in general. If I did then technically I should hate my entire family. An unfortunate byproduct of religion is that it is subject to abuse which results in negative traits such as intolerance, violence, stupidity, etc. In an ideal world, religion should function flawelessly with society. Shit in an ideal world sex wouldn't yield the clap, herpes, aids, etc., but it does because people abuse it. Not like I want to get rid of sex ... it's not like I want to get rid of religion. But it doesn't hurt to expose its flaws and hypocrisy so that maybe people will start to "get it".

I had a long talk with a friend of mine. He was rabidly atheist and HATED Christians. I had no idea why.

Then I started meeting them and I did the Gary Larson "ohhhhhhhhhh" face.

I was raised by classic English Household standards of honor, integrity, and compassion. Basically, honor is doing the right thing even when no one is around. Integrity focuses on the hard situations.

I fell into religion around 18 unsurprisingly and found a lot of well-put specific case scenarios.

In the end, almost any religious writing is too complex to understand within the span of your lifetime. Don't expect some 15 year old to be gleaning the meaning of morality out of a text thousands of years old when he barely understands the world he is in NOW.

My friend was telling me about a church party he had. They were all 18ish and he walks back into the room and its alcohol, and pot, and coke everywhere. He walks outside in shock and the girl he liked from church had her white ass against the window and was getting it on with someone.

There was no foundation to base previously uncharted territories on.

I see too many cases of people will do the specifics and when they get too a novel situation all hell breaks loose.

I am continuously disappointed, and have several long winded theories on the state of affairs of American Youth, but the easiest way to put it is that any image you might be striving for in life will remain an image if you dont know how to anchor it.

The character and Identity crisis is shocking and religion just covers it up with a blanket "one size fits all" image that just cannot happen any more.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider morality. And from that, you're suggesting that my claim is invalid because I am the one implying causality???

Gee, woe is me, you misunderstand me so...

I never said that. I don't think you are implying causality nor am I implying causality.

What I am saying is simple:
This study does not let us know whether or not religion effects morality.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Gee, woe is me, you misunderstand me so... I never said that. I don't think you are implying causality nor am I implying causality. What I am saying is simple: This study does not let us know whether or not religion effects morality.

The study has collated data suggesting that there is no causality. If there is no evidence for causality and the data, in fact, suggests otherwise, than what exactly is erroneous about my headline? If you have data suggesting otherwise, please provide it. Or should we hold back from rejecting my claim that my burps cause global warming, and every single other ludicrous claim, because no evidence to support such a belief is simply not good enough? No, apparentely we need evidence proving that my burps do not cause global warming before we reject such a silly belief!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Interesting theory. There is data on Portugal and Ireland as well, and interestingly enough, despite Portugal's socialism, it seems to be an outlier, much like the US, for amoral behavior. I'm not sure how well your theory pans out, however, because first, not all European countries are �socialist�. They may be more liberal than say the US, however, that�s not the same thing. Great Britain and Australia are economically somewhat closely aligned with the US. I would say Great Britain is economically closer to the US system than it is to Scandinavia, France, or Germany with respect to attitudes about business and social reform. Yet, I�m not seeing that kind of correlation with the data at all: Legend A = Australia C = Canada D = Denmark E = Great Britain F = France G = Germany H = Holland I = Ireland J = Japan L = Switzerland N = Norway P = Portugal R = Austria S = Spain T = Italy U = United States W = Sweden Z = New Zealand

Very interesting to see that _all_ of these figures even exist, let alone someone taking the time to put them on graphs, etc. So, the US clearly stands out on all of these things. Some of the 2nd- & 3rd-placers kinda surprised me, but the US standing out SO much didn't at all.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I think you have a point, but there are many countries that dissaproves your point too. Russia is a very immoral country, with lots of crime, and so are lots of other former sovjet states. Also some warm countries like australia is quite secular, and has a lower crime rate too.

Note that Australians are originally from a more moderate climate though.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Note that Australians are originally from a more moderate climate though.

But so are Americans! So that doesn't explain anything.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.