Thread: Study on the Effect of Religion

This study attempted to describe how religion affects culture, most significantly how it affects undesirable actions such as homicide. It claims to show at least that non-belief does not have a negative affect and at most that it has a positive affect. In some cases I am inclined, however, to believe that the negative affect may promote religion (such as abortion), rather than the other way around. Furthermore it may not be the most reliable study.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

Originally Posted by Golkarian

This study attempted to describe how religion affects culture, most significantly how it affects undesirable actions such as homicide. It claims to show at least that non-belief does not have a negative affect and at most that it has a positive affect. In some cases I am inclined, however, to believe that the negative affect may promote religion (such as abortion), rather than the other way around. Furthermore it may not be the most reliable study.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

I agree with your evaluation, except in regards to your identification of abortion with an negative effect, which doesn't make any sense, but I certainly think that religion tends to flourish in difficult social conditions.

As a futher observation, the paper seems to consider the United States to be an anomaly in the study.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I agree with your evaluation, except in regards to your identification of abortion with an negative effect, which doesn't make any sense, but I certainly think that religion tends to flourish in difficult social conditions.

And, religion would never have tended to create those difficult social conditions in the first place?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I agree with your evaluation, except in regards to your identification of abortion with an negative effect, which doesn't make any sense, but I certainly think that religion tends to flourish in difficult social conditions.

And, religion would never have tended to create those difficult social conditions in the first place?

Absolutely!

Some religion flourishes in difficult conditions because it helps people cope with those conditions but does not actually help to bring about change with regards to those conditions. Such a society will remain in a holding pattern.

Other religions not only help people to cope but also encourage people to seek solutions to the problems. In those cases the solutions that are found often come into conflict with the religion that helped people to cope with the conditions and then the religion becomes a part of the problem that needs to be dealt with.

Unlike science, religion does not have such an effective means for self-correction and positive development, as a result Kuhns analysis of scientific revolutions is even more applicable to religion which is "softer" than the softest science. Development in relgion very much requires continual revolution/reform/rebirth in order to remain effective - ever more so as science brings more rapid change to how we live than religion ever saw in the past.

Originally Posted by (Q)

And, religion would never have tended to create those difficult social conditions in the first place?

It's real funny that most people only go to see a doctor when they are ill. Smart people go to them when they are well, so that they have a better chance of staying that way.

Unofrtunately most people are just as lackadaisical about their spiritual wellbeing as they are about their physical.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I agree with your evaluation, except in regards to your identification of abortion with an negative effect, which doesn't make any sense, but I certainly think that religion tends to flourish in difficult social conditions.

And, religion would never have tended to create those difficult social conditions in the first place?

I think religion could be responsible for conditions caused by the slowing down of scientific and medical advances. However I'm highly skeptical that religions can promote crimes that they specifically forbid.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Unlike science, religion does not have such an effective means for self-correction and positive development, as a result Kuhns analysis of scientific revolutions is even more applicable to religion which is "softer" than the softest science. Development in relgion very much requires continual revolution/reform/rebirth in order to remain effective - ever more so as science brings more rapid change to how we live than religion ever saw in the past.

Doesn't "continual revolution/reform/rebirth" of any religion require the gods in question to make such revisions? How is it that the followers of the religion can simply change whatever they want, whenever they want?

What does the religions god have to say about his commands being changed?

Originally Posted by TruePath

It's real funny that most people only go to see a doctor when they are ill. Smart people go to them when they are well, so that they have a better chance of staying that way.

Unfortunately most people are just as lackadaisical about their spiritual wellbeing as they are about their physical.

Well said.

Originally Posted by Golkarian

I think religion could be responsible for conditions caused by the slowing down of scientific and medical advances. However I'm highly skeptical that religions can promote crimes that they specifically forbid.

That would be an interesting case study. Although, the problem with that is no theist would ever admit to such a thing unless it was for another religion not of their indoctrinate. They would simply state that the people in question aren't true believers.