Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

[Eudaimonist]

Study finds moral equality between religious, nonreligious | UIC News Center

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: how moral and immoral deeds made them feel. Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

What are the implications?


Edited to add:

CabVet found the original study.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1340


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dysert]

Study finds moral equality between religious, nonreligious | UIC News Center

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: how moral and immoral deeds made them feel. Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

What are the implications?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I read the article. It's interesting. Certainly non-religious people can be moral (just as religious people can be immoral). That being said, what I question is the definition of morality. If I were non-religious I might define morality as what I make it. Typically, otoh, you'd find most religious people defining morality as the objective and unchanging standard as taught in the Bible. If my moral compass is built by me and changes with the culture I'll fit my morality 100% as long as I "keep up" with the changing conditions.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not surprised.

I would expect some unbelievers to be disappointed though - those who think Christianity promotes all kinds of immorality.

 

[RDKirk]

It's hip to call oneself moral these days.

 

[BL2KTN]

I think a greater number of unbelievers are determinists, therefore making an error in judgment is less damaging to their psyche. At the same time, a greater number of religious individuals likely view their deeds as a way in which they will be judged, thus a higher rate of grief over their poor actions.

 

[Paradoxum]

What is being defined as moral and immoral?

I'm not surprised.

I would expect some unbelievers to be disappointed though - those who think Christianity promotes all kinds of immorality.

It does to some degree. Wouldn't you agree that Christians are more likely to be against gay marriage, and assisted suicide, for example? You might not agree that opposing those things is wrong, but I think they are. It's also repressive to morally acceptable actions.

 

[Resha Caner]

It does to some degree.

Not according to this study.

 

[NannaNae]

like dah!
the spiritually dead don't feeeeel much and thus can do anything that they can and do rationalize away , from their feelings or lack there of = logic .

 

[Autumnleaf]

What is being defined as moral and immoral?



It does to some degree. Wouldn't you agree that Christians are more likely to be against gay marriage, and assisted suicide, for example? You might not agree that opposing those things is wrong, but I think they are. It's also repressive to morally acceptable actions.

You think assisted suicide is good? If your friend was depressed and they wanted you to help them hold the gun steady would you do it?

 

[Paradoxum]

Not according to this study.

That's quite a silly reply, if you read my whole post, not just that sentence.

I can't see any information on what this study shows. What does it mean by moral?

 

[Chany]

You think assisted suicide is good? If your friend was depressed and they wanted you to help them hold the gun steady would you do it?

In some cases, a person has a moral right to die. This person has the right to die by their own hand: for example, an extremely injured driver trapped in his burning car has the right to kill himself rather than burn alive.

It follows, then, that another person is morally permitted to shoot and kill the driver if the driver is incapable of doing it himself.

In some cases, it is morally okay to help a person commit suicide if the suicide itself is moral.

 

[RDKirk]

In some cases, a person has a moral right to die. This person has the right to die by their own hand: for example, an extremely injured driver trapped in his burning car has the right to kill himself rather than burn alive.

It follows, then, that another person is morally permitted to shoot and kill the driver if the driver is incapable of doing it himself.

In some cases, it is morally okay to help a person commit suicide if the suicide itself is moral.

No, that middle statement is totally different from the other two. That other person does not have a right to decide for me if my life is worth living, and in that circumstance it's unlikely we're having a conversation about it.

If we have time for a conversation, he has time to help get me the heck out of the burning car.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's quite a silly reply, if you read my whole post, not just that sentence.

I can't see any information on what this study shows. What does it mean by moral?

You didn't say you couldn't see the link before, so I assumed you had read it. It's a pretty short article, with no link to the actual study - just something about sending inquiries to the author (Linda Skitka, UIC professor of psychology).

Anyway, it sounds like it was based on self-reporting, which is largely why I'm not surprised by the result.

 

[Deidre32]

How are we defining morality? I think that in most cases, atheists and religious can agree on most things, but many religious people feel that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't. (I didn't either when I was a Christian.)

So ...think that it may seem to a religious person that an atheist is immoral simply because the definition of morality differs a bit between religious and non-religious.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How are we defining morality? I think that in most cases, atheists and religious can agree on most things, but many religious people feel that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't. (I didn't either when I was a Christian.)

So ...think that it may seem to a religious person that an atheist is immoral simply because the definition of morality differs a bit between religious and non-religious.

You say that as if there are no atheists with issues about gay marriage.

 

[RDKirk]

How are we defining morality? I think that in most cases, atheists and religious can agree on most things, but many religious people feel that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't. (I didn't either when I was a Christian.)

So ...think that it may seem to a religious person that an atheist is immoral simply because the definition of morality differs a bit between religious and non-religious.

That is certainly the question. The ancient Greeks had already defined several types of morality based on individual rationality rather than "the gods as moral authorities" long before the time of Christ.

Interestingly, the Greek concept of a god as moral authority appears to arise right about the same time Alexander's armies invaded the Levant.

But for sure, a person can be "moral" as a result of his own rationality as well as with the adoption of an external moral authority.

And they can all debate whether their internal and external authorities are more valid forms of morality as, indeed, that particular point been debated for at least 2300 years.

 

[Chesterton]

Since another thread recently addressed a similar topic, I'll mention that Mere Christianity has a chapter called "Nice People or New Men" where I think Lewis wrote something good about it.

 

[keith99]

No, that middle statement is totally different from the other two. That other person does not have a right to decide for me if my life is worth living, and in that circumstance it's unlikely we're having a conversation about it.

If we have time for a conversation, he has time to help get me the heck out of the burning car.

Done. I won't interfere and shorten your life by a few minutes. I let you have those minutes to be burnt alive.

 

[Deidre32]

You say that as if there are no atheists with issues about gay marriage.

true, valid point--I was just throwing a random example out there, for the sake of discussion. That morality to one person, may not be to another, and to many Christians, the Bible dictates it, and of course to non-Christians, or atheists, it doesn't...so where do we derive the right definition?

 

[Deidre32]

That is certainly the question. The ancient Greeks had already defined several types of morality based on individual rationality rather than "the gods as moral authorities" long before the time of Christ.

Interestingly, the Greek concept of a god as moral authority appears to arise right about the same time Alexander's armies invaded the Levant.

But for sure, a person can be "moral" as a result of his own rationality as well as with the adoption of an external moral authority.

And they can all debate whether their internal and external authorities are more valid forms of morality as, indeed, that particular point been debated for at least 2300 years.

haha, yes ...you're right. That point has been long-debated. I like your perspective.

When I was a Christian, I believed in objective morality. I believed that 'everyone' should adhere to the Bible's rendition of morality, for it was surely the 'right' way for all to live. There is much to glean from the Bible, in terms of ethical lessons and codes of conduct, I can't say I disagree with it in some areas. But, I think that much of what can be found in the Bible, is rather common sense, and reaping what we sow, and treating others as we wish to be treated, etc...aren't exclusively religious concepts. So, there's that.