Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

[quatona]

what does this study count as "religious"?

believing that there is a god and maybe going to a church service 3 or 4 times a year, does that count as "religious"

When we hear how Christianity is so widely spread with billions of adherents etc. they do count, apparently.

we can look at the early days of the AIDs epidemic, when we were not really sure how it was spread
I know a priest who worked in the early 1980's as hospice for AIDs victims
or the guys who were in the news for getting Ebola, they were doctors, but they were also Christian missionaries

..and I know some atheists who did the same. So much for anecdotal evidence.

but at the end of the bell curve, we tend to see religious people as the heroic people

Like, suicide bombers?

 

[Rhamiel]

Like, suicide bombers?

I do not think that suicide bombers are heroic

are you calling them heroic?

 

[JGG]

I do not think that suicide bombers are heroic

are you calling them heroic?

He's calling them religious.

 

[Rhamiel]

When we hear how Christianity is so widely spread with billions of adherents etc. they do count, apparently.

well the topic of this thread is not
"churches inflate their numbers by various means and for various reasons"
so this seems to be a bit off topic

do you have anything deep or meaningful to contribute or are you just going to make potshots?

 

[JGG]

well the topic of this thread is not
"churches inflate their numbers by various means and for various reasons"
so this seems to be a bit off topic

do you have anything deep or meaningful to contribute or are you just going to make potshots?

The topic is "Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious". You're claiming otherwise. Do you have anything deep or meaningful to contribute other than "Well, I go to church"?

 

[quatona]

I do not think that suicide bombers are heroic

are you calling them heroic?

No, they are religious. You were the one to link religiosity and heroism.

 

[quatona]

well the topic of this thread is not
"churches inflate their numbers by various means and for various reasons"
so this seems to be a bit off topic

Well, the topic of this thread wasn´t "How many people who call themselves religious are actually very actively living their faith?", either - and yet you brought it up. So it appeared like you wanted to discuss who counts as religious. If memory serves, you even explicitly asked this question.And my response was: Depending on the purpose, we get two very different answers from Christians.
Anyway, sorry for helping you to derail the thread.

do you have anything deep or meaningful to contribute or are you just going to make potshots?

I take it you didn´t understand my points? You want me to expand on them? Any time - feel free to ask further questions.

 

[stevevw]

Why not? Do you have a reason to suspect the study lacked statistical power?

How can 1,200 people represent the entire population. Don't you think the more you survey the more accurate the results will be.

Yes. And?

Well it doesn't tell us much about the difference in moral views between religious and non religious people.

So what? That's not the aim of this study.

If thats not the aim then how can the study say that religious and non religious people think the same morally. Agreeing that harm is an important issue doesn't tell us about morals. The mafia will be concerned about one of their men being harmed in one of their stand over jobs. Immoral people can feel strongly about harm issues.

More reason? Such as?

Well say when it comes to charity they dont just think its a good idea but will take more action about it because its part of their creed and life style to do so. Thats the same for organizing groups to stand up against things like abortion or getting involved in helping people with problems like drugs. So they have a particular standard against certain things and they also will get more involved in doing something about it.

I think some are assuming that this small study is somehow saying that there is no difference between non religious people and religious people when it comes to morals. 1200 people is not a good size or cross section of people. When you consider that non religious people will differ in their morals with issues like sex before marriage, divorce and having an affair, same sex relationships, sexual promiscuity, pornography and other issues like that. I cant see how they are the same. By only asking 1200 people they may not get a true picture of the total population of non religious people. We do know that non religious people have different attitudes over the things I just mentioned. So how can they be the same in this survey. Or maybe what they are talking about isn't actually morals as its not specific enough.

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior.
http://mostlyrational.net/2010/04/are-religious-people-more-charitable-than-non-believers/

One of the morals that this new survey had was how people cared for others. Now how can they say there was not much difference between religious and non religious people from these 1200 people when the much larger survey above shows dramatic difference in morals like caring for others with charity giving. So I would say the much larger national study is more of an accurate picture of what is going on.

 

[stevevw]

Really? What do you know about statistical significance as it relates to sample size?

Well all you have to do is some research.
Factors that Affect Confidence Intervals There are three factors that determine the size of the confidence interval for a given confidence level:

• Sample size
• Percentage
• Population size

Sample Size The larger your sample size, the more sure you can be that their answers truly reflect the population.

Bingo! You've just agreed with the findings of the survey!

No I am saying I doubt the accuracy of the survey and its interpretation. Are you saying that there is no difference in morals between Christians and non Christians.

Again, you are demonstrating your very limited understanding of what it is that makes a study reliable - hint: size DOESN'T matter so much here, big boy.

I'm afraid size does matter but thanks for the compliment.

Ummmmm - maybe that religious and non-religious people think about morals in much the same way?

I was hoping you would give me an example. For example do you think they think the same way morally about sex before marriage, having affairs, abortion, same sex relationships and say teenage sex.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which is totally irrelevant and nothing at all to do with my point.

Sorry about that.

 

[bhsmte]

I not saying that I am better then anyone else

I am saying that the large number of nominal Christians skews this study

neither the nominal Christian nor the nonreligious have Christianity as the center of their moral compass
the main agents of socialization would be the same

even more devout Christian have these agents of socialization in their lives so the effects of the shared culture would still be present there as well

What to do, with what you declare to be; "nominal Christians"?

 

[Euler]

Well all you have to do is some research.
Factors that Affect Confidence Intervals There are three factors that determine the size of the confidence interval for a given confidence level:

• Sample size
• Percentage
• Population size

Sample Size The larger your sample size, the more sure you can be that their answers truly reflect the population.

Ah, so you are a stats geek then? So, you should know that, in calculating confidence intervals, a value of p <= 0.05 is generally acceptable as a level of statistical significance? So, you should also know how to determine an appropriate sample size to achieve these numbers, right?

No I am saying I doubt the accuracy of the survey and its interpretation. Are you saying that there is no difference in morals between Christians and non Christians.

Of course you doubt it. Just like all of those who base their opinions on superstitions and pre-formed conclusions. If the facts disagree, then the facts must be wrong!

I'm afraid size does matter but thanks for the compliment.

No it doesn't. And thanks for the ignorance.

I was hoping you would give me an example. For example do you think they think the same way morally about sex before marriage, having affairs, abortion, same sex relationships and say teenage sex.

Judging by their behaviors, yep!

 

[Angelquill]

Not surprising.
One group regards morality as absolute.

The other just sorta makes it up as they go along....

 

[Euler]

Not surprising.
One group regards morality as absolute.

The other just sorta makes it up as they go along....

ALL groups "sorta make it up as they go along."

It's just that one group likes to pretend that they have an absolute source.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How can 1,200 people represent the entire population. Don't you think the more you survey the more accurate the results will be.

Those are 1200 randomly selected individuals. I've studied statistics, and 1200 people is enough to give accurate results.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stevevw]

Those are 1200 randomly selected individuals. I've studied statistics, and 1200 people is enough to give accurate results.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But the point is wont the more you survey the more accurate the survey will be. Besides if thats 1200 people from all over the US then it is only going to be about 60 people from each state. So when you get 60 odd people out of nearly 40 million in say California or nearly 30 million in Texas and other states with around 20 million its not a great deal to go by.

Besides all that as I said the questions dont really define what people really think about things. Something like harm can be felt the same for religious and non religious people as it doesn't define morals. Like I said Hitler could have been concerned about harm to his close friends of army but killed many Jews at the same time.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

Ah, so you are a stats geek then? So, you should know that, in calculating confidence intervals, a value of p <= 0.05 is generally acceptable as a level of statistical significance? So, you should also know how to determine an appropriate sample size to achieve these numbers, right?

No I am not a stats geek. I just do some reasonable amounts of checking and research that should be required to get some idea of what is going on. I did with how surveys are done and I have done with the p values you have mentioned. Once again this is not reliable either especially when the results you are looking for are not just about black and white data like numbers. When it comes to peoples personal opinions and feelings there are many other factors that p values dont take into consideration. So the more specific you are in asking people the right questions is important.

Despite the ubiquity of p-value tests, this particular test for statistical significance has been criticized for its inherent shortcomings and the potential for misinterpretation.
p-value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course you doubt it. Just like all of those who base their opinions on superstitions and pre-formed conclusions. If the facts disagree, then the facts must be wrong!

No I base things on reasoning and research. Checking things to see if they stand up and comparing results. In fact I would say from what I have seen I do it just as much if not more than most. That is why I never respond to a post quickly because I think and check things out first rather than jump in with a quick reply off the top of my head. Just because someone believes in God doesn't mean they give up their brains and thinking. Most of the great scientific breakthrough's and thinking came from those who believed in God to start with. The difference is I can allow for all the logical thinking and reasoning about the world around me like anyone else. But then I can also not restrict it to this material and naturalistic world and take into consideration other possibilities that may go beyond this. So I can have a truly open mind and consider all possibilities whereas you restrict things.

No it doesn't. And thanks for the ignorance.

I am really beginning to wonder about some on here with their little jibes and remarks about people. I really dont think its necessary to call people ignorant and other names when discussing something like this. Its like you need to add an insult in each time you reply. To call me ignorant over whether or not the size of a survey matters or not is silly. If I am wrong then so be it but it is not necessarily because of ignorance. This is what ignorant means, lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. It can also mean discourteous or rude.

So thats a mighty big assertion you make about a person you dont know and about a comment they make. I do have knowledge and general awareness and I am educated. And I certainly dont think I am discourteous or rude. So I would be careful with the words you use as they have more significance than you think. Of course that doesn't even consider that I may be right in some way about the size of a survey being important as well. What you have to consider is logic. If all the population was asked then we would have a very accurate result because no one was missed and we have got the answers from all the people involved. So the less people you ask from that point the less accurate it is going to be. So if you start to go back to less than half and then only a small fraction of the population of course its going to be less accurate.

So this logic in itself proves that the more people you have in a survey especially one that is considering peoples feelings and morals then you need to take more into consideration and the error rate can be higher. So be careful in calling people ignorant about things as it could be reflected back onto you. But the most revealing thing is that I was attempting to throw a bit of humor at you but you didn't even see that which showed you get far to serious about this than needs to be.

In order to have confidence that your survey results are representative, it is critically important that you have a large number of randomly-selected participants in each group you survey.

Sample Size: How Many Survey Participants Do I Need?
Sampling error is affected by a number of factors including sample size, sample design, the sampling fraction and the variability within the population. In general, larger sample sizes decrease the sampling error.
National Statistical Service § Basic Survey Design - 06 - Errors in Statistical Data
So I guess this makes these experts ignorant as well.

Judging by their behaviors, yep!

Wait a minute you were just saying that the survey was showing no difference between religious and non religious people. So you are implicating non religious people as well. But then I am not sure what or who you are actually talking about now.

 

[Hetta]

Steve, I'm a psych major just about to graduate actually and start my Master's program, and in all the research studies I have been exposed to, I have never seen one that had a million subjects.

One thing I don't understand in your little table is that one column is labeled "population". You should know that the population is the group that you are trying to generalize your research to. Those aren't your participants. Your participants are the sample group chosen from the population to represent it.

I think you're trying to understand research from a layperson position and you're just pulling together random facts and trying to make a case from Wikipedia or whatever. Of course this kind of research isn't perfect. There are always confounding variables. But most social science researchers do their absolute best to control for confounding variables.

You can't actually see this full research at the moment so far as I'm aware unless you pay for access. I meant to look it up on JSTOR but forgot. I'll try that in a minute. Unless you can see the whole thing, you have no idea whether the research was valid, and even then, you would have to have some knowledge about research design.

ETA: It's not available yet.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, I'm a psych major just about to graduate actually and start my Master's program, and in all the research studies I have been exposed to, I have never seen one that had a million subjects.

One thing I don't understand in your little table is that one column is labeled "population". You should know that the population is the group that you are trying to generalize your research to. Those aren't your participants. Your participants are the sample group chosen from the population to represent it.

I think you're trying to understand research from a layperson position and you're just pulling together random facts and trying to make a case from Wikipedia or whatever. Of course this kind of research isn't perfect. There are always confounding variables. But most social science researchers do their absolute best to control for confounding variables.

You can't actually see this full research at the moment so far as I'm aware unless you pay for access. I meant to look it up on JSTOR but forgot. I'll try that in a minute. Unless you can see the whole thing, you have no idea whether the research was valid, and even then, you would have to have some knowledge about research design.

ETA: It's not available yet.

Yes thats correct we cant know that the research methods were valid. But what I was trying to show was that basically the more people you have in a survey the more accurate the results will be in showing what those people are saying or thinking. Especially with answers that are more than just yes or no's and single simple answers. When you need to get more feedback about individual attitudes and in this case morals then I believe the more you ask the better you will understand the whole picture of what people are thinking about these issues.

So that table was showing population in increasing numbers. As the population numbers increased that were included in a survey the accuracy also increased. Its not the be all and end all of doing surveys and there are other aspects that need to be taken into consideration. But basically this is a overriding factor which can influence the accuracy when doing surveys. I research several sites for this info and many said the same thing as wikipedia said. I just used them as they had a better layout.

But what you say is also important in that we dont know how accurate the survey was and what methods they used. What I was saying is that some were putting a lot of credence on this without knowing whether it was accurate or not. That was because it was supporting something they were saying. I was questioning this on that basis but also because I have seen surveys on similar topics which have been much larger and more trustworthy coming from bigger government and professional survey companies (not that this alone is total evidence). They were saying a different thing and even the opposite.