Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

[Hetta]

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) that were saying a different thing and even the opposite.

I bet that if the survey showed something that you agree with, you'd have less problems believing it, right?

What you don't understand is just having a "big sample" doesn't make the research more accurate. There is far more to research than a big sample. You can't learn everything about research studies from Wikipedia.

I happen to be taking an Experimental Psych class right now and had the page open at samples as I was reading this thread and right there in my book it says "regardless the size of the sample obtained, the goal in participant sampling is to choose individuals for the sample who will represent the behaviors and attitudes of the entire population ... all research studies will have some amount of sampling error because the sample will never give you the same observations as the entire population would .. " and then it goes on to explain about sampling techniques: probability samples, simple random, cluster, stratified random, quota ... etc. I don't know what kind of sample was used here. Do you?

Just dismissing the study because it doesn't gel with your opinion won't work. If you want to wait for the study to come out and then dissect it - but please read much more about research first, because you're relying on Wikipedia right now and other random sources - and then maybe you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, not so much.

I compare these findings to my RL experience and my RL experience is that as many non-religious people are as moral as the religious people I have known/met/seen in action. In fact, I have known some very immoral religious people (and please don't say they weren't really Christians, that just doesn't work), and those people are the reason we no longer go to church.

 

[Euler]

@stevevw,

Look, you clearly don't know what you're talking about with regard to stats, as you keep just randomly pasting bits from one Wiki or another, hoping to impress. So, let's make it easier for you to see:-

Polling organizations make enormous amounts of money by ascertaining public opinion about everything from who you're going to vote for next, down to your favorite breakfast cereal. It is their business to provide accurate results, because if they're 'out' too often, they'll lose business.

Most of their polling is done by randomly selecting people for telephone interviews.

Guess how many people they usually survey, in order to get the accuracy they require?

Around 1000.

 

[stevevw]

I bet that if the survey showed something that you agree with, you'd have less problems believing it, right?

What you don't understand is just having a "big sample" doesn't make the research more accurate. There is far more to research than a big sample. You can't learn everything about research studies from Wikipedia.

I happen to be taking an Experimental Psych class right now and had the page open at samples as I was reading this thread and right there in my book it says "regardless the size of the sample obtained, the goal in participant sampling is to choose individuals for the sample who will represent the behaviors and attitudes of the entire population ... all research studies will have some amount of sampling error because the sample will never give you the same observations as the entire population would .. " and then it goes on to explain about sampling techniques: probability samples, simple random, cluster, stratified random, quota ... etc. I don't know what kind of sample was used here. Do you?

Just dismissing the study because it doesn't gel with your opinion won't work. If you want to wait for the study to come out and then dissect it - but please read much more about research first, because you're relying on Wikipedia right now and other random sources - and then maybe you have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, not so much.

I compare these findings to my RL experience and my RL experience is that as many non-religious people are as moral as the religious people I have known/met/seen in action. In fact, I have known some very immoral religious people (and please don't say they weren't really Christians, that just doesn't work), and those people are the reason we no longer go to church.

I appreciate your input. But if you would have closely read my post you would have seen that I did say that quantity in surveys is not the only thing that needs to be used. You keep referring to wikipedia which I did use, I also referred to some other sites which were saying similar things about size in surveys. One of those was the Australia Bureau of statistics. The ABS is one of the world largest statistical gathering agencies for the Australian government.

I tend to get more than one support for my research so that I can compare and verify whats said. The survey that we were talking about conflicted with other larger surveys with their results so I check it out. But its hard to know what the basis of their survey was about. When it comes to people feelings on morals it can be a open to interpretation and many other things. You are right in that there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration to know that a survey is reliable. We dont know if this particular survey is reliable or not as we dont know what the methods they used. But to say that I would be using any survey to support my point is silly. That doesn't make it right that others who are using this survey may also be doing the same.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw,

Look, you clearly don't know what you're talking about with regard to stats, as you keep just randomly pasting bits from one Wiki or another, hoping to impress. So, let's make it easier for you to see:-

Polling organizations make enormous amounts of money by ascertaining public opinion about everything from who you're going to vote for next, down to your favorite breakfast cereal. It is their business to provide accurate results, because if they're 'out' too often, they'll lose business.

Most of their polling is done by randomly selecting people for telephone interviews.

Guess how many people they usually survey, in order to get the accuracy they require?

Around 1000.

I wasn't claiming I knew everything about surveys. I was merely saying that the size of a survey is important. So 1000 people out of 200 million in the US is a good indication of what everyone is thinking when it comes to morals. What if you repeated the survey with another 1000 people would you get the same results. I was talking about this survey as we dont know how they did it and what methods they used. Sometimes when you have to find out things like how a person feels about something morally you have to dig a bit deeper than just ask some black and white questions that have a yes or no answer. Data can be misinterpreted. As I said one of the questions was about how they felt about harm. Even an immoral person has strong feelings about harm. So unless you qualify this you are not really finding out what differences there are in peoples morals.

 

[Euler]

Thats a bold statement. I wasnt claiming I knew everything about surveys. I was merely saying that the size of a survey is important. Yes some surveys will use small numbers but you have to consider what the survey is for. If its for things like you are saying such as breakfast cereals then it doesn't always have to be wide spread and it can be answers or choices to yes and no questions. That can be more straight forward. But when it comes to peoples feelings, morals and values you may need more info than that. This survey seemed to be asking this and wanted peoples opinions on certain situations to do with how they felt about things in a moral sense. I was questioning how do they determine peoples morals from those question. Some talked about what they felt about harm. I said that this is hard to determine a persons morals as even immoral people have strong feelings about harm and a question on the spot could give a misrepresented view about them.

No, around 1000.

That's how many they poll. Professional, highly paid, very accurate survey companies. Around 1000.

Whether it's breakfast cereal, or political support, or opinions about abortion.

Around 1000.

 

[stevevw]

No, around 1000.

That's how many they poll. Professional, highly paid, very accurate survey companies. Around 1000.

Whether it's breakfast cereal, or political support, or opinions about abortion.

Around 1000.

OK then why do those tables show an increasing accuracy rate as you add more people to the sample. I am only going from what some of these sites are saying. But regardless of that dont you think that it also depends on the type of question and how you ask it as well.

 

[Euler]

OK then why do those tables show an increasing accuracy rate as you add more people to the sample. I am only going from what some of these sites are saying. But regardless of that dont you think that it also depends on the type of question and how you ask it as well.

To your first: because those increasing accuracy rates are logarithmic. As you add more people to your sample, the benefit it gives you becomes increasingly less significant. It follows the law of diminishing returns. Somewhere in that process, you make a decision to use a sample size which gives you an acceptable probability level of 'accuracy'. That number is around 1000.
To your second: No. Sample size won't help a poorly framed question deliver a particular answer. Sample size will determine a probability that whatever answer you get accurately reflects the population as a whole on that answer.
That sample size is around 1000.

 

[stevevw]

To your first: because those increasing accuracy rates are logarithmic. As you add more people to your sample, the benefit it gives you becomes increasingly less significant. It follows the law of diminishing returns. Somewhere in that process, you make a decision to use a sample size which gives you an acceptable probability level of 'accuracy'. That number is around 1000.
To your second: No. Sample size won't help a poorly framed question deliver a particular answer. Sample size will determine a probability that whatever answer you get accurately reflects the population as a whole on that answer.
That sample size is around 1000.

Fair enough. So there are a few different ways a survey can be determined to be reliable or not. Without knowing all these factors we cannot say that this survey could represent an accurate picture of what the populations moral values are.

 

[Euler]

Fair enough. So there are a few different ways a survey can be determined to be reliable or not. Without knowing all these factors we cannot say that this survey could represent an accurate picture of what the populations moral values are.

oh good grief - it's like a brick wall isn't it!?

In terms of the sample size, yes we can be satisfied about its reliability. 1200 is a very good sample size.

So, you'll have to now jump to some other unsupported claim to try to discredit it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Notice how the margin of error drops rapidly as one approaches 1000, but afterwards it drops only slowly? That is why pollsters don't bother to spend a lot of money on getting sample sizes of more than 1500, and often settle for 1200.

For a confidence interval of 95% (a reasonable value) the margin of error is only about 2.9%, which is acceptable for most purposes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Euler]

Thanks Mark,
Who knows, maybe a picture will do the trick?

 

[stevevw]

oh good grief - it's like a brick wall isn't it!?

In terms of the sample size, yes we can be satisfied about its reliability. 1200 is a very good sample size.

So, you'll have to now jump to some other unsupported claim to try to discredit it.

I think you need to stop and take a look at what I have said and what you are saying here. I dont think the way you speak shows any respect to start with for what is suppose to be a friendly debate.

I understanding what sample rates are about and thats why I said fair enough. If you read my post properly you would have seen that I was also speaking about the many variables that can happen with surveys. The actual claim I made was that we dont know if the survey was done properly not just from a sample size. I questioned the sample size as one possible way it maybe unreliable. There are a few factors that impact on a survey and you or I cant tell if the people who did the survey used proper techniques.

I said that I questioned the survey because it contradicted other surveys on similar subjects about religious and non religious peoples morals. I had included a couple of those surveys showing that religious people did have a different view on morals and how religion affects their outlook. So I wasn't coming from an supported position. What you tend to do is forget what we were talking about and what I had already said and then get into mocking me to prove you position.

The thing is a did like Marks way of explaining it. It was straight forward without all the innuendos and ridicules.

 

[Euler]

Please show the posts where you HAVEN'T harped on about sample size?

Just the post numbers will do.

 

[stevevw]

Please show the posts where you HAVEN'T harped on about sample size?

Just the post numbers will do.

Thats not the point. I mentioned the numbers as one possible reason why a survey could not be reliable. This was because like I said this survey was in contradiction to other surveys on similar topics about the difference of morality between religious and non religious people if you remember. After stating that the size of the survey may have been a reason I have been made aware of how they use samples. This was confirmed when I replied after you had mention sample sizes. I said quote.
Fair enough. So there are a few different ways a survey can be determined to be reliable or not. Without knowing all these factors we cannot say that this survey could represent an accurate picture of what the populations moral values are.

So my response to your last post was fair enough I didn't dispute what you said. But you obviously were not paying attention and were more concerned about having a go at me. That why you came back with that statement of brick wall as you didn't read what I had said and just thought I was disagreeing or not understanding. Even so I wouldn't be speaking that way to someone as you dont know what they maybe saying or meaning. You have assumed something and then acted on it without understanding what was going on. Thats why its important to not say things like that to anyone if you dont know them. I find it demeaning and arrogant. Most people I talk to will be decent and keep things within a certain boundary even if it gets heated. Anyway its gone beyond that point now and it doesn't matter.

All I was saying which I had also said in many posts besides the point of sample size that there were many things that can make a survey reliable and we dont know if this survey followed all the proper ways to make their results true. I also said that some of the questions they asked for finding out about a persons morals seem to be wrong like asking about what they felt about harm. An immoral person could feel strongly about harm and it doesn't define very well the difference between religious and non religious people. But you seemed to have not understood what point I was making and focused i to much on the one thing about sample size which was really a side point.

 

[Hetta]

Fair enough. So there are a few different ways a survey can be determined to be reliable or not. Without knowing all these factors we cannot say that this survey could represent an accurate picture of what the populations moral values are.

Steve, there are always questions about surveys and studies. Always. It's impossible to be ever 100% certain that they covered every single confounding variable, but generally, they try very, very hard to do so because they know that the results will be up for scrutiny.

I would really, really do some deep reading on this topic and try to leave your prejudices to one side when you read a study.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, there are always questions about surveys and studies. Always. It's impossible to be ever 100% certain that they covered every single confounding variable, but generally, they try very, very hard to do so because they know that the results will be up for scrutiny.

I would really, really do some deep reading on this topic and try to leave your prejudices to one side when you read a study.

I already had left my prejudices to the side. I dont really need to do any deep reading on surveys as that wasn't the point. I could go and get more surveys and that wouldn't solve the problem as this would all be brought into question as well. Though if several surveys say one thing and one says the opposite you would have to say there is some support there. It was more about the topic which was do non religious people have the same morals as religious people. That is what i questioned which was really based on common sense and general observations and what you and any believer gets to know. It stands to reason that Christians and religious people have different morals to non believers. Otherwise what is a believer. They believe in a set of morals from God which is different to secular society. To me that makes sense.

It was the person who posted it who had the bias as they immediately had used it as support for what they were saying and then defended it without even adding any additional support from any other sources that could back that up. I just questioned the accuracy of it mainly because I had seen other surveys on a similar vein which were saying the opposite of which I posted as support. I didn't say that people were one way or the other for this topic apart from saying it doesn't make sense that this would be the case. The person posting took a stance of which I questioned. It was as simple as that. It then got side tracked with the sample sizes of surveys which was a side issue which my debater seemed to want to focus on more rather than the original issue. Anyway it has totally gone off the whole point so it doesn't matter now and I wish I never even brought it up. Some people are just dead set on attacking someone for even challenging their view.

 

[Euler]

Thats not the point. I mentioned the numbers as one possible reason why a survey could not be reliable. This was because like I said this survey was in contradiction to other surveys on similar topics about the difference of morality between religious and non religious people if you remember. After stating that the size of the survey may have been a reason I have been made aware of how they use samples. This was confirmed when I replied after you had mention sample sizes. I said quote.
Fair enough. So there are a few different ways a survey can be determined to be reliable or not. Without knowing all these factors we cannot say that this survey could represent an accurate picture of what the populations moral values are.

So my response to your last post was fair enough I didn't dispute what you said. But you obviously were not paying attention and were more concerned about having a go at me. That why you came back with that statement of brick wall as you didn't read what I had said and just thought I was disagreeing or not understanding. Even so I wouldn't be speaking that way to someone as you dont know what they maybe saying or meaning. You have assumed something and then acted on it without understanding what was going on. Thats why its important to not say things like that to anyone if you dont know them. I find it demeaning and arrogant. Most people I talk to will be decent and keep things within a certain boundary even if it gets heated. Anyway its gone beyond that point now and it doesn't matter.

All I was saying which I had also said in many posts besides the point of sample size that there were many things that can make a survey reliable and we dont know if this survey followed all the proper ways to make their results true. I also said that some of the questions they asked for finding out about a persons morals seem to be wrong like asking about what they felt about harm. An immoral person could feel strongly about harm and it doesn't define very well the difference between religious and non religious people. But you seemed to have not understood what point I was making and focused i to much on the one thing about sample size which was really a side point.

Please indicate the posts that WEREN'T about sample size. You claim you posted lots of other reasons other than sample size which casts doubt on that survey. Please show those posts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not surprising.
One group regards morality as absolute.

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

Are you saying that religious people just make it up as they go along?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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, but it's not feasible to survey the entire population for a study of this kind. That's why scientists try to obtain a representative sample. Is there a particular reason to suppose that the sample size for this kind of study was too small?

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

It's not supposed to. That wasn't the aim of the study. Your criticism seems to be that they didn't do what they never set out to do.

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.

You seem to be confused about the descriptive versus prescriptive aspect.

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.

You're implying that the non-religious don't have a particular standard.

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.

On what do you base this conclusion? Why isn't it a good size?

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.

Religious people differ on those issues too.

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.

You don't seem to understand the aim of the study.

 

[stevevw]

Please indicate the posts that WEREN'T about sample size. You claim you posted lots of other reasons other than sample size which casts doubt on that survey. Please show those posts.

Whats the use now. Its made the issue of the sample size of the survey more of an issue than the original point which was about whether religious and non religious people had the same morals.

I went back and had a quick look at the posts and when I first mentioned this. You were debating with someone else at the same time. I first mentioned this to a couple of different people about how can the morals of these two groups be the same as it didn't make sense. I didn't mention the size of the survey but that maybe they hadn't done the survey properly or never asked the right sort of questions as it contradicted other surveys and info on this topic. I linked those other surveys so that you or others could check them out. So I would imagine if you were following you should have seen them. So all my initial posts didn't even mention the size factor until later when you came in. Then it started to get bogged down by this but still I kept referring it back to size not being the only factor as to why the survey may be unreliable.

I mentioned those time and time again even when debating you and mentioned the other factors besides the size of surveys in just about every post to you. But I dont think you understood the point. It wasn't about just the size but if any one or more of a number of factors may have caused the results to be unreliable. I also mentioned that it could be the type of questions asked or the way in which they were asked. But still you didn't get what I was trying to point out. So even before you came in the size of the survey wasn't mentioned and all I was doing was questioning the accuracy of the survey based on a number of reasons and not just the size. So this is why its important that you check what has been said and not come int a post on one aspect of it and then focus just on that. The size factor wasn't the point that I was making.

I am not sure how to link those posts but here are the pages.
My reply to stevevw
Just common sense will tell you that religious people will be morally different. Take abortion for example. More religious people will believe that abortion is morally wrong than non believers. This is the same for many issues. The other point is we may see some things like helping others in a similar way but religious people will place more importance on this and act on it in more ways. In some ways it is an obligation of a Christian to help others and sacrifice time and money to do so. So the survey is a bit misleading in saying there is not much difference between non religious and religious people morally.
Without God there can be no good ? Opinion ? ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
Are Religious People More Charitable than Non-Believers? | Mostly Rational

Originally Posted by stevevw
Originally Posted by stevevw
[FONT=&quot]post number [/FONT] #80 [FONT=&quot]http://www.christianforums.com/t7843279-9/#post66403787
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Archaeopteryx[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Euler[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
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.

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.

I havnt done it properly as I have never had to do this before. I have linked the other persons post but it still has what I said attached. The first couple are ok but I cant find the others and cant be bothered.
I dont want to link anymore as you will just dispute all this anyway.