Other studies have typically examined the issue in the lab. The novel aspect of this study is the naturalistic "everyday life" design.
I question the notion that the results contradict "common sense." I think it's more "common sense" to say that religious and nonreligious individuals are not so far apart when it comes to experiencing moral phenomena. Note, I am using the word "moral" in the descriptive sense. You often seem to forget this.
Well its hard to say as I am not sure the types of questions were defining peoples morals or not. As I said before feelings to do with harm or fairness ect are not completely to do with morals. Even immoral people can have strong feelings about care and fairness and they may live immoral lives. Plus how do we know the people doing the survey decided what morals were to begin with in a religious sense. If you asked about things like sex and whether it was ok in certain situations it would define morals better than something like fairness which is something that even secular society has laws around. In other words what the poeple doing the survey regarded as morals may not be how Christians see morals. So the repsonses to things like fairness with be similar for all because its more of a general value that we all have anyway and doesn't really have definite differences when it comes to religious beliefs.
They tell you what the purpose was! Have you actually read it?
I understand their purpose and I have read the survey. I am questioning how they did it. It just seems they have talked about some good qualities we all have and not specific enough morals that religious people such as Christians have. Non believers on here are saying that there is no difference in the morals of non religious and religious people. People on here are mentioning things like whether its ok to have assisted suicide or is homosexuality is OK or not. These are the issues that people are bring up from this survey. This is the way they have understood what the survey is saying whether it intended to do this or not. Thats because that is how people define their morals by issues such as these.
Religious people also disagree with other religious people on many moral issues. What's your point?
Like how, I dont think there's a lot of difference. Plus I am mainly talking about the western understanding of religion as practiced mostly by the societies where these surveys would be done. If it did include many different religions then it would have to accommodate those difference as it would then add another dimension to the survey. It would then have to define the differences between those religions as well withing the overall difference of non religion and religious people. But I dont think there would be a lot of difference. Most religions agree on a lot of things like same sex, sexual immorality, abortion, marriage, affairs, underage sex, porn ect. There are some groups but I wouldn't call them religions but more sects or cults that allow different views on sex ect. But they are few and not exactly something that mainstream religion agrees with.
Given the lack of specificity in your criticism here, I'm going to take a guess and say that you haven't read the paper.
How do you mean. There isn't much you can be specific about. The survey mainly explains a lot of technical info about they ways they measured things. But it doesn't tell you much about the details of the questions they asked. Like I said apart from the qualities they have asked people about in their certain situations these to me are things that anyone would be confronted with and they dont really define anything morally. Even if they get a lot of info on how the people responded you still have to question the qualities as to whether you can class them as morals. They maybe morals according to them but not necessarily to religious people or Christians. The trouble is according to secular society morals can be objective so how can they be specific about morals. How can they use what many Christians regards as Gods objective morals when they dont know or use them in the survey anyway. I think they have used a certain meaning they have used for what is a moral act or not when it just maybe a decent good act that secular society thinks is moral.
Yes, there are religious people who think that porn is okay.
What and who are they. If you mean some weird sect well tech there are religious cults that do this but we all know they are wrong and taking advantage of something. This has nothing to do with morals. And this is what I mean but how the survey hasn't really defined what morals are. Whos version have they used. But I would like to know which religions you are talking about that think porn is OK as a moral as thats news to me.
Again, read the study before criticizing it for not doing what it was never intended to do.
Well as far as I understand it there is a difference between religious people and non religious peoples morals. This survey hasn't really been clear on what morals are. Harm and fairness to me are not necessarily defining morals but are more like good traits that we all can have even immoral people. The marfia want a fair share of things and will distribute their proceeds from crime out fairly because they care about the family. They dont want harm to come to their own but will kill anyone who harms their friends ect. Thats all subjective and doesn't really define morals.
I already have the paper in PFD format.
At the end of the day I can get surveys that are showing contradictory results and thats why I question it. If there is no difference with morals between non religious and religious people then whey do we have all the arguments about how religious people are always trying to push their morals onto others. What do we have such a divide between the churches stand on many issues and secular society. We all know its there and see it all the time.
