Are You Religious?

[ManipulatorGeneral]

and if your motivation for doing good is to score brownie points with God so you'll get into heaven, that's a *very* bad reason.

It may be surprising to some, but Christians agree with this as well, perhaps the most strongly of anybody. Deeds done for the sake of reward or acclaim are quite roundly condemned as shallow and hypocritical by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, and it is also explicit that people relying on those good deeds before God at judgment will find them meaningless as Pearly Gates credit. I still fall into the trap of seeking my own interests sometimes, but I always feel much better when doing good because I believe a Christian is called to do good, and I find goodness manifesting further in both my life and the person I assisted in some way. Every step brings me closer to God and other individuals. As James has stated in our conversations, eliminate the theistic parts and we're practically identical.

(oh, and thanks for resurrecting this thread...didn't want to think it had gone to hell, literally. )

[James]

Deeds done for the sake of reward or acclaim

Isn't this the motivation behind 99+% of all prayers?

[ManipulatorGeneral]

Isn't this the motivation behind 99+% of all prayers?

What you appear to be suggesting is that the chief motivation for many who declare "I'll pray for you" is to receive admiration from the person and anybody else witnessing this. I'm curious where you receive the 99% figure from, firstly, and even if that is true, certainly you're well aware that a plurality doesn't change the morality (wow, what a catchy tagline). I can also cite that declaring a prayer intention can make some people angrier. My first goal is to simply comfort and provide for somebody in need, which falls under the "just because" category of altruism; perhaps being admired does make me feel better, but it's only a pleasant side effect. I'm unclear what your argument is, James.

[BitBuster]

Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as a "bad reason to be good." I'd prefer to have someone help out orphans, starving people, etc. even if it's for the "wrong reasons." Of course, if that person is then profiting at the expense of others because of this, then it's problematic, but hey, a dollar given to charity is a dollar given to charity, whether it's given altruistically or because of a more cynical reason.

I can see the utility in pointing out hypocrisies, but frankly, I don't think it's worth it, particularly if you're genuinely searching for answers. Like ManipulatorGeneral said, a plurality doesn't change the morality. I don't care if every single self-identified Christian is a raging hypocrite; it doesn't invalidate the religion itself.

That said, in my experience, many religious people tend to explain away serious problems by saying, "Oh, it's God's will," or "Pray, and it'll be better." That can be a problem, imo.

[geodave]

I was in the middle of a long diatribe on this subject, and the window disappeared! I guess God didn't want me to say that

[ManipulatorGeneral]

I looked over James' study somewhat; we critiqued four social psychology research projects as part of our analyses on them in class, and so I'm applying that thought to this. I have found two major weaknesses:

• The study only explores religiously motivated generosity in America, a nation famous for its stingy Christians (wish I could attach the article into a URL with imposed text, like I do in the song thread, but here: http://www.christian...calsstingy.html ) Honestly speaking as an American, we are overall a poor representative of the average self-proclaimed Christian's generosity, and it also remains to be questioned how many of these individuals have been born again, as so termed; though it's usually hard to measure authentic adherence to a religious faith, again with emphasis on Christianity, I'm becoming quite excellent at detecting it within others and (without trying to boast) receive feedback from individuals occupying all spectra of the God rainbow. Many of us have had our fair share of mean, pushy or even hateful Christians, and I can guarantee the proportion will be smaller in poorer countries, as more reliance on God (I think we can both safely assume this), and also each other, will be seen as desirable. How much of this generosity is caused by faith and how much by pure compassion (routinely seeing somebody in need because it happens so often) is difficult to measure, but it's simpler to examine the degree to which an American compared to, say, a Filipino, lives the faith preached; if this study is done in a poorer country, both religious and non-religious will be similarly affected by that same "need to share" and the religious population, with some emphasis on Christians, will be a more accurate representation of religious values. I believe that the more one is committed to Christ and His mission in heart rather than word, the more one's motives, as well as behaviors, will be changed; I find this occurring dramatically in my life over the course of 2012, but that's a digression...
  
  
• Only monetary acts of altruism were considered. Most of us have experienced occasions where emotional, spiritual or other support has meant the world to us and, if we really have hearts, understand that there exist things worth more than money; sometimes I give monetarily, but it's far more valuable to me to lend emotional and spiritual support wherever it's needed. I could also wager that if there were a feasible test of non-material generosity, the results would differ.
  
  

In summation, I find that studying the ulterior and ultimate motives of the religious is difficult, if not impossible, and religiously related behavior and data is even harder, again if not impossible, to quantify and measure scientifically. Researchers have attempted prayer experiments in hospitals, but these have displayed their own weaknesses because introducing God also produces too many variables for a human-conducted experiment to detect. Perhaps the magnitude of experimenting with God may invalidate tests which indicate a positive skew towards the believers, but overall, like our own attitudes towards God, religion and faith, we have to experience and examine this ourselves. For me, a variety of personal experiences lead me to question the results of this research, the same types which have led me to choose God. James, you seem to have your own daily experiences, so let them hit the fan!

[James]

What you appear to be suggesting is that the chief motivation for many who declare "I'll pray for you"

I meant prayer in general. "God, please help me do X" "God, please give me X" "God, please take care of X" "God, I need X" "God, make X happen" etc. Most people who pray tend to (appear to) use God almost as a shooting star or a genie lamp that can help them out. In fact, that concept can be extended to faith in general. It seems most religious people tend to use God as some kind of afterlife insurance.

If God didn't allow prayer for personal benefit, how many people would pray? If God didn't promise eternal salvation, how many people would be religious?

Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as a "bad reason to be good."

There are a surprising number of people out there who legitimately wonder why atheists aren't running around raping and killing others. The implication is that they see no reason not to do so and would be doing so themselves if not for their faith. That does disturb me. When you only do good because of X, what happens when X disappears/changes/becomes less of a motivator?

I can see the utility in pointing out hypocrisies, but frankly, I don't think it's worth it, particularly if you're genuinely searching for answers. Like ManipulatorGeneral said, a plurality doesn't change the morality. I don't care if every single self-identified Christian is a raging hypocrite; it doesn't invalidate the religion itself.

I was not trying to invalidate Christianity by posting that. It was just for general discussion.

That said, in my experience, many religious people tend to explain away serious problems by saying, "Oh, it's God's will," or "Pray, and it'll be better." That can be a problem, imo.

That too.

[BitBuster]

If God didn't promise eternal salvation, how many people would be religious?

This.

There are a surprising number of people out there who legitimately wonder why atheists aren't running around raping and killing others. The implication is that they see no reason not to do so and would be doing so themselves if not for their faith. That does disturb me.

That's fair enough. However, I think it says more about the mindset of those people (i.e., that they personally would see nothing wrong with rape, etc. if it weren't for their faith) than it does about anything else. Frankly, I'm past the point where I'm willing to debate/argue/talk with such people.

I was not trying to invalidate Christianity by posting that. It was just for general discussion.

...but to what end? To reveal hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is everywhere. I'm not trying to be glib, just wondering what you're aiming for.

[James]

...and I can guarantee the proportion will be smaller in poorer countries, as more reliance on God (I think we can both safely assume this), and also each other, will be seen as desirable. How much of this generosity is caused by faith and how much by pure compassion (routinely seeing somebody in need because it happens so often) is difficult to measure, but it's simpler to examine the degree to which an American compared to, say, a Filipino, lives the faith preached; if this study is done in a poorer country, both religious and non-religious will be similarly affected by that same "need to share" and the religious population, with some emphasis on Christians, will be a more accurate representation of religious values. I believe that the more one is committed to Christ and His mission in heart rather than word, the more one's motives, as well as behaviors, will be changed...

I'm interpreting this as:

* in poorer countries there is more reliance on God

* more reliance on God means more development of relationship with God

* ->...better Christian values e.g. altruism, philanthropy

* ->...more sharing

I disagree with this in two ways. First, philanthropy tends to be more present when the philanthropist has excess, such that they're able to give without harming themselves. Despite the increased understanding and sympathy that might come from experiencing hardships, I can't see increased philanthropy/sharing in such situations.

Second, I disagree that more reliance on God leads to the development of Christian values. My previous post (sry for the double, btw) touches on this. Reliance on God. Such relationships would not be 2-way streets. It's more of a "please God, I need help, please" than anything else. 2-way God relationships can only exist in situations where a believer turns towards faith willingly and not because of some need that they want God to meet. It is possible, you could argue, that God could steer "fake Christians" along the right path, but why would he not do that with "fake Christians" that are well off and need no reliance on God? And what about non-believers, why doesn't he lead them on the right path?

Additionally, there is a tie in here to what I said in my previous post. People in your hypothetical situation turn to God not because he is self-evident, not because he is guiding them in the right direction, not because they feel it is the right thing to do, but because God can help them.

But back to this, why can't Christians in the USA develop better religious values? Why are only those who desperately need God to exist the ones who show the greatest religious values? Another tie in, especially with faith in general. From my perspective, people believe in God for all sorts of reasons. They don't want to die, so God has an eternal paradise waiting. They feel unsafe or are in need, so God will always be there for them. They feel alone, so God loves them. They feel lost in a world of chaos, so God has a plan for them. It's all built around (at least on an unconscious level) a desire for it all to be true and not whether it's actually true, and this seems no different. Why would it take needing God to exist in order to experience a higher personal relationship and better religiosity? Why would it take a belief in X for X to become apparent? My explanation is a combo of wishful thinking and confirmation bias (among other biases).

The rest of your criticism seems quite valid, and I do wish I could read the study in its entirety to both point out flaws of my own and see if any deeper counter-flaw information is present. But the main thing to take out of this, IMO, is

"Certainly there are people both religious and compassionate, but once again we are able to confirm no necessary link between religiosity and morality."

For me, a variety of personal experiences lead me to question the results of this research, the same types which have led me to choose God. James, you seem to have your own daily experiences, so let them hit the fan!

Maybe another time

[James]

That's fair enough. However, I think it says more about the mindset of those people (i.e., that they personally would see nothing wrong with rape, etc. if it weren't for their faith) than it does about anything else. Frankly, I'm past the point where I'm willing to debate/argue/talk with such people.

That's true, but mindsets can be altered by religion.

There was a study I saw a while back involving two groups of kids raised in Judaism. The control group was asked to read some morally controversial passages from, I believe, the Book of Joshua. The experimental group was asked to read the same passages, but with "God" changed to "General Lin", "Jericho" changed to "An ancient Chinese kingdom 5,000 years ago", etc. The results were that the vast majority of the control group had no moral issues whatsoever with their passage, but the experimental group did, even though the content didn't change. (<insert criticism of the Bible here, even though that's not the point>)

...but to what end? To reveal hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is everywhere. I'm not trying to be glib, just wondering what you're aiming for.

Just general religious discussion. I thought it was an interesting article, although I'm a bit biased as "it is possible to be good without God" is a point I've stressfully tried to argue in the past.