Do christians really have lower moral standards than others

[DrTaffy]

If the above statement is the only conclusion that you can draw from your article, you have been duped by your own biases.

Or you have misread.

The only conclusion I draw from the fact that Catholics are over-represented in prison is that the entirely unsupported accusation that atheists are intrinsically immoral is a touch hypocritical.

Sure, you can try to explain the number of Catholic convicts by appealing to a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, but I was not using it to argue that Catholics are intrinsically immoral. And you still have done nothing to support the argument that atheists are intrinsically immoral.

 

[Ender]

The evidence shows that they do have morals, so your insinuation that they do not is refuted, please stop saying it.

There is no question that individuals can and obviously do create their own standards of behavior, atheists and religious alike. The problem arises from the fact that no claim can be made that any personal standard is more moral than any other, which is pretty much like saying morality does not really exist. Standards do, but not morality. What is logical to you may be illogical to me and I am no more bound to abide by your logic than you are to required to accept mine.

The irony of an atheist claiming to have morals is that he cannot demonstrate that morality even exists.

Ender

 

[Dulcinea2721]

Or you have misread.

The only conclusion I draw from the fact that Catholics are over-represented in prison is that the entirely unsupported accusation that atheists are intrinsically immoral is a touch hypocritical.

Sure, you can try to explain the number of Catholic convicts by appealing to a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, but I was not using it to argue that Catholics are intrinsically immoral. And you still have done nothing to support the argument that atheists are intrinsically immoral.

I do not remember saying that atheists are intrinsically immoral. Please do not put words in my mouth.

You presented an article as support for your statement that Catholics are hypocritical if they claim to be more moral based on % Catholics are in jail versus % in the population.

I am submitting that your supportive document is lacking in many ways. The article is stating a statistic without showing the reason why. YOU are attributing to the article the reason why more Catholics are jailed in Northern Ireland versus Protestants and others. IOW you are using this article to support to support your statement when the article is dealing with the observed disparity in numbers and treatment of Catholics, the article does not state the reason WHY.

In fact the last paragraph of the article

“But monitoring is pointless if it does not highlight problems and lead to action to investigate and if necessary rectify them. Given the importance of being able to demonstrate equal treatment in Northern Ireland, this is a significant gap.”

This suggests to me that the essence of the article is about equality (or inequality) in treatment of Catholics. It is not referring to,as you suggest, a lack of morality. Your article does not support your argument.

Edited to add: I am not making a tinfoil argument for conspiracy…the article YOU presented is studying the disparity and looking to address ‘the problem’

 

[UserNotFound]

As someone who took Statistics in high school and college, I seriously doubt this “study”.

How do they measure morality? What steps have they taken to be sure there is no bias? What did they do to determine this study’s validity and reliability? How large was the sample population? Where and how did they obtain the participants? Did they all receive the same questions and instructions in the exact same manner? What was the standard measurement of error? How significant are the results? What is the standard deviation, and how did they determine it?

These are the questions I would need answered in order to believe any study. Statistics is a hard subject (I wasn’t very good at it, honestly, but I still remember some basics.). There is so much work that goes into creating a study! The.people who do it must be very careful and precise with everything, and the test must be repeated multiple times, with relatively the same results, for the test to be reliable. The biggest problem I have is with it’s validity. Because morality is something we can’t physically see, how can it be accurately measured? This also depends heavily on the definition of morality that they use. People always make faulty studies, whether they intend to or not.

 

[DrTaffy]

I do not remember saying that atheists are intrinsically immoral. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I am not - I never said that you said that. Indeed, you, in a discussion about unjustified catholic accusations to atheists and hypocrisy, are putting words into my mouth in order to unjustifiably accuse me of putting words into yours.

Irony, much?

You presented an article as support for your statement that Catholics are hypocritical if they claim to be more moral based on % Catholics are in jail versus % in the population.

More putting words into my mouth. All I presented this article for was to support the allegation that Catholics are over-represented in prison.

I then explicitly said that I was not drawing conclusions about the overall morality of catholics from this, except in the one case of Catholics accusing atheists of intrinsic immorality when if anything the evidence is in the opposite direction.

Hence the reason why my comment that you had not supported that accusation was both true and relevant, while your attacks on me are neither.

Nor is it just this article, or just Northern Ireland. This is just the one example that popped out of Google first. Similar results have been reported in the rest of the UK, the EU or North America.

Edited to add: I am not making a tinfoil argument for conspiracy…the article YOU presented is studying the disparity and looking to address ‘the problem’

Sure you are. You made an explicit suggestion that the results are down to “discrimination and unfair treatment towards Catholics”. Now if you reread my first post in this thread (#2) with open eyes and an open mind, you would see that I had already suggested a less loopy but non-judgemental explanation.

Please dial down on the belligerence, in other words!

 

[DrTaffy]

The problem arises from the fact that no claim can be made that any personal standard is more moral than any other, which is pretty much like saying morality does not really exist. Standards do, but not morality. What is logical to you may be illogical to me and I am no more bound to abide by your logic than you are to required to accept mine.

Um… no. Just as you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, I don’t agree that you are entitled to your own rules of logic.

If we don’t share logical rules in common, there really is no point in discussion, as discussion relies on those rules.

Naturally, just agreeing on the rules of logic and the premises does not guarantee that we will agree on the subsequent development of the argument now, but at least we have a common ground to build on. With enough time, enough clarity in stating the argument, and assuming that neither of us are insane, we could eventually come to agreement.

Compare that to a morality where each of us bases morality solely on our own holy book. If my book says that eating broccoli on Thursdays is punishable by death, and neither of us accept the basic secular logical foundation, how can you possibly persuade me not to put you to death for eating broccoli on Thursday? You have nowhere to even begin!

The irony of an atheist claiming to have morals is that he cannot demonstrate that morality even exists.

I would argue the opposite. The secular framework I propose is both absolute, and should be accepted by anyone who accepts the basic rules of logic.

It is the religious moral framework that is (to an outsider) arbitrary and impossible to demonstrate. You either have faith or you do not.

 

[Kamaduck]

No, it is more than that. In many, if not most, western countries Catholics make up a greater percentage of the prison population than they do of the general population. So Catholics actually do break the law more than the average.

See for example this article:

In contrast, atheists make up a much lower proportion of the prison population than they do of the general population.

The only conclusion I would draw from this is that Catholics who say that atheists are less moral than Catholics are at best making unsupported and offensive allegations, at worst hypocrites and liars.

This really is interesting. But the report is from Northern Ireland, which has a unique history of Protestant vs. Catholic violence. I don’t think it’s applicable to the world as a whole.

I was going to suggest we further break down the prison population by income, because maybe Catholics are poorer on average than those with no religion. But nope. A quick google search shows that those with no religion are roughly as likely as Catholics to be wealthy, at least in the US.

However, race still could be a factor. Zuckerman’s study (the one DaddyGirl helpfully posted) was American, and here, race has a significant effect on one’s odds of going to prison. This and this show that black and latino men are more likely to be sent to prison (they are over-represented by a significant amount). This shows that people who are black or latino are more likely to be religious- the majority of latino Americans are Catholic, and the vast majority of black Americans are Protestant. The rates of religious affiliation are lower for both white and Asian Americans.

So. Whether religion correlates directly with a chance of being imprisoned is an interesting question, but it’s certain that race does, and race also affects what religion someone is most likely to identify as. Are there any studies about this that account for race?

Please take note that like you, I am not making any claims about the morality or lack thereof of atheists, or of those who are not religiously affiliated. I think prison statistics are a pretty terrible medium to use for any argument about a group’s overall morality, because of the overlap with different issues like race and income level. I’m just interested in whether these studies actually do show that one’s religion has much of anything to do with whether or not they will be sent to prison.

 

[danharte]

With regards to the higher prison rates amongst theists.
One very important factor is overlooked, which I stated earlier is white collar or corporate crimes
That are extremely difficult to detect & enforce & I understand costs the United States $300 billion every year If the evidence suggested is true regarding higher education amongst non religious then it’s reasonable to draw conclusions that more non religious people are guilty of these types of crimes
Is it beyond question that atheist or agnostic have never seen valid objective morality in sacred writings & never decided that they are worth holding onto?
I would say that they have done & continue to do so weather they wish to admit it or not & it is highly likely, religious belief have led them to it directly or indirectly
I feel i can say with a great deal of confidence, most if not all the people here on the catholic answers forum are here because they have a deep interest in conscience & morality brought about by a faith they wish to live by & because of that very fact, have I very high or devine moral standards

 

[Bookcat]

Do christians really have lower moral standards than others?

No.

It has been seen since the first century not to be the case. Those who live the Christian life have been seen since the beginning to be of a very different standard than others (not that there cannot be good things among those who are not Christian of course).

vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010522_diogneto_en.html

"And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life."

Letter to Diognetus (Second Century)

 

[danharte]

Thanks for the link Bookcat, what an eloquent & poetic description of faithful christians.
That’s given me something good to reflect on

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I read the first couple of pages of what I believe is the report the OP is referring to. It’s, in my opinion, garbage. The author of the report appears to have compared the views of non-religious (atheists, agnostics, non-religious) and religious to a morality of his own making. In other words, he is trying to claim that one group is more moral than another based off of an artificial morality. One can easily claim that atheists are more moral than say Catholics if one starts with the assumption that abortion (one of the issues he doesn’t specifically list in the portion I read, but I would assume it is implied in the phrase "women’s rights) is moral and a fundamental right for women.

The only way to “prove” on group is more moral in behavior than another is to compare their behavior within their morality system (something which frankly isn’t possible to any degree of accuracy for such a diverse grouping). You take Issue X, find what each group’s faith or belief system teaches about Issue X, find the percentage of followers who follow this teaching, then compare the results. The author isn’t doing this. He is taking Issue X, assigning a moral value to Issue X, then comparing the differences between each broad group to those who support his artificial moral value of Issue X.

I don’t even know why he included stuff about education and intelligence as I can’t see how those can be seen as being relevant to the issue of moral behavior.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

I am not - I never said that you said that. Indeed, you, in a discussion about unjustified catholic accusations to atheists and hypocrisy, are putting words into my mouth in order to unjustifiably accuse me of putting words into yours.

Irony, much?

 

[Nacho45]

You miss the point. There are more Catholics in prison than would be accounted for just by their numbers in the general population. An individual Catholic, on average, is actually more likely to be in prison than a randomly chosen citizen.

The ‘no true scotsman’ defense. Doesn’t change the fundamental statistic.

As you say, individual atheists will be different because there is no essential point connecting them other than lack of belief in God.

The short answer is: none of your business. The evidence shows that they do have morals, so your insinuation that they do not is refuted, please stop saying it.

The longer version really needs a thread to itself, but in short:
The ‘true scotsman’ version of an atheist (i.e. one who agrees with me in everything) would get his morals from the laws of logic, the concept of benefit and harm, and the golden rule. Given that, you can derive a pretty complete moral code - pick up a book on ‘moral philosophy’ or ‘social philosophy’ to see how in detail.

The point about such a morality is that it is secular, not Atheist with a capital ‘A’. Everyone should be able to agree at least in principal on that code, even if private religious views then cause you amend parts of it. (e.g. a priori eating shellfish is not immoral, by the secular framework, but your holy book may say otherwise)

Contrast that with morality based on God, solely on God with no acceptance of the secular framework. What can a christian then say to dissuade a muslim suicide bomber ? Quoting the catechism won’t work, as he doesn’t value it.

Only shared (i.e. secular) moral framework allows for dialogue.

No idea. Who and what are you (apparently) quoting here?

What am I quoting? You didn’t read what you were quoting? I don’t think the Scotsman defense means what you think it means, but there is no reason to argue when you make things fit into you own concepts rather than see them for what they are.

 

[Nacho45]

Or you have misread.

The only conclusion I draw from the fact that Catholics are over-represented in prison is that the entirely unsupported accusation that atheists are intrinsically immoral is a touch hypocritical.

Sure, you can try to explain the number of Catholic convicts by appealing to a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, but I was not using it to argue that Catholics are intrinsically immoral. And you still have done nothing to support the argument that atheists are intrinsically immoral.

I’m certain you are not interested in applying your same bias to the ethnicity of people incarcerated.

As someone already pointed out, important factors are location, population, crime committed, and whether the laws themselves are moral in nature.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

There is another aspect that I haven’t seen covered yet. Studies have shown that those who are most vocally against something have a larger tendency to carve out exceptions for themselves. (I call it the thief is more paranoid about theft effect). I don’t know how the study identified religious people, but if it was by self-identification I can see this ‘effect’ having a large affect.

Christ spent a good part of his life rallying against hypocrites. It should not be surprising that they exist in our midst. Certainly, I see a lot of hypocrites on this board. In particular are those who spit venom against pornography while making excuses to not take care of the poor.

Some of this is due to what I call conservative amnesia. Like the Pharisees, some conservatives have defended the faith so fiercely on every detail (no matter how small) that they have forgotten what they are really fighting for. (Don’t get me wrong, I admire the Pharisees as I admire conservatives; it is quite evident to me that Jesus was of the tradition of the Pharisees.) But the risk that these conservatives take is that the lesser good can sometimes supersede the greater good which can lead to a greater evil than if they had done nothing.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There is another aspect that I haven’t seen covered yet. Studies have shown that those who are most vocally against something have a larger tendency to carve out exceptions for themselves. (I call it the thief is more paranoid about theft effect). I don’t know how the study identified religious people, but if it was by self-identification I can see this ‘effect’ having a large affect.

Christ spent a good part of his life rallying against hypocrites. It should not be surprising that they exist in our midst. Certainly, I see a lot of hypocrites on this board. In particular are those who spit venom against pornography while making excuses to not take care of the poor.

Some of this is due to what I call conservative amnesia. Like the Pharisees, some conservatives have defended the faith so fiercely on every detail (no matter how small) that they have forgotten what they are really fighting for. (Don’t get me wrong, I admire the Pharisees as I admire conservatives; it is quite evident to me that Jesus was of the tradition of the Pharisees.) But the risk that these conservatives take is that the lesser good can sometimes supersede the greater good which can lead to a greater evil than if they had done nothing.

The basis for the teachings regarding pornography and caring for the poor aren’t the same or even in the same broad category. One could very easily engage in your above described behavior and not be a hypocrite.

 

[TEPO]

What a horrible topic. IOW, people who 'Think ’ this way are smarter and just plain better than people who ‘think’ that way. Way to help pound the wedge -to place a taboo on religion.

…why does this thread have 5 stars?

 

[TEPO]

Christ spent a good part of his life rallying against hypocrites. It should not be surprising that they exist in our midst. Certainly, I see a lot of hypocrites on this board. In particular are those who spit venom against pornography while making excuses to not take care of the poor.

Why place judgement based on your perspective? Everyone has their own personal talents, and some prefer caring for the poor while some focus in different directions. If the Church is the body of Christ, we’re all different parts of that one body.

 

[Nacho45]

What a horrible topic. IOW, people who 'Think ’ this way are smarter and just plain better than people who ‘think’ that way. Way to help pound the wedge -to place a taboo on religion.

…why does this thread have 5 stars?

It is not the Church pounding a wedge.

 

[TEPO]

It is not the Church pounding a wedge.

No, it’s Phil Zuckerman. He’s pounding the wedge. And for what reason? To create taboo on religion.