Scholar reports worshippers do better on every observable outcome

[mdgspencer]

This scholar, at a family research center, reports that worship and church attendance has an effect on such things as theft, smoking, abug abuse, alcoholism, co-habitation, homosexuality and many other things, as shown by social science studies. For this see:

catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0142.htm

Also,
www.frc.org/pat-fagan/why-religion-matters

 

[LilyM]

Homosexuality? Hmmm. So much for those who claim that homosexuals are just born that way and that there’s nothing can be done about it.

 

[JackVk]

It doesn’t surprise me. My psychology professor said that religion has health benefits; a longitudinal study showed that religious people have lower risks of cancer, heart disease, and stroke, and generally live longer.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I could see where that would make sense. Not hard to come to this conclusion.

The Homosexual issues are over focused and intentionally done so to find fault in a sacred institution. Make no mistake about it they exist everywhere as does Satan. As a matter of fact they are so prevalent elsewhere that we actually minimize the issue.

I see nothing happening that hasn’t been foretold. And the real issue is we blindly follow the leadership of the USA. We should do this as obediantly with the Catholic Faith. And finally work towards World peace.

Bless All, GT

 

[rossum]

Homosexuality? Hmmm. So much for those who claim that homosexuals are just born that way and that there’s nothing can be done about it.

I would suspect that it has more to do with whether or not the researcher included any Metropolitan Community Church or Unitarian congregations in the sample.

A survey which only included “homosexuality is a sin” congregations is likely to have unreliable results about homosexuality, as would a survey which only included MCC congregations.

rossum

 

[LilyM]

I would suspect that it has more to do with whether or not the researcher included any Metropolitan Community Church or Unitarian congregations in the sample.

A survey which only included “homosexuality is a sin” congregations is likely to have unreliable results about homosexuality, as would a survey which only included MCC congregations.

rossum

You think so? Put it this way. Few religions (apart from Mormons, if they count as Christian) consider smoking to be a sin (heck, Benedict is widely known to be a smoker), yet the religiously observant have lower rates of smoking. None of them consider not being academically bright a sin, yet GPAs are higher.

How to explain these differences? It’s not because people are getting preached at about these things in a negative way from the pulpit, that’s for sure. I’ve never heard smoking preached about, and rarely heard academic achievement mentioned either - if I have, mostly it’s been in the sense of ‘God doesn’t care what marks you get in school’, which I imagine would be the common experience of my fellow Catholics and Christians.

 

[AntiTheist]

You think so? Put it this way. Few religions (apart from Mormons, if they count as Christian) consider smoking to be a sin (heck, Benedict is widely known to be a smoker), yet the religiously observant have lower rates of smoking. None of them consider not being academically bright a sin, yet GPAs are higher.

But your first post on this thread implied that the results of this particular study – specifically that the religiously observant are less likely to be homosexuals – were evidence that homosexuality is a conscious choice.

Yet this data is at least just as easily explained by homosexuality being a natural inclination and those individuals inclined towards homosexuality choosing not to participate in a religion that condemns them.

On what basis do you claim the results of this study as evidence for your particular spin on this issue?

 

[LilyM]

But your first post on this thread implied that the results of this particular study – specifically that the religiously observant are less likely to be homosexuals – were evidence that homosexuality is a conscious choice.

Yet this data is at least just as easily explained by homosexuality being a natural inclination and those individuals inclined towards homosexuality choosing not to participate in a religion that condemns them.

On what basis do you claim the results of this study as evidence for your particular spin on this issue?

Well - if condemnation of behaviours is what is causing people who indulge in them to leave church, then it follows that the behaviours that AREN’T condemned should occur equally among worshippers and non-worshippers, no?

If no-one’s telling people ‘smoking is evil’ and no-one’s telling people ‘having a low GPA is evil’ then worshippers should be on a par with non-worshippers in those areas, no?

By that logic, surely, there then should be equal rates of smoking and equal GPAs among the two groups. Because it’s only or primarily negative reinforcement that is causing the discrepancies, in the case of homosexuality, if rossum and you are to be believed. But even in instances where there is NO negative reinforcement, the discrepancies still occur, and rates of behaviour still differ widely

It suggests (and it’s only a suggestion, mind) that the negative reinforcement has a lot less to do with the discrepancies in sexual behaviour (and indeed in behaviour across the board) than you’d like to think, and that it’s too facile an explanation. It seems the promotion of positive virtues - care for the body, diligence in work and study, and the virtue of chastity and abstinence - contributes a lot more than you think. Dare I say the living witness of (for the most part) celibate and chaste priests and nuns might be an influence? All of which does provide some evidence that these things are indeed, at least for some, a conscious choice.