whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
So, let me get this straight... half way between atheist and believer is a believer?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?
- Thread starter charlie sc
- Start date
So, let me get this straight... half way between atheist and believer is a believer?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I suspect that ultimately religion is one of the least useful methods of predicting criminality.
The general consensus(Johnson, 2010) in science is that religiosity negatively associates with crime. In other words, the more religious the person is, the less likely they'll commit a crime or take licit drugs. These studies have been replicated in numerous countries(Brauer, 2013) with the same results. One of the shortfalls for these studies was that most of the participants were Christians. So, it is only generalisable for Christians. Another limitation is that the mechanism of this association is unknown. Some psychologists think it may be related to social control theory and that religion teaches self-control.
If it was self-control or another facet of religiosity, then the assumption is that non-believers would be more prone to committing crime and there is some stigma towards non-believers, in some countries, that atheists are dangerous. Unfortunately, most of the studies done on religiosity do not properly measure non-belief or ignore it altogether. One study(Jang, 2013) measured non-belief and found non-belief also negatively associated with criminal behaviour, and the spiritual-but-not-religious was positively associated with criminal behaviour. However, a recently study(Schroeder et. al., 2017), and the one I would like to talk about, noted this disparity in these measures and consequently measured agnosticism and atheism correctly. They found atheists and agnostics have similar statistics to the highly religious. In fact, the most criminally dangerous group were the uncertain believers. It was more likely an uncertain believer would take illicit material and commit crimes(see image).
Therefore, if there is any stigma towards the morality of atheists/agnostics, science tells a different story.
I tried to find the open-source papers, but it's not always possible. The main discussion here is on Schroeder et al., but any may suffice.
Why do you think uncertain believers have a tendency to commit more crime?
You quote one single study (which I could not find), and then asking opinion on a conclusion as if that was some general truth. Is Figure 2 merely schematic or data based? How can you get a continuous beautiful curve on such a subject, when the parameters on the X and Y axes cannot be quantified easily?
lukethethird
unknown member
Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?
Statistics show that atheists are under represented in jail suggesting that atheists are far better at not getting caught.
Statistics show that atheists are under represented in jail suggesting that atheists are far better at not getting caught.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Four. I gave four in the OP with links. I highlighted the links in bold, for you. I also showed where the image came from.
Last edited:
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
How would you define someone who identifies with this statement, “While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God”?
Last edited:
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Apparently, religiosity is.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Then why are atheist so heavily under represented in jail? Why are those living in poverty stuffing one jail after another? Religious communities are communities, and close communities that promote pro-social behaviors tend to produce members who themselves are prosocial. You don't need religion to make it happen.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I didn’t explain myself well in the OP. I’ll try explain more succinctly.
Ok, so, correlation does not mean causation. I just want to get that out of the way.
There have been numerous studies in the sciences over the last 40 years looking at religiosity and the effects it has. Frankly, I have no idea why scientists want to study this topic unless they themselves are religious in the first place. So, they want to show how good religion is. There has been some success and they found a negative correlation with religion and crime. That means, the more religious someone is, the less likely they’ll commit a crime.
Unfortunately, many of these studies, or nearly all, failed to account for other forms of belief, such as atheist and agnosticism. So they prima facie suggested sometimes explicitly suggested was that atheists and agnostics are criminally dangerous. They’d assume low religiosity(I.e. not being religious) meant non-belief.
This couldn’t be further from the evidence. The evidence where studies actually look at non-belief find that non-believers are as likely to commit crimes similar to the people who are high on the scale on religiosity. It was only the people low on the religiosity scale and theists that were more likely to commit crimes.
Which ones open to full papers? And which contains the beautiful bell curve?
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Press on them and you'll find out. Two of them are open-source. The other two, not so much.
It's a non-linear association. I don't think it's a bell-curve as that describes something else. You may question me on this if you want. Anyway, the image is from (Schroeder et. al., 2017).
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Just for info, for the general consensus(Johnson, 2010) link, press on the "Download full-text PDF," button in the top right to get it in the site.
The papers that are open are not the subject of the Op.
My initial point that ‘uncertain believer’ is most ‘bad’ is from one paper, which I cannot read (unless I pay). The smooth bell type of curve (marked Fig. 2) is simply not convincing.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
They are. The systematic review shows there is a correlation between religiosity and crime. The other open-source study(Jang, 2013) shows the difference when one measures non-belief and supports the hypothesis that crime correlated with religiosity.
Sucks. Then you can talk about, "One study(Jang, 2013)," if you want. Whatever floats your boat.
Ok.
It is possible but the statistics do not mention it. The one who do mention it are usually those christians trying to make something good out of there being more prisoners than the general population who claim religion and many times less atheists than the general population.
I read an interesting piece a few months ago that considers one reason for this is that atheists tend to be more left wing and caring towards other individuals.
The first two studies show that religiosity correlates negatively with crime. The third study floats a hypothesis that ‘spiritual but not religious’ would be the most criminal.
Only the fourth reference of Schroeder et. al., 2017 is the subject of your question as to why certain religious people would be most dangerous.
In this regard, I note:
The paper of Schroeder et. al., 2017 is not available for examination and the Fig 2 from the paper that you reproduced seems most unconvincing.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Lol, it doesn't, "float a hypothesis." It found evidence.
What? First, no, there's a plethora of studies, as shown in the first reference, that religiosity(among the religious lol) correlates with crime. Second, These are correlation studies so they don't know the cause. I underlined the, "why," because your statement doesn't make much sense otherwise. All these studies give theories why these correlations exist.
Ok, well, what am I supposed to do about that?
Ok fine. I'm glad you can find figures unconvincing without reading the paper. Good job.
Last edited:
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ, the amount of times I need to correct people in this thread is astonishing.
Yes. Negative correlation.
Okay. I agree to a limited sense.
Conclusion wrt to ‘spiritual but not religious’ is tentative.
Plethora of studies show negative correlation and are not about the question you raise in your OP, regarding ‘undecided believers’.
Curious. You said that you wanted to discuss the fourth paper and it’s conclusion that undecided believers were most dangerous. You even reproduced a picture (fig. 2).
But the paper is not available for examination.
What to discuss?
Oh no. That is why I ask for the full text.
Have you ever seen a similar continuous smooth curve from category ‘believer’ to ‘uncertain believers’ to ‘non believers’?
How the curve is smooth? Is there continuous data? Or is it a smoothened curve? How was the smoothening done?
Any scientist would raise questions, imo.
Last edited:
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Most studies look at the effects of religiosity, not spiritually. However, this study(Jang, 2013), examined for the first time spirituality as well, but they also, kinda, measured atheism/agnosticism. Not well. mind you, but this was not their hypothesis so it was not important for them. They found
In conclusion, is being “spiritual” enough to reduce criminal propensity
without also being religious? Our study suggests the answer is no—at least
during emerging adulthood. That is, being “spiritual” without being religious
was found to be positively, rather than negatively, associated with the
probability of engaging in violent and, to a greater extent, property crimes.
In contrast, consistent with prior research on religion and crime (Johnson
and Jang, 2010), being religious was inversely related to criminal offending
whether or not in conjunction with being “spiritual.”
The neither-spiritual-nor-religious group were not positively associated with crime. The latest study I mentioned actually looked at atheism and agnosticism.
Ok, well I can't really talk about it if you can't get access to the paper. I tried searching but I couldn't find a free version uploaded somewhere. However, it's not a stretch to go from low religiosity to undecided believer. As I recall, from most of the religiosity studies, one of the questions asks, "how much do you integrate god and religion into your life," and "how much do you experience god's love," etc etc.
In the Jang(2013) study, they found not-religious-but-spiritual positively correlated with crime. Schroeder(2017) and Jang (2013) doesn't go against the literature, it supports it but with more variables.
Eh, I was hoping someone had access.
The, "smooth," curve is not showing the raw data. It's showing the non-linear relationship between religiosity and non-belief. Though, I can understand it's frustrating to not have access to the data. So, I apologise for that.