GIGABYTE X79 Featuring All New 3-Way Digital Power
Advertise with us

The Psychological Paradox Of Religion

Posted by MegaTechNews

Categories

Medicine, Out There

The Psychological Paradox Of Religion bible with sword

In the search for the origins of violence in certain individuals, television, music, or video games have often been targeted as prime suspects. A study published in last March issue of Psychological Science investigated another possible cause for irrational violence: the fact that the perpetrators are convinced that God is on their side.

Experiments performed at two radically different universities – the religious Brigham Young University in Utah, USA, where virtually all students are believers, and the secular Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, Holland, where only half of them believe in a god – demonstrated that the level of aggression and the intensity of the violent response correlated with the belief that God condoned the subject’s actions. The most “worrying,” according to the main author of the study, is that hostility was also heightened in the non-believers, although to a lesser extent, if they thought that their actions were backed by a divine entity.

This research highlights the possible cause of religious extremism and the violent actions that result from selective reading of the scriptures, focusing essentially on retribution instead of absorbing the overall message of tolerance that religions are supposed to convey.

ABSTRACT—Violent people often claim that God sanctions their actions. In two studies, participants read a violent passage said to come from either the Bible or an ancient scroll. For half the participants, the passage said that God sanctioned the violence. Next, participants competed with an ostensible partner on a task in which the winner could blast the loser with loud noise through headphones (the aggression measure). Study 1 involved Brigham Young University students; 99% believed in God and in the Bible. Study 2 involved Vrije Universiteit–Amsterdam students; 50% believed in God, and 27% believed in the Bible. In Study 1, aggression increased when the passage was from the Bible or mentioned God. In Study 2, aggression increased when the passage mentioned God, especially among participants who believed in God and in the Bible. These results suggest that scriptural violence sanctioned by God can increase aggression, especially in believers.

Source: Psychological Science

Image Gallery

About

The general news account manned by a few of the MEGA Techies. Make sure you find us on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter as well!

Related Articles & Videos

  • http://www.megatechnews.com LunchBox

    Good old Pasteur. I like his naiveté.

    Thanks for a good debate too!

  • http://www.tagjungle.com Ryan

    Oh, and since you brought up Pasteur, I’ll end (for real this time) with his words:

    “A little science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him.”

  • http://www.tagjungle.com Ryan

    I’ll definitely give you credit for being generally reasonable. In fact, I only have two problems with your last comment:

    1- You make the claim that is common to agnostics: no one has the “elements to judge” whether or not God exists. That’s simply not true. The same method that is used in science can be used in the search for God. The problem with agnostic scientists (or anyone for that matter) is that they approach that test expecting not to find any proof, so it’s much easier not to find it. Unfortunately, the pursuit of truth doesn’t work that way. If a test of truth is to be performed purely, it must be performed in the same context and environment in which it was proven (or claimed) to be truth. In this case, for example, I’m telling you that I absolutely know that God exists, and I’m telling you that the exact same means by which I have come to know it can be used by anyone to come to the same knowledge. I’m not claiming to be some special person, it’s open to everyone. The challenge that people (particularly agnostic scientists) have, however, is that they have to put aside prejudice, agnosticism, bias, and doubt–let’s say they have to suspend disbelief–long enough to perform the test purely, with full intention of completely changing their lives if they should happen to find, to their surprise, that God actually does exist and all the attendant ramifications of that new found knowledge. In the end, belief is useless. It eventually has to be fortified by proof, otherwise we’re just making stuff up to suit our own self-serving whims. The same is true for disbelief. When it comes to that test of truth, there’s nothing I or anyone on Earth can do to verify your (or anyone else’s) sincerity. That’s simply a matter of integrity and is purely between you and God.

    2- You missed my point, I think, about religion and God being mutually exclusive. I actually see science and religion all as part of one great whole of truth, both coming from the same source, and eternally interconnected, quite the opposite of mutually exclusive. To me, it sounds more like you see them as mutually exclusive, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you say you don’t.

    Final comment, since I’ve already taken up a lot of space on your comment board.

    The intent of the study is transparent to me. Bushman is, in my estimation, obviously anti-war and has used this study to justify his anti-war stance relative to Iraq. In my opinion, that is as obvious as anything I’ve ever read. Therefore, to me, this “scientific” study is tainted from the beginning. Further, the method of the testing is a joke. Loud noises? As I originally stated, it’s an awful big leap to the conclusion that blasting someone with loud noise equates to violence. God’s sanction or not, I don’t think I’d have that much of a problem blasting someone with loud noise if I knew it wasn’t going to do them any permanent harm, especially if it was being done as part of a scientific study that I knew I was participating in. Translating that into stabbing, shooting, or war (nice little anti-Bush jab from ABC on that one) is a totally different story.

    So, we’re not likely to agree on this. I’m right and you’re wrong, so I guess I’ll just have to beat some sense into you. If it means that you’ll finally believe in God, I think it’s justified.

    Just kidding, of course. Thanks for the debate, though. It’s always interesting and stimulating to “mix it up,” as it were, with those of different points of view.

  • http://www.megatechnews.com LunchBox

    Reading you, it is clear to me that you don’t know much about the scientific mind. If you did, you’d envisage things quite differently. But I don’t want to make any personal comments. Non-scientists do not have a lesser mind for thinking differently. Scientists only prefer to be criticised by their peers who usually know what they’re talking about.

    Why should I be different from a religious person anyway? Science isn’t a matter of faith, but observation, then conclusions drawn from these observations. I don’t have any faith in science, but I trust scientists to present their results and how they reach their conclusions. Then it’s up to me to critically analyse the information. I have done it many times and some experiments I reproduced actually contradicted the results previously published (it was rare, but it did happen).

    This is the beauty of science: to be able to admit that you may be wrong. You obviously believe in God, but do you think that you may be wrong? I don’t believe in any divinity, but I’m prepared to admit that I don’t know and that I may be wrong. I simply haven’t got enough elements to judge — and nobody has.

    You seem to believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I don’t. Many of my colleagues are religious, although it doesn’t affect in any way the quality of their work. Science isn’t trying to supplant or disprove religion, but simply gathers information and tries to make sense of it. Instead, religion has a magical character called “God” that explains it all. If it’s alright for some, this isn’t satisfactory enough for me.

    As for your last point about the scientist finding what what he’d expected, it’s simply because this is how things work in science: you test a hypothesis and expect certain results. This is no bias at all, as sometimes the results contradict totally what you expected. In this case, they didn’t. If Dr. Bushman had not expected religion to influence in any way the reaction of people, he would not have performed the experiment. For example, Pasteur expected that micro-organisms were responsible for certain diseases. He tested his hypothesis and he found what he had expected. This wasn’t biased.

    Anyway, discussions about science and religion are all too often pretty sterile and both sides end up going around in circle. I hope that I passed on a bit of my rational views, although hardcore anti-scientists are impossible to bring to reason. In another time, I’d have ended up at stake for heresy. Let’s hope we won’t go back to those dark ages…

  • http://www.tagjungle.com Ryan

    Yes, I have little or no knowledge of the scientific method. I guess you deduced that from our long history of acquaintance.

    You didn’t address my question: how are you any different from a religious person? You didn’t do the study yourself, yet you believe it as absolute fact. Isn’t that what faith is all about?

    Finally, the fact that people like yourself seem to see science and religion as mutually exclusive is proof enough that science is very much trying to supplant religion. Or, more accurately, some people/groups are staking claim on truth in the name of science at the expense of religion. You’re blind if you think there aren’t pervasive elements in the world that are trying to disprove religion at large with science.

    So the scientist says he believes in God. He also now suddenly has some national recognition. Maybe he’s saying that he believes in God in order to support the premise of the study as he declares war on religion.

    I think this statement says it all:

    Social psychologist Brad Bushman…said he is very “disturbed” by the results, though he found what he had expected.

  • http://www.megatechnews.com LunchBox

    It’s always amazing to see people with little or no knowledge of the scientific method and mind claim that a study is “a crock” simply because they disagree with the results.

    Likewise, pretending that science is trying to supplant religion looks like total paranoia to me. Science is no more a religion than, say, gardening, and no one is worshipping at its altar — as there isn’t any to start with!

    If you care to read further about this study, there is an interesting commentary where the main author is being interviewed and discusses the results of his research. He also mentions that he believes himself in God, which makes me doubt that his conclusions are biased.

  • http://www.tagjungle.com Ryan

    Nice try. You’re obviously a worshiper at the altar of science, so how are you any different than a religious person? Because it came from “scientists” it’s automatically true? Doesn’t that require an awful lot of faith on the part of the lay person (such as yourself)?

    The test of truth is the same for religion as it is for science. Anyone who so desires can conduct the same tests and confirm or debunk the results of others. Sadly, most average people don’t do any testing of their own on either front, so on either side, they’re really left with blind faith in different gods.

    What I object to about this “study” is there is no scientific way to accurately gauge the correlation between belief in God and violence. Read the actual study. You’ll find no such evidence. They are just hoping that the mere suggestion of such evidence will further fortify the position of science as the religion of the 21st century.

  • http://www.megatechnews.com LunchBox

    Sorry to say, Tyan, but they are scientists. They test and observe the results, then draw conclusions. Quite the opposite of too many religious people who try to fit their dubious “observations” to their their preconceived conclusions.

    You don’t have to like it, but it’s still the way it is.

  • http://www.tagjungle.com Ryan

    That study is a crock. They have no actual correlating evidence, just dramatic leaps to unsubstantiated conclusions. It’s obvious that the study was conducted with the express purpose of coming to the conclusion they came to. It would have been interesting if they hadn’t had such an obvious agenda in doing the study from the beginning.