Evaluating God

"While many polls have asked what Americans’ beliefs are about God, there has been little measurement of voters’ evaluation of its performance."


Publicpolicypolling.com, July 22, 2011

Old poll, but I just found it in a recent grumpy TownHall.com commentary which neglected to include a source nor a date. Anyway, fairly interesting to see all the "not sure" answers. No doubt many of them were also unsure whether or not to dare say they were unsure.  Here are the results (PDF)

"Q7 If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its performance?
Approve ............. 52%
Disapprove......... 9%
Not sure ............. 40%
Q8 If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of natural disasters?
Approve ............. 50%
Disapprove......... 13%
Not sure ............. 37%
Q9 If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of animals?
Approve ............. 56%
Disapprove......... 11%
Not sure ............. 33%
Q10 If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of creating the universe?
Approve ............. 71%
Disapprove......... 5%
Not sure ............. 24%"

Religious people are less likely to take their medicine

"Sarah Finocchario-Kessler, at the University of Kansas, used data from one such drug trial to see what the effect of religious beliefs (and other psychological factors) was on medication taking.

She found that people who put themselves in God's hands really were less likely to take their medicine.

To be precise, people who used a passive religious deferral coping style (e.g. "I don’t try much of anything; simply expect God to take control") were less likely to take their medicine as often as they were supposed to.  On the other hand,  collaborative religious coping "I work together with God as partners" or self-directing religious coping (e.g., "I make decisions about what to do without God’s help" had no effect on whether people took their medicines.

The biggest effect was with those people who scored high on the "God as locus of health control" measure - that means people who agreed with statements like "Whether or not my HIV disease improves is up to God." "

Epiphenom.fieldofscience.com, Tom Rees,  March 02, 2011

Intuitive people are more likely to believe in God, study shows

"In a series of studies, researchers at Harvard University found that people with a more intuitive thinking style tend to have stronger beliefs in God than those with a more reflective style. Intuitive thinking means going with one's first instinct and reaching decisions quickly based on automatic cognitive processes. Reflective thinking involves the questioning of first instinct and consideration of other possibilities, thus allowing for counterintuitive decisions.

[...]

Participants who gave intuitive answers to all three problems were 1 ½ times as likely to report they were convinced of God's existence as those who answered all of the questions correctly. That pattern was found regardless of other demographic factors, such as the participants' political beliefs, education or income. "How people think - or fail to think - about the prices of bats and balls is reflected in their thinking, and ultimately their convictions, about the metaphysical order of the universe," the journal article stated.

Participants with an intuitive thinking style also were more likely to have become more confident believers in God over their lifetimes, regardless of whether they had a religious upbringing. Individuals with a reflective style tended to become less confident in their belief in God. The study also found that this pronounced link between differing thinking styles and levels of faith could not be explained by differences in the participants' thinking ability or IQ. "Basic ways of thinking about problem solving in your everyday life are predictive of how much you believe in God," Rand said."

Medicalnewstoday.com, 23 Sep 2011

 I'm tempted to say: "So, they really are more stupid, then?".But that's just my intution which could be wrong.

If you believe in a loving god you're more likely to cheat

"Belief in God doesn't deter a person from cheating on a test, unless that God is seen as a mean, punishing one, researchers say.
On the flip side, psychology researchers Azim F. Shariff at the University of Oregon and Ara Norenzayan at the University of British Columbia found that undergraduate college students who believe in a caring, forgiving God are more likely to cheat.

[...]

No differences in cheating were found between self-described believers in God and non-believers."

ScienceDaily Apr. 20, 2011

Fairly interesting. As the saying goes: "We're not perfect, we're forgiven". It must be noted, however, that people who believe in a vengeful god may cause a lot of other problems.

Americans Reject Morality of Nanotechnology on Religious Grounds

Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences, and a colleague found in their study that only 29.5 percent of respondents from a sample of 1,015 adult Americans agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.

[...]

In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent accepted nanotechnology on moral grounds. That percentage climbed higher in France where 72.1 percent of survey respondents expressed no moral qualms about the technology.

[...]

According to Scheufele, Americans with strong religious convictions lump together nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research as means to enhance human qualities. Researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, he said.

Christian Post, Feb. 18 2008

Saudi Arabia's Biblical Justice

"Lately in the news, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has pardoned a rape victim who had been sentenced to prison and 200 lashes. [...] The international community was right to raise an outcry, and it's good to hear that this woman was spared, [...] However, I do wonder if the Christians who joined in the protest fully realize the implications of their position.

[...]

According to Christian theology, God deliberately laid down a set of laws - the Mosaic laws of the Old Testament - that were impossible for humans to obey perfectly, no matter how dedicated they were or how hard they tried. Since God is absolutely holy, he decreed that the punishment for failing to follow these impossible laws was death. This would have put humans in a hopeless situation, except that in New Testament times God sent Jesus to shed his divine blood, and thereby grant humans an undeserved, unmerited forgiveness and excuse them for their inability to follow the law.

The parallels are striking. The Saudi authorities, too, laid down an impossible, unrealistic set of laws - the sharia laws, which condemn women to lives of slavery and enforced ignorance. They decreed death as the punishment for breaking these cruel laws. And then, when a woman broke those laws, they chose to grant her a pardon from the punishment which they themselves created, and they consider this a great instance of mercy.

In both cases, we can rightfully stand dumbfounded, and point out that there's nothing merciful about "saving" someone from a cruel and irrational law that you yourself created!"

Daylight Atheism, Jan 5, 2008

That's a very fine point.

Real Atheism Requires Omniscience?

"Myth: The only logical basis for atheism is to know everything — in other words, to be God!

[...]

However, such knowledge is not necessary in order to make other negative statements. Examples of this latter type include "no married bachelors exist" or "no round squares exist." We can prove each of them with logic, primarily based upon the definitions of the terms involved. To assert the opposite of either statement entails asserting something which is incoherent — and we are rationally justified in denying something incoherent. If an atheist believes that the statement "God exists" is similarly incoherent, then that atheist can say "no god exists" with certainty and without being ominscient."

atheism.about.com, 20. September 2007

Some more reasons given. It's a must-read if you're unfamiliar with the issue.

Religion affects behaviour

"After the Baylor Religion Survey, American Piety in the 21st Century, was released last September, two sociology professors were intrigued by the findings and decided to write a new book, Who is Your God?

[...]

Some people interviewed had very strong religious beliefs, but when they were asked to speak about it, they weren't very eloquent Froese said. Those who didn't care much about religion could eloquently express their opinion. [...] Another interesting discovery was that beliefs matter and have a clear, distinct role in other aspects of people's lives. For example, those who have a concrete vision of God also have a very concrete understanding of right and wrong, making them more prone to respect authorities. They are more likely to support the death penalty and the war in Iraq.
People who have an abstract concept of God tend to decide for themselves the difference between good and evil.
"These seemingly abstract theological beliefs have a real world manifest in the sense that they affect behavior," Froese said. "Based on their beliefs is how they act."
The more highly educated a person is, Dougherty said, the more likely that person will see God as distant. He added that people who seek higher education don't see God as engaged in their lives. They want to take action themselves and not depend on God to solve problems. [...] "Baylor University is an example of educated people with Ph. Ds. who also view God as an engaged God," Dougherty said."

The Baylor Lariat, Sept. 25, 2007

That religion affects behaviour is quite obvious, but further, this means that religion is politics, and that there's no such thing as religion being merely a private matter. Well, not anymore than being Republican or Communist. It is a view that you hold that affects your surroundings, and your surroundings may have legitimate reservations to the effects of your views.

Nebraska Senator Sues God to Stop Terror Threats

"Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers filed suit against God Friday, asking a court to order the Almighty and his followers to stop making terrorist threats.
The suit (.pdf), filed in a Nebraska district court, contends that God, along with his followers of all persuasions, "has made and continues to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons." Those threats are credible given God's history, Chambers' complaint says.
Chambers, in a fit of alliteration, also accuses God of causing "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects, and the like."

Likewise the suit accuses God of having his chroniclers "disseminate in written form, said admissions, throughout the Earth in order to inspire fear, dread, anxiety, terror and uncertainty, in order to coerce obedience to Defendant's will." [...]

The senator also wants the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibityin God from plagues and terrorist threats. [...]
Chambers does admit that God is omnipresent and omniscient, however. Since God is everywhere, the Nebraska court has jurisdiction, Chambers argues, and since God is all-knowing, Chambers need to serve him with a notice of the lawsuit."

Wired.com September 17, 2007

Haha, that's fucking excellent!

This is also a brilliant opportunity to plug the film: The Man Who Sued God. I saw it earlier, and it had some very nice court scenes.

We have every right to oppose God's law

I don't usually post excerpts from discussion forums, but I thought this post was quite illuminating. (It's picked up from CARM / christiandiscussionforums.org where you unfortunately have to register to read.)

"Essentially, it's just a simple argument from democracy. Since God acts as ultimate authority, and defines the law for us, he is, by definition, a dictator. If we believe in the principles of democracy, chiefly that the law is only legitimate if it has the consent of the governed, God's law is illegitimate. None of us voted for it, so it is unjust, illegitimate, and we have every right to oppose it. Furthermore, we are not at all deserving of punishment, as we have not given consent to the laws we've allegedly broken. God simply acts as a dictator, and as moral beings who believe in the principles of democracy, we are completely justified in opposing him."

BenTheBiased, christiandiscussionforums.org, 17. August. 2007

Why have sex? Motivations range from greed to God

"New research published in the August issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior has come up with a list of 237 reasons that motivate people to have sex.

[...]

She said she was also surprised that some people said they had sex "to get closer to God." "Most of the literature shows that religious people have more sexual problems," she said. "But several people endorsed the idea that religion and sexuality were actually closely linked."

Baltimore Sun, August 1, 2007

God's forgiveness = self-forgiveness

"This isn't going to be another of those posts full of "religion kills" bromides. In this case, the possible reason for Benoit's rampage may be linked to his use of too much of what the bodybuilding world calls Vitamin S. But the role the Bible plays here is interesting. [...] Benoit was using religion as many people do in life: a forgiveness quick-fix, the moral equivalent of using Fix-a-Flat to pump up a punctured tire.

While Christians go on about how no one without religion can possibly have a moral compass to follow, what they never talk about is the way in which people who do embrace religion, however fervently or casually, typically behave no better than unbelievers, and oftimes worse. And when they do behave worse, they use religion as a convenient thing to fall back upon, either to justify their actions, or to showboat a fake display of remorse."

atheistexperience.blogspot.com June 26, 2007

Or as they say: "We're not perfect - we're forgiven". It's a point that should be stressed more often. In real life it doesn't sound too convincing if you say "I'm a crappy driver, but I have a good insurance". You wouldn't want a person like that to drive any car, would you?

Atheism makes you accountable to your fellow human beings, not a made-up figure in your head that will forgive you if your delusion is getting worse.

How many species did Adam name?

""And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

[...]

So Adam must have identified and named millions of species on that fine afternoon in the garden of Eden. 350,000 species of beetles, 120,000 flies, 100,000 parasitic wasps, 20,000 nematodes. And he was just getting started."

Dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com 4/15/2007

It makes you wonder if the Bible really is true, doesn't it?

[Stats] What do you think God is like?

"Baylor survey finds Americans hold very different views of God"

Charlotte ObserverMay. 27, 2007

A big survey from Baylor University that looks quite interesting, but I haven't had the time to go through it yet. Anyway, I post it here and I'll see if I can dig out some interesting facts later.

The full survey (PDF)

[Stats] How many has God killed? (Complete list and estimated total)

"In a previous post, I've listed and counted God's killings in the Bible. But I only included those that said exactly how many were killed by God. I came up with 2,270,365.

But that didn't include some of God's most impressive slaughters. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? The Bible doesn't say, so there's no way to know for sure. But it's possible to provide rough estimates in order to get a grand total, and that's what I'm attempting here. (New total: 32.9 million.) "

dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com, 13 January 2007

[Science] Scriptural Violence Can Foster Aggression, Especially in Believers

"Psychologists studying religion have tended, until recently, to focus on its role in psychological healing. But no longer: now they are beginning to investigate some of its less benign aspects.
A study published in this month's Psychological Science looks at the relation between aggression and recent exposure to accounts of Biblical violence.
[...]
Higher levels of aggression were measured in two groups of students: in those who were told that the passage was from the Bible and in those who had read that the violence was sanctioned by God."

Humaniststudies.org, Mar. 14, 2007

Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

"The conventional explanation of the Crucifixion is illogical, insane and makes God sound like a psychopath, according to one of the country’s most controversial clergymen.

The Very Rev Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, attacked the doctrine of penal substitution — the idea that God sent Jesus to earth to suffer for our sins — during a Lent talk on BBC Radio 4 last night."

The Times, April 5, 2007