One Jesus for liberals, another for conservatives

"New research shows how believers tailor Christian teachings to fit their own political viewpoint

[...]

A study led by Lee Ross of Stanford University in California has found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives. The researchers asked respondents to imagine what Jesus would have thought about contemporary issues such as taxation, immigration, same-sex marriage and abortion. Perhaps not surprisingly, Christian Republicans imagined a Jesus who tended to be against wealth redistribution, illegal immigrants, abortion and same-sex marriage; whereas the Jesus of Democrat-voting Christians would have had far more liberal opinions. The Bible may claim that God created man in his own image, but the study suggests man creates God in his own image."

Johnjoe McFadden, Guardian.co.uk, 4 March 2012

This just goes to show that socalled religious morals are no more founded in absolute truths than secular morals. Religious people fool themselves into thinking that they act upon what their religion objetively tells them. But in reality, they first compile a set of religious morals they're satisfied with and then goes on to act (more or less) accordingly:

Fatalistic Beliefs And Unethical Behavior

"It is well established that changing people's sense of responsibility can change their behavior. But what would happen if people came to believe that their behavior was the inevitable product of a causal chain beyond their control - a predetermined fate beyond the reach of free will?

[...]

Prior to the math test, Vohs and Schooler used a well-established method to prime the subjects' beliefs regarding free will: some of the students were taught that science disproves the notion of free will and that the illusion of free will was a mere artifact of the brain's biochemistry whereas others got no such indoctrination.
The results were clear: those with weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.

[...]

As reported in the January issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, this study shows that those with a stronger belief in their own free will were less apt to steal money than were those with a weakened belief.
Although the results of this study point to a significant value in believing that free will exists, it clearly raises some significant societal questions about personal beliefs and personal behavior."

Medicalnewstoday.com, 30 Jan 2008

These news will make people change their opinions I am sure, insha'Allah.

What Makes Us Moral

"It's the people around us who do that teaching—often quite well. Once again, however, humans aren't the ones who dreamed up such a mentoring system. At the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands, de Waal was struck by how vigorously apes enforced group norms one evening when the zookeepers were calling their chimpanzees in for dinner. The keepers' rule at Arnhem was that no chimps would eat until the entire community was present, but two adolescents grew willful, staying outside the building. The hours it took to coax them inside caused the mood in the hungry colony to turn surly. That night the keepers put the delinquents to bed in a separate area—a sort of protective custody to shield them from reprisals. But the next day the adolescents were on their own, and the troop made its feelings plain, administering a sound beating. The chastened chimps were the first to come in that evening. Animals have what de Waal calls "oughts"—rules that the group must follow—and the community enforces them."

Time

Another story about evolutionary morality, showing that we're more in need for community than God to behave moral.

New study shows right/wrong distinctions in infants

"Babies as young as 6 to 10 months old showed crucial social judging skills before they could talk, according to a study by researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center published in Thursday's journal Nature.

The infants watched a googly eyed wooden toy trying to climb roller-coaster hills and then another googly eyed toy come by and either help it over the mountain or push it backward. They then were presented with the toys to see which they would play with.

Nearly every baby picked the helpful toy over the bad one.

The babies also chose neutral toys -- ones that didn't help or hinder -- over the naughty ones. And the babies chose the helping toys over the neutral ones...

The choice of nice over naughty follows a school of thought that humans have some innate social abilities, not just those learned from their parents.

"We know that they're very, very social beings from very, very early on," Hamlin said.

A study last year out of Germany showed that babies as young as 18 months old overwhelmingly helped out when they could, such as by picking up toys that researchers dropped."

CNN.com, November 21, 2007

Found via The Atheist Experience that also has some comments about the study.

Don't gimme that old-tyme religion

Religion can be used equally to justify violence [...] and pacifism. Religion can be anything; it's like a synonym for society, culture or human nature. The problem with religion isn't that it's good, necessary or bad[...]. It's that religion can be all of that or anything else. There's nothing clear or pointed you can say about it to which you can't find a counterexample.

[...] Johnny has betrayed and negated his own nature, his self, by treating others, who are essentially like him, with hate and destruction. You look for help or rescue, but your core is no longer there. You've eradicated it. That's a far stronger source of moral suasion than some priest threatening you with hellfire. It's what people sense about themselves, and always have. Any claim that morality requires religion founders on the fact that humans in all eras have managed to act decently toward each other.

Religions have often tried to conscript and endorse the basic impulses of morality. But they don't create it [...] and can't enforce it effectively. When they try, the results are often contradictory: wars and hatred rather than peace and harmony. Go figure.

[...]

For most of what matters in mundane realms such as politics and morality, we're on our own, and we'll do better if we acknowledge that. If this be secular humanism, make the most of it.

Rick Salutin, Rabble.ca, July 6, 2007

[Science] Is doing the right thing hard-wired?

"What gives people the ability to tell right from wrong? Is the moral sense instilled in us by God? Is it inculcated through religious training? Or does moral judgment vary according to the culture in which we were raised?

[...]

Another important building block in the evolution of a moral sense is cooperation, which takes three different forms in the animal world. The first is cooperation based on kinship. An animal that sacrifices to benefit its offspring, for example, helps to protect their shared genes. In the second type, both individuals receive some cost, but both benefit. Cooperative hunting behavior is an example of this type. The third and rarest type is reciprocity, where an individual gives something up with the expectation that it will receive benefit in the future. The Golden Rule, Hauser said, is a formulation in human terms of this adaptation."

Harvard University Gazette, May 3, 2007

If you've read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins then this is familiar, because he refers to Hauser's work there (on page 222 and onwards to be exact).

Update: Another interview with Marc Hauser

Equating atheism with morality

"It seems many theists are certain that because they claim their own morality comes from their faith alone, then those without faith must inevitably be immoral. The facts, however, show faith is not required for humans to lead moral lives, and sometimes hinder it entirely.

If you examine Americans for the "fruit" of their morality, what you see is striking. As an example, Christians make up about 75 percent of the overall U.S. population and, as expected, about 75 percent of the prison population. Atheists make up between 5 - 12 percent of the population, but only 0.2 percent of the prison population.

[...]

If atheism led to a less moral lifestyle, then surely there would be some evidence of it in our country with some 30 million atheists. Or perhaps in the least religious nations in the world, which happen to have the lowest crime rates and happiest citizens."

Hattiesburg American, MS - Apr 3, 2007