Belief in Hell Predicts Crime Rates More Accurately Than Other Factors

[Silent3]

http://medicaldaily.com/news/20120619/10362/religion-hell-belief-society-crime.htm

"The key finding is that, controlling for each other, a nation's rate of belief in hell predicts lower crime rates, but the nation's rate of belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates, and these are strong effects," lead author Azim Shariff, professor of psychology and director of the Culture and Morality Lab at the University of Oregon said in a university news release.

"I think it's an important clue about the differential effects of supernatural punishment and supernatural benevolence. The finding is consistent with controlled research we've done in the lab, but here shows a powerful 'real world' effect on something that really affects people – crime," he said.

Religious belief generally has been perceived as "a monolithic construct," Shariff said. "Once you split religion into different constructs, you begin to see different relationships. In this study, we found two differences that go in opposite directions. If you look at overall religious belief, these separate directions are washed out and you don't see anything. There's no hint of a relationship."

Previous research published 2011 in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion found that undergraduate students were more likely to cheat when they believed in a forgiving God compared to those who believed in a punishing God.

Interestingly, in 2003 Harvard researchers found that the gross domestic product (GDP) was higher in developed countries when people believed in hell more than they did in heaven.

If correlation is causation (which is far from certain) it appears that if your goal is keeping the riffraff in check, fire and brimstone might be a bit more effective than Buddy Jesus who guarantees you salvation if you simply profess that he's your personal savior.

I think what's likely key here is the believer worrying about his or her own risk of going to hell. I doubt that thinking you're safe while believing that hell is only a risk for other people would have the same effect.

[RegieRocker]

1. Hogwash

[Silent3]

3. While no single study should simply be taken at face value...

...it's also pretty absurd to simply dismiss something like this out of hand because you don't like what it says or your personally biased not-from-a-controlled-environment experience differs.

[RegieRocker]

12. Not that at all. I trust no studies and the reason is

people. They aren't honest to others much less themselves. A random study will always be skewed in some fashion. You never get those that did not, nor will submit to a study as a statistic. That in of itself leaves all studies skewed. As for my response, try asking why a person feels that way instead of attacking. Hogwash was not about the OP it was about the study. Your diatribe however wasn't and that is all too clear. Have a nice day within yourself.

[laconicsax]

14. That's the epitome of closed-mindedness.

[RegieRocker]

15. Your perspective is a reflection of you.

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)

That is closed mindedness. Instead of trying to come up with a rebuttal to " people who refuse to be part of the survey" you and the other person come up with I am close minded. ROFLMAO. Magnanimous failing. I won't go into your failings on people skills.

[laconicsax]

16. No, saying that you won't consider something, no matter the source, is close-minded.

Sorry if it bothers you to have that pointed out.

[RegieRocker]

25. I am not sorry to point out

that it is you who is closed minded and unable to understand the fallacies of surveys.

[laconicsax]

26. Yes, by not refusing to consider something before I read it, I'm close-minded.

[RegieRocker]

27. It's over your head. I understand and forgive your inability.

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

[cbayer]

17. I have some of the same reservations about this sociological studies.

The impact of investigator bias is nowhere as strong as it can be in these types the studies.

There terms are often poorly defined, the variables poorly controlled and the results often extremely unreliable.

That's why you see contradictory studies frequently.

[KurtNYC]

2. This study and analysis are very confused. The "crime rate"

is not the actual frequency of crimes but rather a data point which is measuring how many crimes are recorded by police and administrators.

Is it possible that societies which don't rely on an Old Testament God to do the punishing, do it themselves?

Many other problems with this "study." A big one -- 90% of Britain is non-religious, for example, so this study would claim that the behavior and beliefs of the religious 10% governs the behavior of the other 90%, or at least that it predicts the behavior of the overwhelming majority and that isn't at all likely or scientific.

[Silent3]

4. It's only a correlation stronger than other correlations...

...such as poverty and income disparity, which are similarly imperfect and (according to this study) even weaker correlations. There can still be some level of correlation while some countries like Britain don't follow along.

There could also be a third factor that increases crime regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, but that also tends to increase belief in hell among believers at the same time.

[KurtNYC]

5. Correlation is a dangerous thing bc people try ot use it to prove causation

or they just speculate about a mechanism like author Azim Shariff does.

The whole things is way too squishy for me. Science is the new religion and intersection of science and religion are like oil and water in that they don't really mix. The definition of "hell" varies greatly among religions -- in strict Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament there is no Hell. There are references to Gehenna which some would conveniently translate as Hell but it refers to an actual geographical location on Earth where believers in Moloch would sacrifice children in a fire -- literally 'a burning place.' Jews don't believe in the Roman Catholic Hell. Another example would be some Quakers who believe that God will save every person. They may believe in Hell but they don't believe that any soul from Earth is going there so what would the study do with that?

And a third example would be Scientologists who believe God knows what all. I just think a cross cultural definition of Hell is impossible or perhaps to broad to be scientific.

Science drives innovation and discovery, Religion sells books so this study seems more like religion than science to me.

[Silent3]

6. Correlations are either there or they aren't there

They aren't inherently dangerous.

I don't think scientists and reporters should stop reporting measured correlations simply because so many people stupidly misinterpret reports of correlations.

More effort to inform and explain, and a de-emphasis on sensationalism would be appreciated, of course, but even if that doesn't happen, I certainly don't favor encouraging censorship or censure, self-imposed or otherwise, of scientific data.

[daaron]

8. Quite right.

Scientists take it for granted that their target audience are educated readers who understand the difference between correlation and causation. Even social scientists. How squishy are the social sciences? Depends on the study, but their methods have become more refined and theory has taken a back seat - rightly so - to observation. This is an observation. Anyone who wants to pick apart the methods used is welcome to download the paper (a mere $30 or so, depending on the journal) and peck away - the experimental model will be included in the report for all to see and criticize.

Nothing new there from social science - just another snapshot inside our humanity and cultures, frozen in time and place. I think I'll take it for what it is: an observation.

[KurtNYC]

11. But she goes to conclusions about cause and effect in the first sentence of this article

the headline is just citing the correlation -- great, but the first line of the article go all the way to the end zone with a conclusion that this data can't possibly support, regardless of methodology:

"...the effect of religion on pro-social behaviors may actually be driven by the belief in hell and supernatural punishment rather than faith in heaven and spiritual benevolence."

So the author of this article sees this study as proof of cause and effect, specifically that belief in Hell reduces crime.

And to his credit Shariff in this article cautions that the numbers "do not prove causation."

I love correlations but I think this article proves how tempting it can be to jump ahead and reach an unsupported conclusion.

[daaron]

13. "Driven by" versus "caused by" implies "belief in hell" -->

should be understood as a factor, not a cause (in which there is only one dominating factor). Correlation may be understood as a system of causal factors, some of which may assumed to be unknown. Causality is never thrown out the window in science, but in any complex nonlinear system, even when we know all the factors there's going to be inherent indeterminacy about which factors made the system do what at any given point in the flow of time. With social models, they usually throw some noise into the mix to simulate indeterminacy in the factors, as well. Many learning systems are built using this approach (cool math involved - Bayesian stats mixed with polynomial theory using a variety of arcane metrics - neat!).

By holding each factor but one constant, and measuring as the test factor varies, one can build a portrait of the properties of curves in this many-dimensional vector space. It's proper when measuring for one factor, to compare the system to portraits when another factor is allowed to vary, and the rest are held constant. One can then get an measurement of how important each factor is to the total dynamic observed.

[Jim__]

7. I don't see how you arrive at your claim that the "beliefs of the religious 10% governs the ...

... behavior of the other 90%."

Unless you interpret the first paragraph from the OP differently than I do:

"The key finding is that, controlling for each other, a nation's rate of belief in hell predicts lower crime rates, but the nation's rate of belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates, and these are strong effects," lead author Azim Shariff, professor of psychology and director of the Culture and Morality Lab at the University of Oregon said in a university news release.

It seems that if 90% of the population is not religious, then that 90% factor into the nation's rate of belief in hell.

[Silent3]

9. I can see what the poster was getting at, however...

...even if I'm not worried that it throws the observations of this study into question.

If there is a large portion of people with no religious beliefs, and therefore no belief in either heaven or hell, then the relative levels of belief in heaven and hell would therefore be determined solely by the believing portion of the population. I think the correlation observed by the study is that if belief in hell is greater than belief in heaven, regardless of how high either level of belief is, then you have a tendency toward less crime, and more crime if those relative levels are reversed.

If it's only the relative difference that matters that might seem to suggest that the non-believing majority are neutral in their effect (if you assume causation, not just correlation), with the effects of how believers believe being magnified beyond there numbers -- and yes, that would be weird, and not make much sense.

My guess is that either the correlation starts to break down in those cases, or, as I suggested before, there are one or more additional unidentified factors which simultaneously influence both crime levels and belief patterns among believers.

Further, differences in measured crime levels could partly be differences in matters of how well crime is reported and how much behavior is classified as criminal in different countries, and the relation of those factors to belief patterns could be complex and indirect.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Then you have a major problem with causation.

You would have a lot of explaining regarding exactly how a belief is causing a behavior in individuals without that belief.

[Silent3]

20. Huh? Where am I inviting the need to have to explain that?

Please re-read my post. I think you totally misread me.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Ah indeed you agree.

If it's only the relative difference that matters that might seem to suggest that the non-believing majority are neutral in their effect (if you assume causation, not just correlation), with the effects of how believers believe being magnified beyond there numbers -- and yes, that would be weird, and not make much sense.

Thati wouldindeedbe weird.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. How exactly do non believers factor in at all?

They believe in neither heaven nor hell but you just arbitrarily push them into the believe in hell camp. Why?

[Jim__]

21. If they don't believe in hell, they lower the nation's rate of belief in hell.

I didn't arbitrarily push them anywhere, I said they factor into the rate.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. They do the same to belief in heaven.

So yes you did.

[Jim__]

24. Yes, it lowers them both - a lower rate of belief in hell will show a lesser overall effect.

If the nation's rate of belief in hell correlates with a lower crime rate, a lower rate in the nation's belief in hell, should show a lower overall effect on the nation's crime rate.

[dimbear]

10. So, God has been reading Machiavelli? That it? n/t