The notion that religious people are less likely to do bad things is highly problematic, objectively and logically - and it carries the unfortunate assumption that non-religious people are more likely to do bad things.
People should not need to subscribe to a paranormal belief system to understand that theft, rape and murder are bad.
There is overwhelming evidence that religious people, particularly those who attend services are less likely to be involved in criminal activity.
Your assertion that the religious or church attenders are mostly about 'belief in paranormal activity' is really quite missing the ball, to the point that it's almost offensive - though it's a common misunderstanding.
Most classical Churches, Synagogues etc. are basically old-school community centers, where morality, behavior, contentiousness is passed on from generation to generation. Devotion to 'a higher purpose' and 'the community' is basically paramount and instituted into all ideals.
FYI - it's actually not that much about 'belief', funny enough it's mostly about 'behaviour' which is highlighted in the research that hints that 'attendance' is the strongest predictor, less so 'faith'. (Sorry, I tried to find that specific article and could not).
I'm not some kind of 'holy roller' or whatever, I'm just constantly shocked at the odd misunderstanding many super secular types have about religion. The original posters bit about 'God wanted me to keep the wallet' triggered me because that's basically the opposite of what most religious people would instinctively think: to most service attenders, that the 'wallet belongs to someone' is a most obvious observation. Most mainline religious groups are like 'boy scouts' and 'girl guides'. A little conservative, generally very conscientious.
As you deduced, I missed your initial reply because we both posted at the same time.
For what it's worth, I'm also in Canada and my best friend is a Christian. She was not born into it and has always been really great about being willing to admit when she doesn't know the answers to something. This has, in turn, inspired me to be less of a judgemental asshole.
Don't get me wrong: I still have a really hard time with the idea that intelligent people can justify worshipping malevolent invisible sky wizards. And a lot of my bias against religious influence in modern society comes from the organizations themselves, and not their members. Evil priests, etc are over-staying their welcome.
However, I am heartened to know that research suggests religious people are less likely to be criminals. Happy to acknowledge that I learned something. I do wonder if causation/correlation are skewed, here... as in, would those people still be good if they'd grown up in secular families?
Anyhow... great chat. Feel free to update if you think of anything else.
But it's also worth noting that what constitutes a criminal act is largely dependent on the laws that are enacted by a majority (this is also a broad generalization). Taking into account that a majority votes these laws, these laws will also reflect that same majoritie's Religious (or lack thereof) beliefs.
This 'hypothetical' religious majority will probably never vote for laws which 'criminalizes' their beliefs and actions! Thus it's quite easy to see that Religious folks from this majority will never be deemed criminal.
As a thought experiment: imagine that attempting to obstruct or make it more difficult for someone to have an abortion was illegal. How many more religious people would become 'criminals'?
In conclusion, one person's definition of criminal is another's person definition of a 'hero'. Claiming that religious people are less likely to be criminals is based on shaky assumptions in my opinion.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim in the OP?
> The notion that religious people are less likely to do bad things is highly problematic, objectively and logically.
What exactly do you mean by “highly problematic, objectively and logically”?
> People should not need to subscribe to a paranormal belief system to understand that theft, rape and murder are bad.
“Should not” and “do not” are two very different things.
However, I do spend a lot of time in conversation with my best friend - who is a late-convert Christian - about the distressingly common phenomena of people who call themselves Christians because it flatters them, but don't actually participate or behave in the way they are supposed to.
You know, like the POTUS.
I do happen to believe that religious people shouldn't assume that they act better than non-religious people. We all have to draw personal lines somewhere.
Someone who is a 'huge believer' is utterly something different from someone who was born and raised Jewish, or Anglican and was raised that way.
Growing up Jewish/Catholic is mostly a matter of culture, tradition, community, it actually has less to do with faith. That's why I focused on 'attendance'.
They tend to be small-c conservative: normal jobs, kids attend school regularly, don't do drugs, eat reasonably well, vote, take out the garbage, stable family etc. etc..
'Converts' are a whole other issue because ironically people who grow up in a regular faith aren't likely to convert to much at all. Seekers, people who are emotional about stuff, people who have had major tragedies, drug problems, who had major family problems, maybe lived on the street ... those 'new beginning' people are often the most outwardly 'believing' but they represent a totally different cohort of behaviours.
The guy who was abused by his parents, lived on the street and smocked crack and then 'saw the light' and is a 'true believer' - this guy is going to bring most of his broken habits with him. This guy is not Ned Flanders.
The other issues is type of religion: Evangelicalism is kind of like a 'Church of Converts' - they are 'living in faith' type thing. The type who mostly watch 'Church on TV'. This is not the camp of people I mean. Again this is not about how someone outwardly talks about / believes in Jesus or whatever.
Old-school, traditional, mainline Churches are full of boring, very conscientious, small-c conservative people. This is my point. I'm not saying so much it's about faith per say, although that's probably related.
I don’t think it’s so much a carried or implied assumption as his central thesis, and his justification down the thread is a page of more claims and anecdotes. Call me cynical, but I don’t think there is any “there” there.
I provided links to three articles of data to support my primary thesis, moreover, if you do a Google search you will find overwhelming research in support of the fact that 'those who attend regular service are less criminal'.
My 'anecdotes' are there to help contextualize it for you.
So the 'there' is so obviously 'there' ... the question is, why, even when faced with actual data to people keep doubting? That's the interesting bit.
And to be clear I'm not religious nor do I attend services.
So we have a HuffPo article, an article from MarriPedia (a religious site) and an abstract from the Sociology and Religion department of The Association of Sociolgy and Religion. Three famously unbiased, data-driven outlets (/s) which even then, only tangentially support part of your point, and then only through the loosest of correlations.
Quantity is no substitute for quality.