A recent poll of bigotry among religious groups managed to expose another level of bigotry in a certain unthinking tool, one David Briggs, who reported on it. It's fine that they're examining the problem of prejudice, but the last sentence at the end of this quote makes it clear that the virtue isn't seen in terms of ending prejudice, but in promoting religious adherence.
A new study by Michigan State sociologist Ralph Pyle presented at this month's joint meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and the Religious Research Association in Tampa, Fla., shows how all sides in the conservative-liberal religious divide have work to do in combating prejudice and promoting tolerance.
Pyle measured nearly 3,000 responses from General Social Survey data from 1998-2004 on several issues such as openness to racial intermarriage and racially mixed neighborhoods and ranked religious groups on a scale of anti-black and anti-immigrant attitudes.
He found that moderate Protestants held the strongest anti-black attitudes. The next most prejudiced group? Liberal Protestants.
As expected, black Protestants were the least prejudiced against blacks. But they were the most prejudiced against immigrants. Conservative Protestants were the second most prejudiced group against immigrants. Jews, Catholics and other religious groups showed less prejudice to both groups, being particularly open to immigrants.
The good news for religious groups: People who go to church regularly were less likely to be prejudiced, Pyle said. The bad news is people with no religious affiliation were also much less likely to be prejudiced than individuals showing modest levels of commitment to their faith, those who attend services monthly or less.
Whoa. It's "bad news" to discover that atheists and agnostics are more tolerant than modest church-goers? I guess it's bad news for the church that's trying to pretend they have the one true path to righteousness and goodness, but it sounds like good news for the people who are being discriminated against that there are many ways people can reduce their biases.
That is the goal, right?
- Log in to post comments
I think he meant bad news for religious groups, congruent with "good news for religious groups" in the previous sentence. As you say, it's bad news for them that they don't have the stranglehold on morality that they like to pretend. I don't think the reporter is showing any bias there.
While not terribly clear, it's still apparent that the "bad news" is tied contextually to the "good news for religious groups." That is, it's "bad news" for religious groups, not bad news all around.
Yes, there's no question that it should have been written better.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
You guys aren't getting it. That's what I said: he sees this as bad news for his religion. If I were writing up something that reported worthy progress by some religious groups, I wouldn't be describing it as "bad news for atheism" .
That's the issue. This guy is clearly putting the advantages to his religion ahead of any advantages to the targets of racism.
[lylebot beat my post by seconds]
And it is bad news for ID, since of course Darwinism is the cause of prejudice, nazism, communism, not the victim of these (which was certainly true Darwinism under Stalin). How's this good news for Expelled, when all it has is a set of attacks which is no better supported by evidence than is Gonzalez's book?
What's the matter, can't we follow the prejudices of Victorian England and its upper classes? What kind of a religion is evolution anyway, if it can't cling to outdated ideas and anti-human beliefs?
Actually, I think that to many of the IDiots it is the lack of religious bigotry and nonsense that bothers them most of all. They'd hate "Darwinism" if it were a religion, of course, because it would thereby be a competitor. But they wouldn't hate it so much because it would just be another humdrum fantasy providing excuses for nonsense similar to their own, and not a challenge to their whole worldview.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I agree with lylebot and Glen, that "bad news" refers to "religious groups". Which, thinking about it, includes most of the people on the planet. The good news (for us non-religious folks) about the "bad news" is that the "bad news" is just one more nail in the old ya-gotta-believe-in-god-to-be-moral coffin. Hee!
Well regardless for whom the bad news is, it's still ridiculous. Without the godless heathens representing "true evil" in the world, how will the priests/preachers/pastors keep their herds in line. Religion only works when you're indoctrinated to know that you are better than everyone else. Once that little fairy tale falls apart there's not much left besides sexual repression, guilt, shame, and self-loathing.
fa·ce·tious /fəˈsiʃəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuh-see-shuhs]
-adjective
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
Well, PZ's point was clear to me; "...it sounds like good news for the people who are being discriminated against that there are many ways people can reduce their biases." Many, many times here on Pharyngula it has been pointed out that we do not need religion to be good people; it is orthogonal to morality and ethics. One can be religious and act morally and ethically, but one does not need to be. So it seems weird to call it "bad news" that a group of people are more likely to be tolerant of others, especially from the perspective of the ones targeted.
But I can see why the point was missed.
It's a way of putting it, though. True, it's probably not just a matter of bad writing, but it's also true that he's actually aiming at church groups, not at "atheists" or secularists (who he seems not to be much concerned about). Here's some more of what he writes:
Having looked more at the totality, I agree that he seems to be looking at it from the standpoint of his religion, and is somewhat troubled that those with no religious affiliation would be showing up many of his co-religionists. Nonetheless, the target of his article is religious people, which I think gives him some credit to pay for his debits.
I don't deny the debits, however.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
That is the most insane bit of spinning I've seen in quite a while.
The data shows that people who aren't religious are less likely to be prejudiced. Let's say, the religion-promoting fucktard says, how can we spin that to achieve our goals?
Oh, here's how: we'll use it to show that people who go to church only once a month are being beaten by amoral atheists when it comes to behaving well! Thus, if you are going to church only once in a while you might as well be an atheist.
This spinning is so insane that most people won't even realize the hidden truth that atheists are inexplicably at least as moral as religious people.
BRILLIANT!!!!!
PZ You have to look at it in the context of "for religious groups"-- haha just kidding, I did at least read your follow up comment.
Wouldn't it be great if he'd said "The bad news is that our typical assumption that religious affilation makes you a morally superior person appears to unfounded"
The religious right asses will probably just ignore this study. After all, it was written by a radical, progressive, liberal, godless, gay, communist, ignorant, christian hater.
Studies are only valid if the conclusions agree with the fundie agenda.
You can lead a whore to culture...
"The bad news is people with no religious affiliation were also much less likely to be prejudiced than individuals showing modest levels of commitment to their faith, those who attend services monthly or less."
Though it's not what the author meant, I take the 'bad news' to be that strongly religious people are much nastier than people without religion -- and there's far more of the former than the latter in number.
Ah, the half-asser's dilemma: to get up the motivation and full-ass things, and risk sliding back into half-assery; or to give up even your half-ass and go without?
Atheism is less work. You just have to pick your head off your desk and notice that nobody's there to grade you at the end...
After re-reading the article, I agree with Glen Davidson.
I don't like religion and I'm not fond of its adherents or its appeasers, but while we've still got it, I don't mind if a religio calls out to his fellows to say (in effect), "Stop being such hypocritical douchebags, you bigots."
In the article, it also seemed that
was more of an idictment of the churchgoing than any commentary on atheists or agnostics.
Sorry, but maybe I've been so jaded by the Liars for Christ that I'm willing to cheer on any religious individual who seems capable of turning a semi-critical eye on his community rather than distort the numbers.
Imagine if Dembski tried to explain those findings.
You guys aren't getting it. That's what I said: he sees this as bad news for his religion.
No, it is you who aren't getting it. He didn't say anything about "his religion", but about "religious groups" -- a large part of their PR is that morality comes from religion, but studies that challenge that are a problem for them. This study is good news for those who oppose organized religion, especially this particular claim of organized religion, and thus it's bad news for organized religion.
I would agree that the formulation in terms of what is good and bad news for religious groups is inherently biased, however.
So it seems weird to call it "bad news" that a group of people are more likely to be tolerant of others, especially from the perspective of the ones targeted.
Yeah, that would be weird, but that's not what the guy wrote. What he wrote is that it's bad news for religious groups that "modest faith" is correlated with heaping doses of prejudice. Sheesh.
But I can see why the point was missed.
Sigh. No one here missed PZ's point, we just think he's mistaken.
In the article, it also seemed that
was more of an idictment of the churchgoing than any commentary on atheists or agnostics.
Yes, obviously. Perhaps it would have been clearer if it had been phrased (equivalently) as "The bad news for religious groups is that individuals showing modest levels of commitment to their faith, those who attend services monthly or less, are much more likely to be prejudiced than those with no religious affiliation."
No hat tip so exactly how the heck did you run across an article like this? You reading a Cleveland newspaper out of sheer masochism?
Interesting that it isn't made absolutely clear in the article whether atheists are even more tolerant than those who often attend church. I think we can tease the info out however.
"People who go to church regularly were less likely to be prejudiced [than those who attend church less regularly]"
"people with no religious affiliation were also much less likely to be prejudiced than individuals showing modest levels of commitment to their faith"
R = Regular Churchgoers
M = Modest Churchgoers
N = Non-affiliated
< = less than
<< = much less than
So we know from the two sentences that
on the predjudice scale R < M and N << M.
Therefore we can conclude that N < R and also N < R + M
So the people who have no affliation with religion are less predjudiced than those are associated with a religion no matter how often they go.
People who go to church regularly were less likely to be prejudiced, Pyle said.
Less likely than who? I hate these hanging comparisons.
You lot are missing the point completely. Of course atheists want greater numbers of immigrants around - more people to rob rape and kill! See ?
Perhaps 'Mark' from previous diatribes posted this day, needs to visit this thread.
The guy wrote right there in the same sentence that the reason its bad news is because religious groups are being outclassed by atheists. Its not bad news because they're prejudiced, but because they're more prejudiced than atheists. I gotta agree with PZ here that its not a competition. Being atheist is just about what the truth is, not a sports team you blindly cheer for, unrelated to the issue being fought over. If you are championing your side versus the other guy, then you don't care why one side is right or wrong anymore, thats biased.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/misternaxal/1414548652/
Obviously we're all murderous children.
I think many people here, PZ included, are being unfair to this guy. He doesn't write well, but when he writes that this is bad news, surely the more natural reading is that (as a few have suggested above) it is bad news for the champions of religion, in the sense of "something they ought to be ashamed of", "evidence against the facile argument that religion makes you a better person", etc. etc.
I have no idea whether the journalist is religious himself. If he isn't, then he's not saying anything that most commenters here don't say day in, day out. If he is, then here we have an example of a religious person calling his co-believers on a flaw -- something many commenters here complain believers never do. In either case, to my mind his greatest sin is awkward, unclear writing.
It's bad news for their message: "Christians are good, atheists bad, because we believe in the Bible and we're Christians and therefore morally elevated.
It'd be like Cheney's doctor telling him he has two-weeks to live. Bad news for Cheney, good news for the universe.
FWIW, there is a high correlation to remaining crime-free and being an atheist. That is, atheists are much less likely to commit crimes of property or violence.
I have reputation to protect.
How many puppies does an atheist have to kill to get some respect?
Puppies? We're having lamb for dinner... Mwa ha ha ha ha... Then we're going to nail communion wafers to the wall...
::::
Completely unrelated, they need an "are you sure" check to post. I hate it when I'm previewing an edit and hit the stupid post button.
I also think that' what he's saying in that sentence in bold is the same as you said here, minus the latter "...but it's good news..." part.
His "sin" was that of ommission, he didn't mention that it was actually good to know that atheists are less prejudiced.
But about prejudice. It seems to me that once you are of a group religion, you automatically are prejudiced, since you already think that others' nonexistent or unevidenced reality is different than your nonexistent reality. Many of these pseudo-realities just happen to include race and sexual preference into their dos and don'ts.
I want to see the study's results.
PZ wrote:
That's you PZ, but if you look back at the "How many reasons are there to dislike Huckabee?" thread you'll see some posters saying they think it would be good for our politics if a lot of Republicans voted for Huckabee because he is so bad he would get creamed in the final election.
I think it would be better for all of us, including atheists and fundies and Republicans and Democrats, if Repugs and fundies were not so stupid as to vote for Huckabee. It would be better for all of us if we could just ignore the effects of religion and not have this fight.
It's because of religions effects that the fight is needed in the first place.
I don't think religions can exist without their petty prejudices. The whole point or religion is to devalue the lives of those who don't share their beliefs so as to feel better about themselves.
Well of coarse they're more likely to be prejudiced. Jesus is throwing people into hell left and right up and down the street day in and day out like it's going out of style.
That's bound to affect the way they look at the evil people who are doomed for hell. The people who are not as holy as they are. Duh! :P
Perhaps 'Mark' from previous diatribes posted this day, needs to visit this thread.
Looks like for many theists it's not about being good, it's about being better than somebody. He'd probably only trot out his "those bigoted churchgoers are still a lot better than the atheist Stalin!" mantra.
I think it's a touch foggy about how he's using the religion aspect. Is he saying it's bad news for Pyle's group, or himself? I think that line (and the one that follows it) can be read in a couple different ways. Also, the "signs of hope" line could be taken as both a positive for the religious community of Ohio, but it could also be taken as a positive for the community in general that the group in question is changing for the better.
Of course non-believers doing good and not expressing prejudice toward certain social groups is a good thing, and really, it's dishonest at the very least to expect people to behave poorly without knowing them. I can see where bias may exist in this piece, but it's not terribly overt, and because it's a column it's less likely to be scrutinized for such content throoughly.
Clearly, all this demonstrates is that atheists are trained by their master Satan in the art of deception, so they are clever enough to lie to pollsters who call in the middle of the weekly sacrifice of Christian babies. There are plenty of guides for it in Amazon's Jesus-Haters section.
Also, the media.
*shoves head back in sand*
In other (bad) news, the world isn't ending anytime soon, at least not as a result of Armageddon. :(
The good news for religious groups: People who go to church regularly were less likely to be prejudiced, Pyle said.
Correction: People who go to church regularly are less likely to be prejudiced against people that the church tells them not to be prejudiced against. Religious people are no less likely to be prejudiced in other areas.
Here's a link to an old Sunstone Symposium mp3 on this topic, if you feel like listening through it.
In other (bad) news, the world isn't ending anytime soon, at least not as a result of Armageddon. :(
I'm glad you're optimistic. Our fundy President isn't out of the white house yet.
Atheists are not good; they are just as fundamentalistic as the worst religion has to offer. Hitler and Stalin were atheists, and they were the two most evil men in history. The atheistic state of Soviet Russia was scientific proof (for all you so-called scientists out there) that a society of atheists cannot be sustained. Atheism is immoral; those who say otherwise, like PZ Myers, are just pretending to have morals. They are really dead inside. The leading atheists are doomed to Hell, and the rest will set free into the oblivion of eternal nonexistence.
PZ Myers is building an army of atheists in the caverns of Morris. The Lord Himself will soon deal with this Satanic uprising. All who accept Jesus as Saviour should leave Minnesota at once.
Correction: "...the rest will be set free into the oblivion of eternal nonexistence."
Not that anyone here would notice that. A recent study has shown that atheists are the least educated religious group in America.
As a Plain Dealer subscriber I try with intermittent success to force myself not to read Briggs's dreck. It's not good for my blood pressure. His stuff is at least this dumb every week.
Jamie @39,
wow, that was really well done; thanks! It is the sign of a true master of satire that the reader get almost all the way through before twigging it's a joke (and even then having some lingering doubts). By that standard, sir, you are a master indeed.
Jamie wrote:
Why didn't you provide a link to that study or even name it?
Mrs Tilton wrote:
It was a joke?
Well, I have more than lingering doubts. It sounds a lot like Vox Day -- who also might be a joke.
Dear Petty-Minded Journalist:
BOO!!!!!111!!!11!1!!!
Of the tactics of control applied by the Witch-Doctors, encouraging the followers to hate someone else because "they aren't like us" is in the top ten. Possibly even the top five.
It doesn't matter what group the followers hate so long as it's a group who aren't likely to want to join the group.
The faithless or "non-saved" are always a good target.
Personally, I try not to judge a book by it's cover, and allow the person to show me by their words and deeds what sort of person they are.
The article ends up speaking in terms of general prejudice,
but it is important to remember that this study only considered attitudes towards blacks and immigrants. The statement should probably read...
If forms of prejudice against groups like gays and lesbians were added to the mix, I suspect that the godless would end up outshining all the religious divisions considered. (Consider table 23 in this study.)
I would also be curious to see the study include prejudices like anti-semitism, and prejudice against minority religions such as Muslims.
It is also worth considering that atheists aren't the only people in the non-religious category. It is possible that unaffiliated believers are dragging our numbers down.
Ooops. It should read "...minority religions like Islam."
Dear Jesus -
Please make those people who don't believe in U even badder than I am.
Especially those dark-skinned ones who talk funny.
Thank U,
Your Little Sunbeam
PS: Where's my new pony?
Patrick Quigley wrote:
That almost seems necessary when you consider how the Republicans have been using those "marriage amendments" to get voters out.
I have been told by several friends and aquaintences that I 1) could not possibly be an atheist and that 2) I am a better christian than most christians. While I can assure everyone that my basic human decency and adherence to strong ethics should NOT be misconstrued as my belonging to ANY religious faith. Since when has being good, truly good, ever required the threat of eternal damnation? Isn't that behavior modification?
Kind of (not really) on topic, about religion and morality...
Did everyone see the new anti-molestation coloring book for catholic kids put out by the New York Archdioses?
http://www.otmatheist.com/2007/12/17/catholic-coloring-book-warns-child…
You can't make shit like this up.
You want behavior modification? Try watching your friends die. Knowing there is nothing beyond. That's it. Reduced to memories. Knowing how much that hurts, and realizing how much it hurts everyone else who knew them.
Knowing that anyone who advocates killing out of any other context other than immediate self defense is putting that hurt out on other people, making them more likely to return the favor.
Norman @45:
It was a joke? Well, I have more than lingering doubts.
I'm pretty sure it was a joke. Atheist armies in the caverns of Morris? Leave Minnesota if you believe in the Lord?
But you're right -- we can never be 100% sure. And that's what makes the joke so brilliant (if it is a joke).
Yeah, I agree with PZ- how can the existence of tolerant groups outside of religious groups be 'bad news' for them? Only if those groups are in competition or antithetical somehow, which they aren't.
The article's real message? Bigotry: A feature, not a bug.
Mrs Tilton wrote:
But there are atheist armies in the caverns of Morris, deep, deep in the caverns of Morris and they worship squid-like "gods" that aren't God. Haven't you read the old reports from Richard Shaver?
http://theresalduncan.typepad.com/witostaircase/2005/07/the_shaver_myst…
No. Not being sure it was a joke is not a mark of brilliance. Making your point about what's wrong with the viewpoint you mock is what makes satire brilliant. Mimicry is much easier. That's what Tristan J. Shuddery of the "STR : THE FREEDOM BLOG" does.
Wow, even evil people can have less prejudice against some people. But almost certainly they (athiests/evil) just want to look nice so they can brainwash/athiestisize these people they pretend to not be prejudiced against, as they sadomasochistically want to see more people when they finally burn in hell, as they know they will, deep in their bitter hearts. Thus proving that in fact they hate those people, wanting they to burn in hell (and perhaps they hope for last minute forgiveness for themselves, for all their athiestness, just short before they die), and the less prejudice is just evil fakery.
PZ makes a mistake in saying:
"...it sounds like good news ... that there are many ways people can reduce their biases."
It appears to me that PZ is conflating correlation and causation. I'll only leave one counter-example to avoid the proverbial beating of the deceased equine. It could be the case that prejudiced protestants choose to go to church less, thus if they became atheist or increased their church going there is no reason to expect that their bias would decrease, only that churchgoers or atheists would become statistically more prejudiced