Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Queen's study finds religion helps us gain self-control [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)18. Why are you so desperate?
No claims were made here regarding rigorous experimental evidence:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/why-do-we-have-religion-anyway.html
The vast majority of the worlds 7 billion people practice some kind of religion, ranging from massive worldwide churches to obscure spiritual traditions and local sects. Nobody really knows how many religions there are on the planet, but whatever the number, there are at least that many theories about why we have religion at all. One idea is that, as humans evolved from small hunter-gatherer tribes into large agrarian cultures, our ancestors needed to encourage cooperation and tolerance among relative strangers. Religion thenalong with the belief in a moralizing Godwas a cultural adaptation to these challenges.
But thats just one idea. There are many othersor make up your own. But they are all just theories. None has been empirically tested. A team of psychological scientists at Queens University, Ontario, is now offering a novel idea about the origin of religion, and whats more theyre delivering some preliminary scientific evidence to support their reasoning. Researcher Kevin Rounding and his colleagues are arguing that the primary purpose of religious belief is to enhance the basic cognitive process of self-control, which in turn promotes any number of valuable social behaviors.
They tested this theory in four fairly simple experiments
But thats just one idea. There are many othersor make up your own. But they are all just theories. None has been empirically tested. A team of psychological scientists at Queens University, Ontario, is now offering a novel idea about the origin of religion, and whats more theyre delivering some preliminary scientific evidence to support their reasoning. Researcher Kevin Rounding and his colleagues are arguing that the primary purpose of religious belief is to enhance the basic cognitive process of self-control, which in turn promotes any number of valuable social behaviors.
They tested this theory in four fairly simple experiments
From the way you carry on, youd think theyd claimed to have conclusively proven the existence of a divinity or something.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The convention I learned years ago was the the use of all capitals was reserved for “shouting”
OKIsItJustMe
Jan 2012
#29
Considering that they did NOT utilize the "scientific method" at all, it is hardly "scientific"
cleanhippie
Jan 2012
#32
Its the broad-brush assumptions about what the "study" reveals that is bogus.
cleanhippie
Jan 2012
#40
Then you really shouldn't make claims that this study followed the scientific method.
cleanhippie
Jan 2012
#43
I have no idea. They have not yet published their study and there is not information
cbayer
Jan 2012
#50
“They have test for no other options. Perhaps unscrambling pithy Mark Twain epithets…”
OKIsItJustMe
Jan 2012
#22
There actually was a control condition: unscrambling of nonreligious phrases
LeftishBrit
Jan 2012
#70
Good for you for being done. Some *discussions* in this group are really not discussions at all.
cbayer
Jan 2012
#39
Oh no, we can't have that. Admonishing the OP for the same thing I was admonished for
cleanhippie
Jan 2012
#68
I am not saying this to pick on you personally; there are others who do it much more often
LeftishBrit
Jan 2012
#67
Why is it so difficult to understand that the "simple experiements" did NOT lend ANY credence
cleanhippie
Jan 2012
#35