Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?

[IndigoChild5559]

I'll copy and past a large segment, because there is evidence to back it up. Of course, this should be taken, like all studies, with scepticism.

Cameron (2004) outlines three non-mutually exclusive factors that constitute social identity. The
first factor, centrality, is defined as the frequency at which the given group “comes to mind” in daily
interactions and the subjective importance of the group to one’s self-concept. In a recent qualitative
assessment of the identity formation process of American atheists, Smith (2011) found that social
identification as a non-believer is an important aspect of crystallizing one’s identity, and that as part of
the process of crystallization, the atheist identity is moved to the top of the identity hierarchy. In accord
with Stryker’s (1968) position that higher-order identities are of greater importance to definitions of
the self, understanding of social events and processes, and shaping behaviors, Smith’s (2011) research
clearly indicates that the atheist identity is one of the (if not the) most salient identity for non-believers.
Further, “coming out” as a non-believer, similar to the process of “coming out” as a homosexual
(O’Brien 2004), creates social pain and discomfort that further solidifies identity and serves as a
constant reminder of one’s deviant status (Smith 2011).
In-group affect encompasses the emotional aspects of group identity (Cameron 2004; Rosenberg
1979). Tajfel and Turner (1979) claim that emotional connections associated with group membership are
central to social identity theory, as positive or negative evaluations of group membership structure the
degree of affective ties to the group, group identity salience, and related behavioral outcomes. Often
referred to as private collective self-esteem (see Luhtanen and Crocker 1992), in-group affect refers to the
subjective emotional evaluation of group membership (i.e., “I feel good about the religious group I belong
to”; see Ysseldyk et al. 2011). In a study of religious identification among American Atheists, Catholics,
Jews, Muslims, and Protestants, Ysseldyk et al. (2011) found that atheists express statistically similar
levels of private collective self-esteem when compared to the other aforementioned religiously oriented
groups. In other words, atheists generally “feel good” about their group membership, which falls in line
with the degree of in-group affect expressed by members of established religious groups.
Lastly, in-group ties reference “the psychological ties that bind the self to the group” (Cameron
2004, 242). This emotional closeness to the group, or group cohesion, reflects a sense of belonging
and bonding for group members (Brown et al. 1986; Cameron and Lalonde 2001; Phinney 1992).
When using the “feeling thermometer” (see Cairns et al. 2006) to measure in-group ties among
atheists and established religious groups, Ysseldyk et al. (2011) found that non-believers showed the
highest level of emotional closeness to their group and achieved a level that was higher than all of the
other religious groups questioned (i.e., Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Protestants).
Taken together, the evidence suggests that non-believers hold a strong social identity and
likely experience benefits from their strong group identification, similar to the benefits of strong
group identification for religious believers (see Baumeister and Leary 1995).

So, part of their identity is atheism or agnosticism and it's quite strong. However, this is not good enough to explain why atheists or agnostics do not have similar crime association to the uncertain believers, but it's beyond the scope of this study. I'm sure there are numerous explanations why and perhaps uncertain belief is the cause of something else, like trauma. Hence, drifting like this may be a coping mechanism. Just as a note, social identity theory or social control theory was not measured in this study.

First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to copy and paste this. It's a little frustrating for me that I can't look at the study without forking out a whole lot of money that I don't have. This was very helpful.

I understand what the study means now, although I have it red flagged in my mind. I understand that atheists do identify as atheists--it is part of their primary understanding of themselves. But such an identification has got to be weakened by the fact that they have no real personal group interaction in real life. (Exception noted for those who attend "atheist churches.")

But what do I know???? It's just a thought.

 

[charlie sc]

Here's a link to that research paper again: High functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.

I don't know how much your trolling or simple minded posts deserve attention but I took a look at the weak study. It's like it was done by an undergrad with like 8 references lol. The paper is abysmal and I can't even find it on web of science, probably because no publisher will accept it Though, I don't know what you're trying to say because, assuming this only study is correct, then it's more likely pwASP will be atheists, not atheists are more likely have ASP. Though, I did notice it was spoken about here Does Autism Lead to Atheism? He says-

"The strongest connection between atheism and autism before now was a paper presented at a conference last year by Catherine Caldwell-Harris and collaborators at Boston University. Survey respondents with high-functioning autism were more likely than control subjects to be atheists and less likely to belong to an organized religion. (They were also more likely to have religious ideas of their own construction, perhaps something similar to Temple Grandin’s.) And atheists were higher on the autistic spectrum than Christians and Jews. But the researchers were not able to demonstrate that mentalizing deficits were responsible for the connection.

That’s where the new paper comes in. Ara Norenzayan and Will Gervais of the University of British Columbia and Kali Trzesniewski of UC Davis report on four studies. The first study replicates the finding of the BU research: 12 autistic and 13 neurotypical adolescents took part, and the neurotypical subjects were 10 times as likely to strongly endorse God.

 

[charlie sc]

The paper under discussion is not available for examination.

Next post I'll make sure it's accessible to everyone

 

[charlie sc]

First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to copy and paste this. It's a little frustrating for me that I can't look at the study without forking out a whole lot of money that I don't have. This was very helpful.

I understand what the study means now, although I have it red flagged in my mind. I understand that atheists do identify as atheists--it is part of their primary understanding of themselves. But such an identification has got to be weakened by the fact that they have no real personal group interaction in real life. (Exception noted for those who attend "atheist churches.")

But what do I know???? It's just a thought.

I think this identity more prevalent in nations and communities that have to or want to confront an injustice. Hence, it becomes an important part of their identity, and, in a sense, they think they're doing good and standing up for something. To continue with this thought, you don't see atheists protesting or debating Buddhists and that's maybe why they don't feel threatened by Buddhists. Maybe because Christianity and Islam are fairly aggressive ideologies. So, I suppose it's relevant to the person, times and location.

 

[David T]

The title of the thread is again 'Theist versus Atheist' -
Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?

But the thread creator refers to a single paper, which cannot be examined however, to propose discussion on how 'uncertain believers' are most dangerous. He reproduces from the paper a single continuous curve (Fig. 2 in OP) showing how criminality exponentially rises from 'believer' category to 'uncertain believer' category and then exponentially decreases to 'non believer' category. It is not clear how a continuous curve was obtained connecting three distinct different categories? As of now, to me, the curve itself is suspect.

Then what is 'uncertain believer'?



The paper under discussion is not available for examination.

The whole premise of the start of the thread hasnt even addressed the problem with psychological studies. It just jumps in completely unaware there is a major problem with psychological studies themselves. They tend to be extremely what ever you see.... I think thats called rorscach.

 

[charlie sc]

The whole premise of the start of the thread hasnt even addressed the problem with psychological studies. It just jumps in completely unaware there is a major problem with psychological studies themselves. They tend to be extremely what ever you see.... I think thats called rorscach.

There was no premise stated from the start of this thread discussing the problems of psychological studies. You just dismissing these studies by assertions means nothing.

 

[Maximilian]

I don't know how much your trolling or simple minded posts deserve attention but I took a look at the weak study. It's like it was done by an undergrad with like 8 references lol. The paper is abysmal and I can't even find it on web of science, probably because no publisher will accept it Though, I don't know what you're trying to say because, assuming this only study is correct, then it's more likely pwASP will be atheists, not atheists are more likely have ASP. Though, I did notice it was spoken about here Does Autism Lead to Atheism? He says-

"The strongest connection between atheism and autism before now was a paper presented at a conference last year by Catherine Caldwell-Harris and collaborators at Boston University. Survey respondents with high-functioning autism were more likely than control subjects to be atheists and less likely to belong to an organized religion. (They were also more likely to have religious ideas of their own construction, perhaps something similar to Temple Grandin’s.) And atheists were higher on the autistic spectrum than Christians and Jews. But the researchers were not able to demonstrate that mentalizing deficits were responsible for the connection.

That’s where the new paper comes in. Ara Norenzayan and Will Gervais of the University of British Columbia and Kali Trzesniewski of UC Davis report on four studies. The first study replicates the finding of the BU research: 12 autistic and 13 neurotypical adolescents took part, and the neurotypical subjects were 10 times as likely to strongly endorse God.

How does any of this change the reality that high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.


Do you have ASD?

 

[Milton Platt]

The general consensus(Johnson, 2010) in science is that religiosity negatively associates with crime. In other words, the more religious the person is, the less likely they'll commit a crime or take licit drugs. These studies have been replicated in numerous countries(Brauer, 2013) with the same results. One of the shortfalls for these studies was that most of the participants were Christians. So, it is only generalisable for Christians. Another limitation is that the mechanism of this association is unknown. Some psychologists think it may be related to social control theory and that religion teaches self-control.

If it was self-control or another facet of religiosity, then the assumption is that non-believers would be more prone to committing crime and there is some stigma towards non-believers, in some countries, that atheists are dangerous. Unfortunately, most of the studies done on religiosity do not properly measure non-belief or ignore it altogether. One study(Jang, 2013) measured non-belief and found non-belief also negatively associated with criminal behaviour, and the spiritual-but-not-religious was positively associated with criminal behaviour. However, a recently study(Schroeder et. al., 2017), and the one I would like to talk about, noted this disparity in these measures and consequently measured agnosticism and atheism correctly. They found atheists and agnostics have similar statistics to the highly religious. In fact, the most criminally dangerous group were the uncertain believers. It was more likely an uncertain believer would take illicit material and commit crimes(see image - image from Schroeder et. al., 2017).
Therefore, if there is any stigma towards the morality of atheists/agnostics, science tells a different story.

I tried to find the open-source papers, but it's not always possible. The main discussion here is on Schroeder et al., but any may suffice.

Why do you think uncertain believers have a tendency to commit more crime?
Edit: I’ve added bold to the links since it seems like the blue might be difficult to see. There are FOUR links in the OP.

I'm an atheist, but to step in here....it is very important not to confuse correlation and causation. It think that there are many common factors between increased religiosity and increased criminality including level of education, influences as a child, a person't ability to use critical thinking skills, etc. Those common factors may increase both religiosity and criminality, but that does not mean religiosity increases criminality. Just saying.......

 

[charlie sc]

How does any of this change the reality that high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.

What's this got to do with this OP? Are you an idiot?

Do you have ASD?

No, do you?

 

[charlie sc]

I'm an atheist, but to step in here....it is very important not to confuse correlation and causation.

Yes, I say this in post #29.

It think that there are many common factors between increased religiosity and increased criminality including level of education, influences as a child, a person't ability to use critical thinking skills, etc. Those common factors may increase both religiosity and criminality, but that does not mean religiosity increases criminality. Just saying.......

Errr, yes, correlation does not mean causation.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, I say this in post #29.


Errr, yes, correlation does not mean causation.

Not directing that at you specifically. there are a lot of people on the forum who confuse the two. Trying to cut off some of the silliness up front.

 

[charlie sc]

Not directing that at you specifically. there are a lot of people on the forum who confuse the two. Trying to cut off some of the silliness up front.

Well, thanks. This thread has a few people who are either daft or trolling. I can't tell which.

 

[atanu]

....It think that there are many common factors between increased religiosity and increased criminality including level of education, influences as a child, a person't ability to use critical thinking skills, etc. .....

Yes, I say this in post #29.

Errr, yes, correlation does not mean causation.

The thread starts with “The general consensus (Johnson, 2010) in science is that religiosity negatively associates with crime.....”. The first three papers support this. And the last paper does not contradict that religiosity is negatively correlated to criminality.

But @Milton Platt seems to imply just the opposite “increased religiosity leads to increased criminality”... And @charlie sc does not comment on that at all.

 

[Milton Platt]

The thread starts with “The general consensus (Johnson, 2010) in science is that religiosity negatively associates with crime.....”. The first three papers support this. And the last paper does not contradict that religiosity is negatively correlated to criminality.

But @Milton Platt seems to imply just the opposite “increased religiosity leads to increased criminality”... And @charlie sc does not comment on that at all.

no, I did not either state this or imply it.
I said that correlation does not necessarily establish causation.
I believe there are common factors that contribute to both criminality and religiosity.

 

[atanu]

I believe there are common factors that contribute to both criminality and religiosity.

Where in the 4 cited papers is this said?

The question of causation will arise if any paper shows positive correlation between religiosity and criminality. The papers show negative correlation between religiosity and criminality.

 

[Milton Platt]

Where in the 4 cited papers is this said?

The question of causation will arise if any paper shows positive correlation between religiosity and criminality. The papers show negative correlation between religiosity and criminality.

Read the first two words in my post......."I believe"....Yes, correlation and causation can be linked. but not necessarily. In this case, religiosity and criminality may be caused by a number of factors that influence both and it may not be that one causes the other.

 

[Milton Platt]

First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to copy and paste this. It's a little frustrating for me that I can't look at the study without forking out a whole lot of money that I don't have. This was very helpful.

I understand what the study means now, although I have it red flagged in my mind. I understand that atheists do identify as atheists--it is part of their primary understanding of themselves. But such an identification has got to be weakened by the fact that they have no real personal group interaction in real life. (Exception noted for those who attend "atheist churches.")

But what do I know???? It's just a thought.

You are trying to put a diverse population into a common group. atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Everything else they may believe or not believe is separate and independent from a belief in a god.

 

[atanu]

Read the first two words in my post......."I believe".....

Do you mean to say that you were aware that the papers were saying ‘criminality and religiosity are negatively related’?

 

[charlie sc]

The thread starts with “The general consensus (Johnson, 2010) in science is that religiosity negatively associates with crime.....”. The first three papers support this. And the last paper does not contradict that religiosity is negatively correlated to criminality.

But @Milton Platt seems to imply just the opposite “increased religiosity leads to increased criminality”... And @charlie sc does not comment on that at all.

I missed that. I thought he was just talking generally about cause vs correlation.

 

[Milton Platt]

Do you mean to say that you were aware that the papers were saying ‘criminality and religiosity are negatively related’?

No, I was saying that one must not confuse correlation with causality, and My belief is that there are factors which correlate with both religiosity and criminality. There are factors which affect both, of those things. I am saying that there is most definitely correlation, because it has been shown, but causation has not.