OK, not all parts, just the violent stuff — which is a lot. Remember this when they complain about video games.http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=3191
When God sanctions violence, believers act more aggressivelyANN ARBOR, Mich.?Reading violent scriptures increases aggressive behavior, especially among believers, a new study finds. The study by University of Michigan social psychologist Brad Bushman and colleagues helps to illuminate one of the ways that violence and behavior are linked.”To justify their actions, violent people often claim that God has sanctioned their behavior,” said Bushman, faculty associate at the U-M Institute for Social Research and lead author of the article published in the March 2007 issue of Psychological Science. “Christian extremists, Jewish reactionaries and Islamic fundamentalists all can cite scriptures that seem to encourage or at least support aggression against unbelievers.”Bushman, who is also a U-M professor of psychology and communications studies, and colleagues at Brigham Young University and at Vrije University in the Netherlands, found the same relationship in two separate experiments detailed in the article.The first study involved Brigham Young University students, 99 percent of whom believed in God and in the Bible. The second study involved Amsterdam students, 50 percent of whom believed in God and 27 percent of whom believed in the Bible.After reporting their religious affiliations and beliefs, participants read a passage adapted from the King James Bible that described a woman’s brutal murder and her husband’s revenge on her attackers. Half the participants were told that the passage came from the Old Testament, half that it came from an ancient scroll found by archeologists. Half the participants from each of these groups read a version of the passage that included a sentence in which God commanded his followers to take arms against others.After reading the passages, participants were paired with confederates of the experimenters for a simple reaction task. They were told that the winner would be able to “blast” the losing partner with noise as loud as 105 decibels, about the level of a fire alarm?a common experimental measure of aggression.The researchers found that both the religious and secular students were more aggressive, delivering louder blasts of noise to their ostensible partners, when told that the passage they read came from the Bible. Aggressive responses also increased when participants read that God directly sanctioned violence. The increased level of aggression was greater among believers than among secularists, however.”Our results further confirm previous research showing that exposure to violent media causes people to behave more aggressively if they identify with the violent characters than if they do not,” Bushman said.The work also supports the view that exposure to violent scriptures may induce extremists to engage in aggressive actions. “It’s important to note that we obtained evidence supporting this hypothesis in samples of university students who were, in our estimation, not typical of the terrorists who blow up civilians,” Bushman wrote. “Even among our participants who were not religiously devout, exposure to God-sanctioned violence increased subsequent aggression. That the effect was found in such a sample may attest to the insidious power of exposure to literary scriptural violence.”According to Bushman and colleagues, this does not mean that reading the scriptures leads to aggression. “Violent stories that teach moral lessons or that are balanced with descriptions of victims’ suffering or the aggressor’s remorse can teach important lessons and have legitimate artistic merit. But taking a single violent episode out of its overall context, as we did in these studies, can produce a significant increase in aggression.”Established in 1948, the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR) is among the world’s oldest academic survey research organizations, and a world leader in the development and application of social science methodology. ISR conducts some of the most widely-cited studies in the nation, including the Survey of Consumer Attitudes, the National Election Studies, the Monitoring the Future Study, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, the Health and Retirement Study, and the National Survey of Black Americans. ISR researchers also collaborate with social scientists in more than 60 nations on the World Values Surveys and other projects, and the Institute has established formal ties with universities in Poland, China and South Africa. ISR is also home to the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the world’s largest computerized social science data archive. Visit the ISR web site at www.isr.umich.edu for more information.
This kind of research seems flawed to me.
How can the researches arrive at the conclusion that violent media (whether holy books, video games, movies, etc.) lead those that identify with the material to be more aggressive/violent without taking into account the histories of the subjects?
Attributing aggressive behaviors to media seems awfully simplistic. It doesn’t take into account social status (whether the individuals are wealthy or poor for example), education, upbringing, emotional intelligence, etc., etc., etc., ? all of which, it seems to me, would be factors in influencing/creating aggressive personalities and behaviors.
My son, 17, is a self-pronounced atheist. He also watches and plays moderately violent video games, but doesn’t go in much for the extremely graphically violent ones.
He understands that this is simply fantasy role-playing. He doesn’t identify with the characters beyond that.
He is a very sweet, loving, caring person who deplores actual violence.
He also happens to deplore the violence depicted in the Bible, because he knows that the Bible isn’t touted as fiction by the general public, but rather they believe it to be historical fact. He knows that to act violently is wrong and hurtful. He also knows that way too many people see certain acts of violence as right and helpful because they believe God says it is. He is very sad for these people. He also avoids them.
I wonder what “adapted” means…
of course… the whole bible was “adapted” into the kings english, from versions which had been “adapted” by hand from one generation to the next, from versions which were “adapted” into latin by monks…
I guess the important thing is what the students beleived they were reading. ie: the word of god.
But there is hardly any Biblical violent stories that balance it with descriptions of remorse or suffering. That is, unless the suffering is jewish (OT) or christian (NT).
DVan, excellent points. However, common sense keeps poking me in the shoulder and telling me that consistent exposure to violence, especially sanctioned violence without conseqenses, has to have some kind of desensitizing effect.
For example, did you see the Chinese delegate that flinched when there was an explosion? He was ready to hit the ditch! The Middle Eastern delegates who were standing next to the Chinese fella never batted an eyelash. My guess–they were used to it, and quite desensitized.
This is a further exploration of Milgram’s work to determine if people are more willing to cause pain to strangers if they are first told by an authority figure that it is deserved.
Just like Shrek said, we are like onions, made up of layers.
Most people are very squeamish about what lies under the skin of a human’s body. We work very hard at not thinking about it and generally succeed, often for long stretches of time. That is, barring reminders from shows like House and the media of violence, and even then…
Likewise what we consider our self is the intellectual layer which spends much of its time pretending not to be influenced by the emotional layers hidden away underneath.
Imagine if you were the one that had pushed the button and what sorts of coping mechanisms would need to be invoked to absolve the guilt.
Consider how the religious lie to themselves intellectually in order to hold onto their emotionally rewarding thoughts of an afterlife, etc.
Given that more than half of the people on the planet do this, it must be considered normative human behaviour and we are the exceptions, in this area at least.
I feel fortunate that I did not grow up in a conflict zone like Belfast or Beirut or Baghdad. I will never know, but just looking at the effects on all those people, the raw odds say that I would have hated and sought revenge, in spite of what I like to think about myself.
The sun is shining and I am going to hug someone close.
Back when I was a believer, I bought into the love thy neighbor part, and violence w/r to religion seemed odd.
Some of the new video games are pretty damn realistic. I’ve had a few flashbacks after playing BF2.
Ho hum… more of the same tired arguments about Christianity and the Bible. Once again, Bible passages have been taken completely out of context.
The researchers actually could have saved a lot of time by simply studying Islam’s effects on its adherents! What more evidence would they need?
Tim:
forgive me for asking, since I’m relatively new here and these questions may have been answered already…
But what exactly is the correct “context” of dashing babies against rocks, putting people to death for collecting sticks on the Sabbath, bears slaughtering children for making fun of an old man, etc… ?
Tim you say that bible verses are taken out of context when we make claims that the Bible is a very violent book. This is a boldfaced lie and I think that you know it. In Genesis God kills all living things (innocent babies included) from the planet except for a very select few and later kills everyone (babies included) in the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah except again for a select few. In Exodus your evil God hardens Pharaohs heart who then kills all the male children and thus is a mass murderer of children by proxy. Also in Exodus your disgusting God commands that all children who hit or curse their parents are required to be put to death as are those who work on the Sabbath. Leviticus is too full of acts which must be punished by death as per directions from God such as adultery, male homosexuality, sex with animals, witchcraft, and prostitution. Even the peace loving hippy-god Jesus commands his followers to hate their mothers and fathers before they can be his followers. Tell me just how did I take any of this violence out of context? God is very clear and very blac and white with his demands and commandemnts of his followers. People like you are one of the reasons I respect the religious fundamentalists such as Fred Phelps because they at least truly believe the batshit crazy things that their god tells them to do. He wants to kill gay people and adulterers and those who work on Sunday as commanded by his god but people like you gloss over the gore and sex to pick and choose those parts which are not at odds with modernity and being sane. Either you belive all of the insanity that passes for Christianity or you believe none of it.
CYA…eh Dave?
EndOfFaith
Any real xtian would argue NT vs.OT, so harping on OT just falls on deaf ears. Jesus was about as non-violent as they came.
The funny part – as brought up by Dawkins, is the sudden change in god from the OT to the NT. Why did he suddenly mellow out? I haven’t heard a good answer from the believers.
Actually this study show’s how scripturally ignorant the participants were…
And reading up on Bushman he’s also discovered that narcissists are most aggressive when criticized…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980720081130.htm
These two observations explain alot about many who post here…
That’s two ironically self descriptive posts in two days. Somebody aught to put down his hand mirror and stop ignoring all those ugly parts of the book he sets so much store in.
maddogstu,
I think the change in god from the OT to the NT is for me, as an errantist, an expression in the change of the people writing the text and their context. As they became less violent, so did their god. People write about god in the way they understand god. When you are on a conquest for new land and fighting with your neighbors, your understanding of god will have much to do with your every day life. When you are a people who have been defeated and are occupied, this will affect how one understands god and how one writes about god.
The bible transformed when it was translated and our understanding of the bible today, 2000 years later is likely a much different understanding than the people of the time had. If we were able to talk to people from 2000 years ago and said this is what I think jesus was talking about, they would look at us like we’re nuts (I know, I’m throwing out a softball for you hit there).
To Dave’s main point, I think violence leads to violence. I think certain people in certain contexts will become violent. Reading books of any type will give one a new outlook and it’s how one decides to react to it is one’s own responsibility. I can remember reading Steinbeck’s “Cup of Gold” and Voltaire’s “Candid” and being fascinated (please read these two, they are great) and thinking a little differently afterwards. I watch movies with violence and television shows with the same. I was brought up christian and remain so today, but see myself as a product of my environment much like the authors of the bible were.
If you put a person in a context of little to no education, little prospects for advancement, feeling dejected and disenfranchised, and being fed information day after day about how X group (homosexuals, the west, muslims, blacks, mexicans, christians, atheists and so on) is responsible for the state of your world, then one would likely be prone to violence. If we remove empathy or dehumanize any group, it makes us more likely to resort to violence.
Phreeky Phreedy projects again!
Phreedy supported the US initiated genocide in Iraq, an invasion supported heavily amongst US evangelicals, yet somehow the connection between violence and religion escapes him.
You were used you pinhead! BushCo used your religiously induced gullibility to garner your support for mass murder. In exchange he sort of kind of maybe possibly indicated that you might just might get a couple of antichoice supremes out of the deal. But what did you get? Nada! Do you see the connection yet you deluded embecile?
The bible is a dangerous book for certain people. It’s a good read an early draft of our modern day comic books.
Senseless killings will happen like they have happend in the past.
The human mind is impressionable and weak take the right person and you can break them down all you need is time.
Reality changes through perception some people can play a violent games and function fine. Others can snap if the right situation comes alone.
Look at our history there is religious motivated violence everywhere. It’s going to happen. Jesus will be around for a little bit longer. Eventually people will get tired of waiting and deal with the truth.
All we have is each other and for some reason that’s not enough for a lot of people.
teflon
Well said.
This is a good time for one of my favorite quotes:
?Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.?
Steven Weinberg
1979 Nobel Prize, Physics
Spanders, may I take a shot at the softball?
“As they became less violent, so did their god.”
Isn’t this evidence that people created gawd, not vice versa? Or does gawd just go along for the ride? Perhaps he is simply a follower, and NOT a leader?
“If you put a person in a context of little to no education, little prospects for advancement, feeling dejected and disenfranchised, and being fed information day after day about how X group…is responsible for the state of your world, then one would likely be prone to violence.”
I guess there is some truth here; however, as we all know, a good portion of suicide bombers do not fall into the “little to no education, little prospects for advancement, feeling dejected and disenfranchised” group. They do it to be martyrs and to get the virgins.
And to add to this, how many uneducated xians do you know? Do they really feel “dejected and disenfranchised”? Does religion pacify or inflame those feelings?
What say you?
cry4turtles:
Certainly there is a significant difference between the cultural, religious and ethnic violence at play in the realities of the middle east, and reading a horror novel or playing a violent video game? Actually, I think you?re above statement illustrates my point quite well. : )
Playing violent video games, watching violence in movies, reading it in print publication are all experiences outside of most of our realities. I believe that exposure to such outlets of fantasy does not desensitize or in any way prepare us for the violence of the real world ? nor do I believe it makes us more apt to be violent.
I would venture to guess that if you asked any American soldier currently serving (or who had served) in Iraq if they felt desensitized to the violence they were witnessing because they?d watch all of Quentin Tarantino?s films, or spent much of their free time as a teenager playing Grand Theft Auto, I suspect they would say those things in no way desensitized them to the realities of actual violence ? though being exposed to actual violence, I believe, would desensitize the individual.
As a second point, I also believe that people who are violent by nature (whether their tendency for violence was due to their biology or environment or both) tend to be interested in violence more than some one who does not have an aggressive/violent personality. I believe that is what studies like this one are illustrating. Rather than showing a link between violent content and violent behavior ? they are actually showing how violent people justify their violent actions.
Just my thoughts.
maddog,
While jeebus doesn’t rise to the level of the OT dog, he wasn’t all that kind.
I’m sure you’ll recall the tantrum in the temple.
And then there be:
Revelations 2:16 if you don’t repent jeebus will “fight you with a sword”.
Thessalonians 1:7-9 j-man will take vengeance on unbelievers by burning them for, oh I don’t know, ever!
Mark 10:10-15 If you reject his disciples he’ll burn entire cities.
Mathew 15:4-7 If you curse your parents you should die. (shades of OT)
also, 10:34-36 he comes not to send peace but the sword.
There are more but why go on, we’re all doomed, except of course those who lack the gene for reason.
Further New Testament violence:
Matthew 2:16 — Fearing the birth of a single child (the so-prophesied Messiah), Herod orders the slaying of all the children of Bethlehem and the nearby coasts, up to two years of age.
Matthew 13:49,50 — Jesus describes, in gruesome and vengeful terms, what awaits those who will not follow him: “The angels… shall cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Acts 7:54-60 — pre-conversion Paul drags followers of Jesus from their homes to prison and helps to stone Stephen to death.
Acts 13:6 — “Filled with the Holy Ghost” post-conversion Paul throws a hate-filled diatribe at Barjesus and invokes God to make Barjesus go blind. “O full of all subtilty, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind…” Barjesus immediately goes blind.
The context is clear: You’re either 100% for Jesus, or Nasty Sh*t is gonna happen to you.
The violence to be visited upon the earth and its human beings (not to mention all the utterly innocent non-human animals and all the living flora) as described in Revelations is just too numerous and revolting to recount. Remember, all this horrific DEATH and DESTRUCTION is all according to God’s plan. God designs it, orders it, and makes sure it happens.
You want to see some more ugly, violent, religious writing about events all alleged to be the will and work of Our Heavenly Father? Try the Book of Mormon some time. [barf!]
Let’s not forget Jesus’ hatred for fig trees:
Mathew 21:19
And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once.
DVan, thanks for your response. Your point about violence outside the scope of one’s reality hit it’s mark and I agree, especially in the context of my life. I am a horror movie fan and, while I can watch zombies rip open heads all day, I’ve never developed a taste for brains.
I can’t help but be concerned, perhaps unwarranted, about the portion of our youth that veg out on violent video games where they actually do the killing, buy whores, rape them, and then exterminate them at will.
But then I think, what’s the difference between those games and daily bible study? Same shit, different medium.
cry4turtles,
I’d agree, but would add that unlike bible study, the fantasy of video games, movies and fiction publications, are not being promoted and taught as truth/fact.
Maybe that’s the difference?
Oh, and by the way, I?m also a big-time horror fan. In fact, I?m about to watch a couple of the films from ?8 Films to Die For? collection. Hope they?re good…
Like me mum always said, “Don’t worry, it’s just pretend.”
CP
Sure there are some violent parts, but when I read the whole of the NT, Jesus comes off as a non violent character. Turn the other cheek, etc. I don’t want to defend this too much, because apparently xtians don’t believe in the non-violence aspect.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
-Mohandas Gandhi
Simplistic studies that blame TV and video games for violence have always annoyed me.
This will make the people who believe them to think twice. If they want to ban violence from TV then they should also ban large chunks of the Bible from impressionable minds.
justme,
“Let’s not forget Jesus’ hatred for fig trees.”
One of my old favourites. I got it wrong recently and called it an olive tree.
with all the weapons out there we stand a good chance of seeing just how violent religious people can get.
@maddogstu
Oh, they do believe in it. When they’re cornered. Turn your back and, presto, you’re going to burn in hell for ever and ever and ever and ever.
The whole “jeebus is nonviolent” thing is a rather new take on the things. I’m willing to bet it didn’t approach dominance untill secularism raised people’s conscience towards human rights.
Apparently those in charge of public education are as radical in their beliefs as Dave is…
http://newsbusters.org/node/11782
Yes the peaceful Jesus is somewhat new. I read some letters written between catholic bishops, I think, maybe they were cardinals. These letters were written during the advance of the Mongols. They had all but decided that the Mongols were coming to punish them for immorality. Yep, they thought the Kahn was Jesus coming back for the second coming. This was before the protestants existed. Funny how they saw Jesus as an unstoppable force coming to get them and punish them. Not a peaceful Jesus in their minds at all.
@phreedm:
Hm, let’s see…
but
Now, if the scenario involves “right-wing fundamentalist groups”, but “discriminates against Christian”, doesn’t that make Christians a right-wing fundamentalist group? If they aren’t the above scenario wouldn’t discriminate against them, would it? It would discriminate against “right-wing fundamentalist groups”.
Also:
Indeedy-doody. Because gays and pro-choicers don’t bomb churches and gun down priests, whereas…… Well, you’re a smart kid, you can figure it out.
Anyways, thanks for the link and the laugh. It’s always amazing to see confirmation of Harris’ “concentric circles” theory at work. This is a prime example.
Oh, I tried sooo hard not to say this, but I can’t stop myself.
“Apparently those in charge of public education are as radical in their beliefs as Dave is”
Like your belief isn’t radical? You better keep lying to yourself because you ain’t foolin’ us.
jshane
I agree, it’s hard to reconcile the peaceful jesus (carry the solders stuff an extra mile) with … when the soldier dies he gets to suffer eternally.
One more reason I’m an atheist.
I’d still like to see more xtians act like jesus instead of claiming him as their dad who can beat up your dad.
maddogstu there does seem to be a growing peace wing in the christian religion.the mainline protestants in particular.
“I’d still like to see more xtians act like jesus instead of claiming him as their dad who can beat up your dad”
This is an interesting statement, especially considering that Jesus challenged the social and religious norms of his time, thusly pissing a lot of powerful people off. He revealed the evilness and hardness of heart. He rebuked their hypocritical teachings. He was not peaceable for peace sake. As the Son of God, He was leading people back to God. He was a revolutionary not a passivist, nor was He just generally a “nice guy”. So, when you say you want Christians to act more like Jesus, exactly what do you mean? … and indeed, exactly what are you asking for? Because Jesus of the Bible was not a pansy.
While not exactly a sentence, you are absolutely correct.
He was in fact a hypocrite; one minute “turning the other cheek” the next “bringing the sword”; one minute asking all to honour their parents the next denying his own.
The fact is, Jesus was a prick and there are far too many people like him.
I’m curious, interesting, as to whether you think Gandhi and Martin Luther King were pansies. These were men interested in peace for peace’s sake (i.e. for the good peace itself would bring). Same is true of many humans who were not pansies when they put their lives on the line to protest violent governments around the world. It would be very unfair to call current protesters of the current wars pansies without knowing them and how they would react to force against them by police, for example.
I’m not sure that using pansie as a reference point is the best place to be working from. That suggests some paternalistic bravado. I’d suggest that the bravery of standing up to police in protest is equal to, but different than the bravery of a person taking care of a terminally ill spouse while they watch that person whither away over months or years.
What I think people react against is the holier than though arrogance that at times accompanies belief. If we, as christians, expressed the nurturant side of our religion more than our strict father side, I think we would be given more credit.
Remy, I’m not sure if you would like it, but I’m finding John Spong’s “Jesus for the Non-Religious” quite interesting. Essentially, he’s looking at Jesus from a very Jewish perspective and reviewing the symbolism that was meant very directly to build on Moses, Elijah, and Elisha and how the account of Jesus was written to resonate with a jewish audience, which is why some of it seems so odd to us today. I find it fascinating as it goes over a lot of what we talk about here and Spong goes so far as saying he’s christian, but does not believe in a literal resurrection, virgin birth and so on. Quite interesting.
spanders,
I a fan of Bishop Spong. Smart man. He is not very popular with OT literalists.
May I recommend Tom Harpur’s, The Pagan Christ. He has also remained Christian whilst seeing the stories as myth. He has a new book out but I haven’t read it yet.
True, violence evolved from religion. Our religious “neighbors” next door are proof that xtains promote violence because they shoot pistols across our yard when we are attempting to cut our grass. These same xtians go to church every Sunday too so they can be “forgiven”. We see their vehicle at their church every time we go to buy groceries on Sunday!
Xtians cannot evolve because they were never taught how to evolve!
SunbeamAtheist
I disagree. People are violent ? always have been. Religion, like many other ideologies, gives those that are prone to violent behavior justification to be so. Just as, for many people, religion helps them to NOT act in violent ways.
You should have them arrested. THAT’S CRAZY!
I think Spanders )as well as myself) might disagree. : )