Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Do personal beliefs change behavior?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Do our beliefs about free will change our behavior? It seems they do. Here researchers primed some subjects to believe that our behavior is wholly determined by environment and genes, and that free will is a myth. (This is a theme of Dawkins who says that punishing a criminal is like kicking your car when it breaks down) Those subjects acted less ethically than those not primed. Beliefs influence behavior.

What would a similar experiment show if the belief challenged was that there is Design behind the universe and life? Do people act the same after reading and believing “The God Delusion”?

None of this addresses the actual truth of the belief, just whether believing it changes behavior. Fascinating!

Comments
larrynormanfan wrote: Mapou, I’m a Christian, so no, it’s not an attack against Christianity. My apologies.Mapou
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
If we keep faith based instruction out of our education system, there will be consequences, whether the faith is true or false. It seems from this experiment that we will not give birth to a better society. When a high profile pastor falls it is big news. When a rock star does the same thing it is considered normal. Beliefs help shape our values. Values shape our behavior and behavior has consequences. Intelligent Design, whether true or false will be one belief providing a foundation for a better society than Dawkin's "pitiless indifference".idnet.com.au
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Mapou, I'm a Christian, so no, it's not an attack against Christianity. It's an attack against an idiotic study that proves nothing and makes unwarranted assumptions. And as it happens, I agree with Luther on the whole. I read The Bondage of the Will over twenty years ago and have never forgotten it.larrynormanfan
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
larrynormanfan wrote: I wonder if the same results would have occurred if the subjects had been given a Christian treatise against free will (such as Martin Luther’s The Bondage of the Will). I take this as a not so subtle attack against Christianity. You are apparently aiming to discredit the Christian faith by pointing out its inconsistencies and conflicts. But so what if Christianity is inconsistent and filled with conflicts? Do you have something else in mind for Christians to fall back on? Is science (the atheistic kind) somehow free from inconsistencies and conflicts? Christians worship Jesus Christ and his Father. That's it. We honor and admire but we don't worship human beings (Martin Luther included) regardless of their apparent greatness. At any rate, debates and arguments on free will are notoriously fuzzy. It is highly likely that you are misinterpreting Luther's original intent.Mapou
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
I wonder if the same results would have occurred if the subjects had been given a Christian treatise against free will (such as Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will).larrynormanfan
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Of course your beliefs about free will will affect your behavior. If you don't believe that it is possible to contol your behavior, then you will not exert yourself to make it happen. If you don't believe that you can resist temptation, then obviously you will give in to it without a fight. Indeed, without a belief in free will, both moral exertion and temptation are meaningless concepts.StephenB
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
(This is a theme of Dawkins who says that punishing a criminal is like kicking your car when it breaks down)
I am going over to Dawkins' house and walking out with his TV and his stereo.russ
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
This seems like a ridiculous study to me, since there is no baseline measure of how the students performed before reading the passages. So it's meaningless. All they did was ask a few undergraduates (n=30) to read a crude version of a complex philosophical debate. Those stupid enough to be persuaded by it cheated more than others. Hmm. This proves what, exactly?larrynormanfan
February 2, 2008
February
02
Feb
2
02
2008
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply