SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New research by the University of Manchester has found that people are less likely to attend religious services regularly if their income rises.
Dr Ingrid Storm analysed survey data on more than 20,000 people in Britain to compare their income and religious attendance.
Her research is the first of its kind to use data on the same people measured over time, from 1991 to 2012.
Dr Storm found that a rise in income of about £10,000 a year (£880 a month) meant that people were 6 percentage points less likely to attend services monthly.
But a fall in income had no effect on people's monthly attendance at churches, mosques and other places of worship, the research showed.
She said that a reason that people turned away from religious services when their income increased was that they had less need for the social support found in religious communities.
People who are busy have less time for extra-curricular activities.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:22PM (7 children)
Religion is a lot about sharing with the less fortunate.
This is rather wishful thinking, sadly.
While religion has certainly been involved in lots of bad things over the centuries, your comment is really off the mark. For many, many people, "sharing with the less fortunate" is a major element of what they do within their religion. Churches around the U.S. operate tons of food pantries/food banks, "soup" kitchens to feed the hungry, homeless shelters, daycare or after-school programs for poor kids, etc., etc. And given that stats show that over 15% of Americans rely on donations from food banks at least occasionally, this is not a minor service that religious folks are doing.
Of course secular organizations exist that do this stuff too. But the point is that many religious institutions choose to help people in such ways. Many religious people choose to make donations to such organizations because of their concern for the "less fortunate." All of this actually exists and helps out millions of people in need each year. We can be critical of all sorts of aspects of religion, but that doesn't mean a lot of people don't find other personal value in it.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:36PM (6 children)
Scenario 1: Someone who is unable or unwilling* to support himself ekes out a miserable existence which eventually ends because nobody is there to "help".
Scenario 2: Someone who is unable or unwilling* to support himself is given a steady stream of freebies, enabling him to pass on his genes to three children and seven grandchildren who eke out ten miserable existences.
Which scenario minimizes total human suffering?
* The distinction doesn't change the outcome.
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:45PM (2 children)
Clearly the first one. If the poor consider their lives a net-loss, they could end it. And for the giving, many of them bath in the feeling of "doing good".
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
Ah, yes, I forgot. A "bath" of feelings outweighs any attempts to actually understand problems and evaluate solutions. I guess that's why we still have Democrats.
But my point was: are you truly "doing good" if the outcome of your emotion-based actions is to multiply and prolong suffering?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:46PM
Maybe, just in case, we should come up with, oh, I dunno, some kind of "final solution" to deal with all these genetically substandard poors?
(Score: 3, Touché) by http on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:02PM
What kind of existance should we guess your parents had, miserable or not miserable? How about your grandparents?
More importantly, could we tell that from looking at your life?
Your failure of imagination is staggering.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:32PM
In response to your sig: apparently not.
Your scenarios here, with their lack of creativity and obvious slant towards your desired outcome, illustrate that while you may not be a clinical sociopath you are at least a student of sociopathic philosophies. Better stock up, because there are way more liberals with guns than you think and way more conservatives who would reject your philosophies as horrifying.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Friday April 07 2017, @05:22AM
Scenario 3: The entire world's arsenal of nuclear weapons is set off simultaneously, evenly spaced around the globe. All humans are killed off near instantly, and thus there would be none in the future to ever suffer at all.
Your approach to ethics is in need of a re-think. Perhaps consider maximizing human joy (as a positive idea) instead of minimizing human suffering (a negative one). Or take a more nuanced approach based on an adaptive array of criteria. All life ends in loss, often with accompanied pain, yet that's not a reason to self-destruct as a species (or individual, for that matter).
It'd be nice if people would drop the dogmatic approach to religion that has them literally believing in some absurd things, but it is possible to practice with a shared set of stories, ritual tradition, and culture, and arguably it's an almost inescapable aspect of human existence, given our social nature. It'd be perhaps better if we consider a more enlightened approach to religion that moves beyond a lot of medieval baggage and use as a tool of manipulation and control.