Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Religion as a prisoners new way of life? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I always find that this is a poor argument brought up by the faithful.

    That somehow religion has a purpose, so long as it drags people out of their evil ways and puts them on the right path.

    I tend to think; well it still proves nothing? But even so, is their born-again faith something to tolerate if it helps them inflicting damage on others?

    The only response I can think of is that, theism cannot prove that said prisoner wouldn't of found new hope in something else?

    What's you're response?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    As if prisoners become reformed characters by talking up a religion which has caused more harm than good, and which still preaches doctrines that slander life. They might not cause crimes to the state any longer but to slander life is surely the most gravest sin of all?
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The utility of holding a belief is separate to its truth value. It seems an affront to intellectual integrity to believe something merely because it is useful and not because it is true.

    It also seems patronising to say, "well, let him or her have their beliefs because clearly that's what they need to do the right thing."

    Not that these arguments are necessary since all the evidence would seem to go against that line of thinking anyway - being religious statistically suggests a person to be more likely to find themselves in prison. There is little reason to believe that religion makes you a better person, but plenty to suggest that finding happiness and intellectual satisfaction will. Religion doesn't work to rehabilitate prisoners - giving them skills, teaching them how to deal with anger and psychological problems, and supplying them with the tools to allow them to find a better life outside of prison, to not depend on crime - that's the way forward. Let them find self-sufficiency and work towards their own happiness.

    To quote Bertrand Russell, "The good life, as I conceive it, is a happy life. I do not mean that if you are good you will be happy; I mean that if you are happy you will be good."
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    I tend to think; well it still proves nothing? But even so, is their born-again faith something to tolerate if it helps them inflicting damage on others?
    who is inflicting damage on others? the 'born-again' prisoner or the people who helped him???

    (Original post by Martyn*)
    They might not cause crimes to the state any longer but to slander life is surely the most gravest sin of all?
    this appears to be a statement, but you present it as a question. which is it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    The utility of holding a belief is separate to its truth value. It seems an affront to intellectual integrity to believe something merely because it is useful and not because it is true.

    It also seems patronising to say, "well, let him or her have their beliefs because clearly that's what they need to do the right thing."

    Not that these arguments are necessary since all the evidence would seem to go against that line of thinking anyway - being religious statistically suggests a person to be more likely to find themselves in prison. There is little reason to believe that religion makes you a better person, but plenty to suggest that finding happiness and intellectual satisfaction will. Religion doesn't work to rehabilitate prisoners - giving them skills, teaching them how to deal with anger and psychological problems, and supplying them with the tools to allow them to find a better life outside of prison, to not depend on crime - that's the way forward. Let them find self-sufficiency and work towards their own happiness.

    To quote Bertrand Russell, "The good life, as I conceive it, is a happy life. I do not mean that if you are good you will be happy; I mean that if you are happy you will be good."
    complete farce. what about serial criminals? more appropraite, serial killers? mob bosses? etc.??? many of these people commit the crimes because they are happy to commit them. regardless as to how they 'got' there. case in point: Charles Luciano.

    it is not whether or not you are happy, because happiness is not forever. ergo, anyone temprarily unhappy, will commit a crime otherwise.
    this is false however. simply because you are unhappy, does not mean you will commit a crime.

    it is actually more about endurance. to endure pain. many religious express this as a virtue or a form of virtue. and yes, many religions do teach how to be disciplined enough to refrain from breaking these virtuous goals.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    who is inflicting damage on others? the 'born-again' prisoner or the people who helped him???

    this appears to be a statement, but you present it as a question. which is it?
    It is both. The word surely I have used as a prompting question.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    complete farce. what about serial criminals? more appropraite, serial killers? mob bosses? etc.??? many of these people commit the crimes because they are happy to commit them. regardless as to how they 'got' there. case in point: Charles Luciano.
    I wouldn't say the approach would work for all people - it is quite possible to be a happy sociopath - in general, however, I think that it holds. We should certainly try to rehabilitate people.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    it is not whether or not you are happy, because happiness is not forever. ergo, anyone temprarily unhappy, will commit a crime otherwise.
    this is false however. simply because you are unhappy, does not mean you will commit a crime.
    I would only suggest a correlation between happiness and moral behaviour (in the direction of happiness to behaviour). You have to slip quite a way in order to get from moral behaviour, past average behaviour, down into criminal behaviour - happiness (or the lack of it) alone would likely not account for that - but in terms of moving from average behaviour to moral behaviour, happiness could play a larger role.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    it is actually more about endurance. to endure pain. many religious express this as a virtue or a form of virtue. and yes, many religions do teach how to be disciplined enough to refrain from breaking these virtuous goals.
    Do you mean that the absence of criminality is down to endurance?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnPaul_)
    I always find that this is a poor argument brought up by the faithful.

    That somehow religion has a purpose, so long as it drags people out of their evil ways and puts them on the right path.

    I tend to think; well it still proves nothing? But even so, is their born-again faith something to tolerate if it helps them inflicting damage on others?

    The only response I can think of is that, theism cannot prove that said prisoner wouldn't of found new hope in something else?

    What's you're response?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    To me it argues for atheism. It shows how desperate theists can be and how religion is set up to appeal to vulnerable and desperate people. What else is someone who is send to life in prison going to live for? He has to believe in an invisible sky God and eternal life as his life on Earth is now effectively over and it would make anyone very depressed to think this way if they had life in prison. Religion gives them false hope that they can redeem themselves and live in heaven instead of the reality which is they will spend the rest of their life in a prison where they will die and never do anything great ever again.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, I'm an atheist, and in an ideal world everyone else would be too, but I have doubts about what a world entirely without religion would really be like.

    Believing in something that isn't true will always bring problems, but not everyone is a middle class, university educated westerner, who necessarily has the knowledge or training to deal with the idea of there being no ultimate authority, or eternal life. Remember that these religions are concepts we ourselves invented because at the time we needed them psychologically. (Religious people who fall into the midle class university categories are an entirely different matter, well worth debating).

    I'm aware the above paragraph could be seen as quite patronising, so I'd like to stress that it's very generalised. I simply mean that most of us won't have experienced a sense of utter hopelessness, and I think in that situation anything that helps is a good thing, true or not.


    "The final belief is to believe in a fiction that you know to be a fiction, there being nothing else." - Wallace Stevens (though he sees it as a positive thing).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I wouldn't say the approach would work for all people - it is quite possible to be a happy sociopath - in general, however, I think that it holds.
    it does not. you can not predict how a person will act simply because they are happy or unhappy when confronted with a moral delima. take bernard madoff for example. already rich, supposedly happy. yet frauded millions if not billions of U.S.D.

    morality is not subjective. it can't be. otherwise it can not be stated that a person will follow an absolute path of morality.

    There is little reason to believe that religion makes you a better person, but plenty to suggest that finding happiness and intellectual satisfaction will.
    your previous statement does not follow such concept. or that is how I have read it.
    We should certainly try to rehabilitate people.
    agree. ever see "what I want my words to do to you"?

    I would only suggest a correlation between happiness and moral behaviour (in the direction of happiness to behaviour). You have to slip quite a way in order to get from moral behaviour, past average behaviour, down into criminal behaviour - happiness (or the lack of it) alone would likely not account for that - but in terms of moving from average behaviour to moral behaviour, happiness could play a larger role.
    how? Luciano was happy. All the pictures you ever see of him, the guy has a smile on his face. true one can not pressume exactly how one is feels. however, in terms of what may be considered happiness in regards to what criminals do no have, Luciano had it all. money, power, protection, respect, etc. yet...was he moral?


    Do you mean that the absence of criminality is down to endurance?
    I am a little unsure about "is down". I will try to explain. if a person is unhappy and decides to commit a crime out of depression/desperation, then those things influence that decision. however, if a person endures their depression/desperation, then there is no crime.

    If a person feels pressured or (for lack of a better word) extreme force pushing them into a crime, then to endure this would be to withold from commiting the crime.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    it does not. you can not predict how a person will act simply because they are happy or unhappy when confronted with a moral delima. take bernard madoff for example. already rich, supposedly happy. yet frauded millions if not billions of U.S.D.
    If you will read what I wrote, I did not imply you could "predict how a person will act simply because they are happy or unhappy". I said that happiness and perceived moral behaviour share a correlation.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    morality is not subjective. it can't be. otherwise it can not be stated that a person will follow an absolute path of morality.
    I do not believe morality is subjective either.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    your previous statement does not follow such concept. or that is how I have read it.
    agree. ever see "what I want my words to do to you"?
    I didn't see it.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    how? Luciano was happy. All the pictures you ever see of him, the guy has a smile on his face. true one can not pressume exactly how one is feels. however, in terms of what may be considered happiness in regards to what criminals do no have, Luciano had it all. money, power, protection, respect, etc. yet...was he moral?
    Yes, he may well have been happy. I only suggested that a correlation existed, not a law that applied to all individuals.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    I am a little unsure about "is down". I will try to explain. if a person is unhappy and decides to commit a crime out of depression/desperation, then those things influence that decision. however, if a person endures their depression/desperation, then there is more like be no crime.

    If a person feels pressured or (for lack of a better word) extreme force pushing them into a crime, then to endure this would be to withold from commiting the crime.
    Ah, ok I understand your idea now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It makes them look like they have turned a corner whilst in prison. Gives them a nice (albeit) fake angelic glow.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    well it's religion at it's most useful - making the stupid and violent behave themselves. it might be a delusion but give me a religious nutter over a dangerous criminal any day.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    If you will read what I wrote, I did not imply you could "predict how a person will act simply because they are happy or unhappy". I said that happiness and perceived moral behaviour share a correlation.
    but not causation?


    I didn't see it.
    real interesting. I had to watch it for a class. bunch of women talking about their crimes. murder mostly. then they figure some some stuff out and there is a whole moral crossing and moral delima. it relates to this thread in some ways.
    Yes, he may well have been happy. I only suggested that a correlation existed, not a law that applied to all individuals.
    okay
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of society might not forgive a prisoner for committing a crime, but religion teaches forgiveness if you are willing to repent. And also going forward, it can then give that person guidance in living their life.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    but not causation?
    Yes, causation: I believe happiness would exert an effect on one's propensity to exhibit moral behaviour.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Yes, causation: I believe happiness would exert an effect on one's propensity to exhibit moral behaviour.
    correlation does not create causation though. so just because there is something noticed to be present with another subject, does not mean one causes the other.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    correlation does not create causation though. so just because there is something noticed to be present with another subject, does not mean one causes the other.
    I am well aware of that - that is why I made it clear my understanding of the direction of causation.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.