Just found this interesting article

From the archives of Psychology Todaycountering misinformation about secularism and religion

Interesting reading …


Yes, very interesting indeed. Thank you for the link.

"Research has consistently found that religious people are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, maritalinfidelity, alcoholism, and unprotected sexual activity. "

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … ROFLMAO!

This article is way off base, to the point where I question if it’s a genuine publication or just some fabricated news spread by someone.How could Psychology Today publish such crap?

1 Like

Actually, read on, the whole thing. It refers to another article that makes that claim, discusses it, and then refers to other articles that show the opposite. It concludes that

Of course, studies can be cherry-picked to present religiosity in a better light than above, and the point of this article is not to prove the moral superiority of secularism. Nevertheless, whatever Plante wishes to cite, it is impossible to claim that studies “consistently” support his claims of positive social outcomes correlating to religion. To the contrary, the weight of most data seems to indicate that religiosity is a poor indicator of social health or personal virtue.


This will help make sense of the article…

Thomas G. Plante, Ph.D., ABPP is the Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J. University Professor, professor of psychology, and by courtesy, religious studies, at Santa Clara University and adjunct clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Duh! Who could have guessed that!

He recently served as vice-chair of the National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Youth for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and is past-president of the Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (Division 36) of the American Psychological Association (APA).

So, Basically, not only can he not write a psychological article, but he has done a really shit job of protecting children from the Catholics.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … what a joke!

1 Like

Actually, the article I presented was written by David Niose, stated clearly at the beginning as the author, and who was first presenting, then refuting , Plante’s assertions.

The article begins thus:

1 Like

Yes, I got that. I was attempting to make the point (obviously unsuccessful) ‘the assertions Plante made, made sense, given his personal religious background and leanings.’ I am surprised Psychology Today published something so irresponsible as that.

1 Like

Thank you very, very much for providing this.

I am a very secular, humanistic Jew . . . and I’ve often had to contend with the idea (even in my professional life in healthcare) that I don’t deserve the same level of trust as everyone else because I don’t buy into religion in the same way that everyone else does.

It seems to be a common canard that atheism automatically equates with being a sociopath . . . as if the only reason to be altruistic (or “good”–in however you define the term) is a supernatural reward vs. punishment schema.

In the book below (by Ray Comfort), please notice the people that he chose to illustrate the cover:

We have Jim Jones (the cult leader who orchestrated the Jonestown mass suicide), and the cannibalistic serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer lumped in with George Carlin, Bill Nye, and Richard Dawkins.

Oddly enough, this equation of religiousity with being trustworty was even the position of the military. Atheists are punished in basic training, and military recruits are screened for “spiritual fitness.” Atheistic officers don’t advance (as a military officer is expected to pray with his soldiers before a battle, and sarcasm or insincerity in this process is believed to cost lives), and atheists are automatically assumed to be cowards on the battlefield as they have no afterlife to transition into after they get killed.

It has been somewhat similar when I worked in EMS. Firefighters often have a prayer circle (with a chaplain) before going into a burning building or other mass casualty incident.

I was derided and viewed with suspicion when I spent this time reviewing blueprints, checking equipment . . . or sometimes doing a little yoga and/or meditation to loosen up, get limber, and mentally focus . . . although I must point out that I was just a paramedic and not a firefighter. I did–however–face similar hazards.

Or–to look at this in another way–how did religion prevent Hamas from killing, torturing, and kidnapping defenseless children, babies, and college students at a desert music festival? How did religion prevent them from violating Islamic law when they disfigured the corpses?

1 Like

Hey, that one is obvious: They are the wrong kind of religionists. They are not jesusians, so they cannot be moral. (sarcasm, if that wasn’t obvious)


Thank you for responding, and I agree with your point.

Organized religion seems far more useful as a tool for soothing one’s conscience when when it comes to "othering"and/or bullying people whom are different . . . which seems–at least for me–to counter the claim the religion is necessary for morality.


Guess there was no room for Bertrand Russell.

1 Like