The Influence of Christianity on the Perception and Assessmemt of Evil

This topic submitted by Nicholas Burns and Levi Grooms (nik4alanis@aol.com) at 4:31 pm on 5/4/01. Additions were last made on Saturday, March 2, 2002. Section: Cummins.

The Influence of Christianity on the Perception and Assessment of Evil

Nicholas Burns and Levi Grooms

NS II--The Nature of Human Nature, Professor Hays Cummins

Western College Program, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056

"There is indeed a force devoted to enticing us into various pleasures that are in our genetic interest but do not bring long-term happiness to us and may bring great suffering to others." -Robert Wright
ABSTRACT
Through this human nature field project, we have investigated the influence of religion on a peoplesÕ perception and assessment of evil. The focus of this study began with exploring concepts and working definitions of good and evil and recognizing social groups such as religion. To obtain empirical data, we surveyed a group of 100 people that identified themselves as either belonging to Christianity or no religion. The survey asked the individual to rate 10 different evil situations on a scale of 1-10 based on the degree of evilness (10 being most evil). We found that the Christian ratings for rape, murder, deceive/lie, premarital sex, war, tease/insult, incest, and illicit drug use were significantly higher than the no religion ratings. There was no significant difference found between the Christian and no religion ratings for suicide and loot/steal. We can reasonably conclude that these results indicate an intense Christian concern for their actions being a rebellion against a supreme authority and the pressures of their social religious grouping.

INTRODUCTION

Our specific question for research is: How and to what degree does religion, specifically Christianity, influence an individualÕs perception of evil?

Initially, it was our intent for this human nature field project to explore concepts of good and evil and formulate some conclusive information to answer whether or not, or to what degree, humans are innately evil. While we will still be partly investigating concepts of good and bad, good and evil, we resolved that it would be too difficult to separate what is thought to be intrinsic evil from social constructs. Therefore, our revised question for study arises from inquiries concerning what personal characteristics influence what a person perceives as evil. For the sake of focus and concentration, we have decided to closely examine religion, Christianity versus no religion, and test for its affect on individual perceptions of evil.

The foremost problem involved in this plan of study is conceiving working definitions for good and evil. We strongly believe that there will be measurable variability in what people perceive as evil based on demographic information and personal characteristics including age, gender, race, religion/belief, and academic major. The analysis of our experiment will focus solely on religious aspects. Using empirical data gained from human surveying, we plan to accomplish our goal and find a correlation between assessment of evil situations and whether a person identifies him or herself as a Christian or belonging to no religion. The evil ÒsituationsÓ involved with our experiment, that will be discussed further in materials and methods, are: rape, murder, deceive/lie, premarital sex, loot/steal, war, suicide, tease/insult, incest, and illicit drug use. Our hypothesis contends that the individuals who identify themselves as Christians will rate all of the aforementioned ÒsituationsÓ with a very significant higher degree of evilness than the individuals claiming no religion.

This research is interesting because concepts of good and evil are constantly being revisited and redefined in contemporary society. Evil is an extremely broad and abstract idea that is not static from person to person or social grouping. Much of the literature dealing with evil and its affectations attribute social behavior and the predominance of social groupings on a personÕs estimation of evil. Religion is at the forefront of social groups considered to shape assessments of evil.

RELEVANCE

When exploring the disciplines of theology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology, and their interrelated disciplines, one cannot avoid discussions of good and evil. Most literature contains roundabout discussions concerning these two concepts rather than providing concrete, finite definitions. Much of these discussions involve the asking of more specific questions such as: Is evil universal? How is evil conceived? Why are some persons evildoers? Why are people victims of evil? How can evil be prevented and combated? The search for a universal comprehension of evil and the self is continual. ÒEvil...is an axample of the workings of the selfÓ (Redfearn 190). Each literary source that we examined for this project made the assertion that each being of free will has the potential to commit and or promote evil. Leonard E. Doob states that "Éevery man contains within himself a mixture of good and evil" (4). The most solid definition of evil that we could find, other than evil is the absence of good, which is defended by all sources, was based on the observations of Doob. Although not exactly similar, most of the discussions and working definitions of evil provided by our other literary sources indirectly support the definition provided by Doob. Doob declares that there are two criterions for establishing the existence or non-existence of evil. These criteria are psychological and social or moral. The psychological involves pain, unhappiness, suffering, and otherwise negative or aversive feelings. The social/moral criterion, which provides for the basis of our experiment, is the condition in which aversive feelings or actions are considered undesirable by one or more judges. All literary sources recognize that even within a given society, the concept of good and evil fluctuates. Evil seems to exist primarily in the eye of the beholder, especially in the eye of the victim. Each person, and every social grouping, has his or her own values, which are utilized to judge. Values are neither universal nor eternal; thus, there can be no universal set of evil. Varying perceptions of evil will emerge. This is what we are testing.

ÒAncient civilizations elaborated comprehensive schemes for interpreting evil as that which detracts from the good...a specific problem arising from and needing to be dealt with by specific measures of social...interventionÓ (Eigen and Nelson 17). It is argued that perceptions of evil are directly related to higher-order moral principles. The most salient experimental work in this approach was done by Feather (1975) and Rokeach (1968) who defended that these moral principles, in conjunction with belief, attitude, and values, are used to deduce particular concrete decisions within a given culture. These researchers make it clear that these values are critical organizing principles of social moral function. Religion is a prime example of the application of social moral function. In support, Doob asserts that evil is "universal as a result of the nature of an inevitable system of theology to which [man] subscribes" (25). What is the result of the social function of Christianity on perceptions of evil?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To test our hypothesis, we will be using a survey to prove what relationships exist between religion and an individualÕs perceptions of evil. In this survey, participants will be asked to organize a list of actions from most to least evil. The actions or situations we have chosen to include are: rape, murder, deceive/lie, premarital sex, loot/steal, war, suicide, tease/insult, incest, and illicit drug use. These all have predominately evil connotations and are supported by various literature. The final tabulation of the data will provide conclusive information of perceptions of evil amongst the survey population, yet not necessarily the population at large.

Aside from the survey data, we will rely on an extensive literature review concerning past and present definitions and workings with the concept of evil. We will rely on our peers for not only survey data, but will also ask for their input on perfecting our survey technique. This dialogue will help us to both increase the usability of our survey and may provide vital insight on our topic for further investigation.

Our sample audience consisted of 100 students between the ages of 18 and 22 that identify themselves as Christian or of no religion residing on campus at Miami University. This tactic will allow us easy access to our subjects, as well as enhancing the relevance of this study to our particular course.

The data was analyzed using Statview and SuperANOVA.

Our survey template (in Microsoft Word 4.0 format) is available here.

TIMELINE

Week 9 (3/6 Ð 3/8): In-class poster presentation, edit / print surveys, progress report
Week 10 (3/20 Ð 3/22): Distribution / Collection of surveys, continued
Week 11 (3/27 Ð 3/29): Distribution / Collection of surveys, progress report
Week 12 (4/3 Ð 4/5): Compilation of survey data, begin data analysis
Week 13 (4/10 Ð 4/12): Further data analysis, progress report
Week 14 (4/17 Ð 4/19): Completion of data analysis, research review
Week 15 (4/24 Ð 4/26): Begin Final Paper
Week 16 (Finals): Project completion

RESULTS

The data collected (in Microsoft Excel format) is available here.

Figures 1-8 graphically show our results as a comparison of mean and +/- standard deviation values. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference between the Christian and no religion assessments of the evil Òsituation."

Figure 1. This graph is a comparison of the Christian and no religion assesments of rape. A p value of .0016 indicates that this difference is highly significant, rejecting the null hypothesis.

Figure 2. This graph is a comparison of the Christian and no religion assesments of murder. A p value of .0335 indicates that this difference is significant, rejecting the null hypothesis.

Figure 3. This graph is a comparison of the Christian and no religion assesments of deceive/lie. A p value of .0018 indicates that this difference is highly significant, rejecting the null hypothesis.

Figure 4. This graph is a comparison of the Christian and no religion assesments of premarital sex. A p value of .0001 indicates that this difference is highly significant, rejecting the null hypothesis.

Figure 5. This graph is a comparison of the Christian and no religion assesments of war. A p value of .0003 indicates that this difference is highly significant, rejecting the null hypothesis.

Figure 6. This graph is a comparison of the Christian and no religion assesments of tease/insult. A p value of .0006 indicates that this difference is highly significant, rejecting the null hypothesis.

Figure 7. This graph is a comparison of the Christian and no religion assesments of incest. A p value of .0176 indicates that this difference is significant, rejecting the null hypothesis.

Figure 8. This graph is a comparison of the Christian and no religion assesments of illicit drug use. A p value of .0002 indicates that this difference is highly significant, rejecting the null hypothesis.

The comparison of the Christian and no religion assessments of stealing produced a p value of .0678. This difference is not significant, thus, we accept the null hypothesis.

The comparison of the Christian and no religion assessments of suicide produced a p value of .5626. This difference is not significant, thus, we accept the null hypothesis.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our original intent for this research project was fueled by a desire to determine what is - or is not - evil. As we researched the topic and personally reflected on this age-old question, we realized the truly subjective nature of our endeavor. To realistically search for a universal comprehension of evil, an understanding must first be made of how deeply the interpretations of the experience of evil are embedded in the symbolic foundations of all known civilizations and how those interpretations change over time.

ÒEvil appears to have been an intrinsic part of human existence fro,m earliest times, universally conceived as a potent and destructive force, yet represented in diverse ways according to different religious and cultural contextsÓ (Eigen and Nelson 36). Specifically, Christian civilizations regard evil as sin and sin as rebellion. Christian perceptions and assessments of evil are based on the Òtheme of rebellion by an individual against the supreme authority in the established normative order and against the rules by which this order operatesÓ (Eigen and Nelson 18). This connection is central to the Christian tradition and we feel it is largely illustrated through our results.

To many, the attempt to truly understand evil is filled with inconsistencies and contradictions. Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck provides an example of the complexities within such a concept by saying, Òalthough evil is anti-life, it is itself a form of life. If we kill those who are evil, we become evil ourselves; we will be the killers.Ó This contradiction has been the subject of a timeless debate in the Christian faith, as many wrestle with the existence of evil and the existence of an all-powerful, purely good God. From a theological perspective, evil is seen as a promotion of destruction and fruitlessness; defiance against the will of this higher power - both actions escaping the process of rational thought.

Our most significant data was found in the comparison of attitudes held by Christian respondents against non-believers, reinforcing that the schema which lead one to determine evil is largely influenced by the religious influences in their personal environment. Personal attitudes are largely affected by the perceptions we form of the world around us, each being of free-will has the opportunity to employ those decision-making powers as we gather information about the world in which we live. Christianity, as a representative of social institutions in general, provides those who subscribe to its beliefs a number of precepts to use when processing the information received during life. Its prescriptions for thought, action, and belief are taught in the hopes of curbing human desires for the betterment of the whole of society.

Our study goes to reinforce the notion that evil is a subjective, perceptually-driven concept. An action or event is merely that, until a judgment is passed down along the lines of oneÕs personal attitudes and beliefs. While a uniform consensus of what is or is not evil will never be reached, the data we collected can be interpreted to predict what influence various factors hold over such a concept. Despite our preconceptions, not all of the data collected was found to be statistically significant. While this might very well indicate a distinct separation between the variables tested, further testing over a larger survey base is necessary before making any definite conclusions.

For further research, the surveys would encompass a wider variety of evil deeds - including those which are specific to a particular group or culture - or widening the survey population to include members of various age and educational strata. Also, by compiling more demographic information per each respondent, even more complex conclusions may be drawn on the creation of perceptions of good and evil. By adding this new data to that which we have compiled here, it may be possible to map the attitudes held in regards to evil across many socially and demographically barriers.

WORKS CITED

Doob, Leonard E. Panorama of Evil. Greenwood Press. Connecticut, 1978.

Eigen, Michael and Marie Coleman Nelson, eds. Evil: Self and Culture. Human Sciences Press. New York, 1984.

Feather, N.T. Values in Education and Society. New York: Free Press, 1975.

Peck, M. Scott. People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.

Redfearn, Joseph. The Exploding Self. Chiron Publications. Illinois, 1992.

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 1968.

Wright, Robert. The Moral Animal. Vintage Books. New York, 1994.

WORKS CONSULTED

Carruthers, Peter. Human Knowledge and Human Nature. Oxford University Press. New York, 1992.

Baumeister, Roy F. Evil: Inside Human Cruelty and Violence. W.H. Freeman and Company. New York, 1997.

Grand, Sue. The Reproduction of Evil: A Clinical and Cultural Perspective. Analytic Press. New Jersey, 2000.

Kraut, Richard. Aristotle on the Human Good. Princeton University Press. New Jersey, 1989.

Lyman, Stanford M. The Seven Deadly Sins: Society and Evil. General Hall. New York, 1989.

Musson, John. Evil - Is It Real? Edwin Mellen Press. New York, 1991.