Why Christianity?

[quote=“antarcticbeech”]
Morality and religion are not outside the purview of science. Just as geologists study mountain ranges and biologists study animals and plants, scientists are out there right now studying human morality and religions. . [/quote]

Aren’t value neutrality and positivism essential methodological assumptions of the scientific method? When values and the untestable are central to what they’re trying to study, I don’t see how they can ever hope to penetrate far beneath the surface of such things. At best, they can construct a taxonomy based on salient features. William James already did that about as thoroughly as can be done, except I think he left out the murderous fanatics from distant Araby. He lived in more innocent times.

Of course, not all that goes by the name of science is in fact science. This global warming stuff seems like a cross between a doomsday cult and a political power grab. And if this study of religion ends up as a branch of psychology – which it most likely will – then psychology is as soft as soft science gets, as politicized as politicized science gets, and not all that value-neutral.

[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“Ermintrude”]
You can argue, as an outsider, why anything is bad, illogical, whatever, but religious faith doesn’t operate like that. So if you want to kill all religion, you have to change tack and get a paintbrush. Put the banjo down because we’re just laughing at you and wondering why you’re waving it at the roof.
[/quote]

Naw. From what we can see, all it takes is prosperity and education and it will wither away by itself.

That was my reaction to Phillip Pullman’s Dark Materials Trilogy attacking Christianity, and my reaction to New Atheist attacks- it’s like announcing your taking a strong stand against heliocentrism.

I mean, a hundred years ago it might have been necessary, but these days? Unless you live in Alabama or Uganda or some similar place…meh, why bother? Hell, even Ireland doesn’t pay attention any more.[/quote]

Haha, those books were boring. My sister was all ‘Like OMG awesome!!!’ but I got almost halfway through the third one and just gave up. Choir-preaching, 2-D male middle-class wish-fulfilment zzz-fest. I understand it was a children’s book, but even so. I liked the river gypsies in Jericho thing, as if anyone but posh folk have houseboats in Oxford. The Devil is in the detail. :laughing: But we pick our art because it interests us on many levels, because it confirms and connects us to others who share its truth and that’s important. I’m not going to waste my life on Pullman because I find it fairly artistically rough-hewn and intellectually and emotionally sterile. Others find it expresses what they feel or think and get that fuzzy sense of identification with other humans which is so important.

Monotheism still exists, in the richest most educated parts of the world. It will paass, as mmulti-theism did/is doing. You’re just not considering your own thoughts to be religious expressions because your mind is the product of a binary, monothestic cultural environment.

As I said, the human brain that created theism for its own purposes. The human mind hasn’t fundamentally changed but the way it exprsses itself has. Publishing paradigms changed theistic religious expression, not our money or our impression that we have better education than the past. Seriously, you’re hitting at it from the wrong angle. How we make our art now is part of it.

I’m afraid they are. To be within the remit of science something must be falsifiable - in principle, at least. The Deist who argues for God’s existence as scientific fact must be able to design an experiment which might demonstrate his non-existence. If he can’t do that, then his assertion is ‘Not even wrong’. Religion is faith and nothing more. Similar reasoning applies to the Atheists too; in that sense Atheism is a religion, even if it has a null deity.

Neither can Deists ‘prove’ their position scientifically because that’s simply not what science does. Science can put forward hypotheses - preferably supported by some observational evidence - and then try to knock them down. That’s all.

We can still attempt rational debate, I guess, but there’s not much point invoking science. As Ermintrude said, it’s like trying to use a badger to paint the ceiling. Or whatever it was.

I’m not talking about God. I’m talking about people. Religion is a part of human behaviour and psychology. These things are not outside the purview of science.

The studies exist, whether you like it or not.

Also, if you want to claim that atheists have no morality then it should be possible to find evidence that supports this statement, like higher incarceration rates, or how secular societies are more immoral than religious ones. ‘Atheists have no morality’ is a falsifiable statement.

Right- this is where we get into sophisticated theology, or as I call it, the woollies. What are ‘religious expressions’? The feeling of beauty I experience when looking at a rainbow? I find it usually takes something that vague to encompass our modern followers of ‘spirituality’- but hey, peace, love, and groovy- I’m in favour of all three.

I’m afraid they are. To be within the remit of science something must be falsifiable - in principle, at least. The Deist who argues for God’s existence as scientific fact must be able to design an experiment which might demonstrate his non-existence. If he can’t do that, then his assertion is ‘Not even wrong’. Religion is faith and nothing more. [/quote]

Well, a lot of religious people would disagree with you- but I have no quarrel with a theist who says God does not now, never has had, nor ever could have any effect whatsoever on the Universe.

Um, no. The theist/religious person is asserting that a particular something exists. The atheist is saying “Do you have any evidence of that?” If the theist says “yes”, then we can examine it. If the theist says “no”, then we can place it in the category of the “not worth considering as a possibility (at this time)”.

It’s like the invisible, inaudible, intangible monster that lives in my closet until I open the door at which point he disappears into the twelfth dimension. You don’t have to give consideration to that unless I can provide some evidence; I can’t say “you can’t prove it doesn’t exist; therefore we are on equal footing in relation to belief in its existence”.

The atheist is in the same position in relation to God/the gods/the Great Spirit/Force/Holy Whatever

Yes, psychologists , anthropologists, sociologists, neurologists etc can study various aspects of religious belief and behavior; they can for example study why religious belief diminishes whenever a modern society reaches a certain level of education and prosperity. What they can’t say is whether these beliefs are warranted or not.

Same thing with morality. I believe human morality has its origin in our evolution as social animals living in small related groups.
OTOH, this doesn’t help me when someone asks why they should act morally now. After all, the best evolutionary strategy is “convince everyone else to act morally, then cheat.”

Yes- then the theist claims we’re just coasting on the fumes of their previous morality- that’s why they love to quote Nietszche so often.

Here is a relevant article.

[quote=“Sociology Compass 3/6 (2009): Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions”]

Values, Beliefs, Opinions, and Worldviews
It is often assumed that someone who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs. Being godless does not mean being without values. Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions. But more significantly, when we actually compare the values and beliefs of atheists and secular people to those of religious people, the former are markedly less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less close-minded, and less authoritarian (Greeley and Hout 2006; Sider 2005; Altemeyer 2003, 2009; Jackson and Hunsberger 1999; Wulff 1991; Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992, 1997; Beit-Hallahmi 2007; Beit-Hallahmi and Argyle 1997; Batson et al. 1993; Argyle 2000).

Concerning political orientations, atheist and secular people are much more likely to be registered Independent than the general American population, and they are much less likely to be right-wing, conservative, or to support the Republican party than their religious peers (Kosmin 2008). Keysar (2007, 38) reports that 50 percent of American atheists are Independent, 26 percent are Democrat, and 10 percent are Republican and that 43 percent of American agnostics are Independent, 22 percent are Democrat, and 15 percent are Republican. Greeley and Hout (2006) report that only about 21 percent of people claiming ‘‘no religion’’ voted for Republican candidates in recent elections. In the 2008 presidential election, specifically, 76 percent of atheists and agnostics voted for Obama, and only 23 percent voted for McCain (Barna Research Group Survey 2008). Grupp and Newman (1973) and Nassi (1981) have found that irreligiosity is strongly and consistently correlated and with liberal, progressive, or left-wing political perspectives, and Gay and Ellison (1993) found that – when compared to various religious groups – nonreligious Americans are the most politically tolerant, supporting the extension of civil liberties to dissident groups.

As for gender equality and women’s rights, atheists and secular people are quite supportive (Hayes 1995b). Recent studies show that secular individuals are much more supportive of gender equality than religious people, less likely to endorse conservatively traditional views concerning women’s roles, and when compared with various religious denominations, ‘‘Nones’’ possess the most egalitarian outlook of all concerning women’s rights (Brinkerhoff and Mackie 1985, 1993; Petersen and Donnenwerth 1998; Hoffman and Miller 1997). Additional polls reveal that abortion rights are more likely to be supported by the secular than the religious (Gallup Poll 2006; ABC News Poll 2001). Concerning the acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay rights, atheists and secular people again stand out (Linneman and Clendenen 2009; Hayes 1995b). When compared with the religious, non-religious people are far more accepting of homosexuality and supportive of gay rights and gay marriage (Sherkat et al. 2007; Burdette et al. 2005; Lewis 2003; Loftus 2001; Roof and McKinney 1987), and are far less likely to be homophobic or harbor negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Altemeyer 2009; Rowatt et al. 2006; Schulte and Battle 2004; Aubyn et al. 1999; VanderStoep and Green 1988; Kunkel and Temple 1992). According to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Survey (2008), 60 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans support gay marriage, compared to roughly 26 percent of Protestants and 42 percent of Catholics. According to Newport (2008), 76 percent of Americans who never or seldom attend church consider homosexuality morally acceptable, compared with 21 percent of weekly and 43 percent of monthly church attenders.

Additional studies consistently find that atheists and secular people tend to take a more liberal ⁄ progressive stand on a multitude of contemporary social issues (Hoffman and Miller 1997; Hood et al. 1996; Nelson 1988). For example, secular Americans were far less supportive of the U.S. invasion of Iraq than religious Americans (Smidt 2005); only 38 percent of secular Americans favored invasion compared with 68 percent of Evangelical Protestants, 57 percent of Mainline Protestants, and 58 percent of Catholics, and 47 percent of Jews. Guth et al. (2005) found that only 32 percent of secular Americans consider the Iraq War justified, compared with 89 percent of Mormons, 87 percent of Evangelicals, 73 percent of Mainline Protestants, and 84 percent of Catholics. When it comes to the death penalty, atheists and nonreligious people are also markedly less supportive than their religious peers (Beit-Hallahmi 2007; Gallup Poll, 2004). As for the general treatment of prisoners, secular people are much less supportive of retribution and are less likely to favor harsh ⁄ draconian sentencing than religious people (Grasmick et al. 1992; Blumstein and Cohen 1980). A recent survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Survey (2009) found that secular, religiously unaffiliated Americans are the group least supportive of the governmental use of torture. Concerning doctor assisted suicide, non-church attenders are much more likely to support it than weekly church attenders (Carroll 2007; Stark and Bainbridge 1996), and support for stem cell research is strongest among the secular (Nisbet 2005); Harris Poll (2004) found that 84 percent of ‘‘nonreligious’’ Americans support stem cell research, compared with 55 percent of ‘‘very religious’’ Americans. Finally, secular people are much more likely to support the legalization of marijuana than religious people (Gallup Poll, 2005b; Hoffman and Miller 1997).

The above information reveals that atheists and secular people have very clear and pronounced values and beliefs concerning moral, political, and social issues. As Lynn Nelson (1988, 134) has concluded, religiously unaffiliated people ‘‘have as well-defined a sense of social justice as weekly churchgoers.’’ But I would go farther. I would argue that a strong case could be made that atheists and secular people actually posses a stronger or more ethical sense of social justice than their religious peers. After all, when it comes to such issues as the governmental use of torture or the death penalty, we see that atheists and secular people are far more merciful and humane. When it comes to protecting the environment, women’s rights, and gay rights, the non-religious again distinguish themselves as being the most supportive. And as stated earlier, atheists and secular people are also the least likely to harbor ethnocentric, racist, or nationalistic attitudes. Strange then, that so many people assume that atheists and non-religious people lack strong values or ethical beliefs – a truly groundless and unsupportable assumption.

Criminality and Moral Conduct
In many people’s minds – and as expressed so clearly in Psalm 14 cited at the outset of this essay – atheism is equated with lawlessness and wickedness, while religion is equated with morality and law-abiding behavior. Does social science support this position? Although some studies have found that religion does inhibit criminal behavior (Baier and Wright 2001; Powell 1997; Bainbridge 1989; Elifson et al. 1983; Peek et al. 1985) others have actually found that religiosity does not have a significant effect on inhibiting criminal behavior (Cochran et al. 1994; Evans et al. 1996; Hood et al. 1996). ‘‘The claim that atheists are somehow more likely to be immoral,’’ asserts Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi (2007, 306), ‘‘has long been disproven by systematic studies.’’

Admittedly, when it comes to underage alcohol consumption or illegal drug use, secular people do break the law more than religious people (Benson 1992; Gorsuch 1995; Hood et al. 1996; Stark and Bainbridge 1996). But when it comes to more serious or violent crimes, such as murder, there is simply no evidence suggesting that atheist and secular people are more likely to commit such crimes than religious people.
After all, America’s bulging prisons are not full of atheists; according to Golumbaski (1997), only 0.2 percent of prisoners in the USA are atheists – a major underrepresentation.

If religion, prayer, or God-belief hindered criminal behavior, and secularity or atheism fostered lawlessness, we would expect to find the most religious nations having the lowest murder rates and the least religious nations having the highest. But we find just the opposite. Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is deep and widespread (Jensen 2006; Paul 2005; Fajnzylber et al. 2002; Fox and Levin 2000). And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon (Ellison et al. 2003; Death Penalty Information Center, 2008). Furthermore, although there are some notable exceptions, rates of most violent crimes tend to be lower in the less religious states and higher in the most religious states (United States Census Bureau, 2006). Finally, of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries, and of the eight cities within the United States that make the safest-city list, nearly all are located in the least religious regions of the country (Mercer Survey, 2008).

What about altruism? Although studies report that secular Americans donate less of their income to charitable causes than the religious (Regnerus et al. 1998), it should be noted that it is the most secular democracies on earth – such as Scandinavia – that donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations (Center for Global Development, 2008). Furthermore, secular people are much more likely than religious people to vote for candidates and programs that redistribute wealth from the richer segments of society to the poorer segments through progressive taxation. Finally, Oliner and Oliner (1988) and Varese and Yaish (2000), in their studies of heroic altruism during the Holocaust, found that the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews.[/quote]

The statement that atheists are less moral people is falsified.

Debating atheism in Taiwan strikes me as culturally myopic. Surely we should instead be discussing a-ghostism, the (possibly wicked or antisocial) belief that there are no Chinese-style malevolent ghosts. My mother would be a cultural a-ghostist, since she was brought up without any awareness of ghost belief, so it simply is not an issue for her. Others, however, may adopt a-ghostism by means of scientific thinking (even though science cannot disprove ghosts), or as a form of modernism / rebellion against societal values. Still others may not explicitly believe, but, in the dark of night, wonder if there are not ghosts after all.

What can we conclude about the moral state of those who deny ghosts? To begin with, we can assume them to be unfilial–after all, what’s to prevent such a person from neglecting the family altar, or skimping on their parents’ funeral ? Christians are an especially wicked lot, since many of them don’t do bai-bai at all, and their funerals are notoriously cheaper than the folk-religionist ones.

[quote=“Zla’od”]Debating atheism in Taiwan strikes me as culturally myopic. Surely we should instead be discussing a-ghostism, the (possibly wicked or antisocial) belief that there are no Chinese-style malevolent ghosts. My mother would be a cultural a-ghostist, since she was brought up without any awareness of ghost belief, so it simply is not an issue for her. Others, however, may adopt a-ghostism by means of scientific thinking (even though science cannot disprove ghosts), or as a form of modernism / rebellion against societal values. Still others may not explicitly believe, but, in the dark of night, wonder if there are not ghosts after all.

What can we conclude about the moral state of those who deny ghosts? To begin with, we can assume them to be unfilial–after all, what’s to prevent such a person from neglecting the family altar, or skimping on their parents’ funeral ? Christians are an especially wicked lot, since many of them don’t do bai-bai at all, and their funerals are notoriously cheaper than the folk-religionist ones.[/quote]

I would like to take three sticks of incense and bow before this comment.

[quote=“rowland”]
The secular West will fall, because it is has no firm foundation. It’s already crumbling in places. The only question is: what sort of faith will supplant it? Christianity has lost all self confidence. The Jihadists have plenty of self confidence. The man in the dynamite vest isn’t going to blink first.

And Progressives? A bunch of fanatics, minus the faith in something greater than their physical lives that makes personal existential risk feasible. They haven’t the stomach for a real fight. After they’re done eating the Christians’ lunch, they’ll be begging the Caliphate for mercy.[/quote]

I guess some of us don’t panic that easily.

Thinks for the Western democracies to have feared in the last 100 years:

1)The German General Staff 1914-1918/1939-1945.
2)The German U-boat Service 1914-1917/1939-1943 ( sank ships from under my grandfather and father.
3)The Imperial Japanese Navy.
4)The Soviet Army 1945-1989
5)The Soviet Air Force 1947-1989
6)The Soviet Strategic Rocket Service 1959-1989

Things for the Western democracies not to fear:

1)Mad bomber/terrorists, whether anarchists, Marxists, Muslims, racists, anti-government rightists etc.
2) Third-World tyrants of any persuasion
3) Raggedy-ass guerrillas whether in deserts or jungles.

MikeN:

Ai yo, such unlucky talk! You want I should die early?! But…thanks!

:notworthy: (<–strangely, THIS is the emoticon for “I am not worthy”)

Now that I think about it, maybe I’m being too hard on the Christians. After all, they too do rituals to propitiate / bribe / amass guanxi with certain spirits who might otherwise treat them malevolently–viz., God and Jesus.

[quote=“antarcticbeech”]I’m not talking about God. I’m talking about people. Religion is a part of human behaviour and psychology. These things are not outside the purview of science.

The studies exist, whether you like it or not. [/quote]

Ah, fair enough. Yes, I agree. I recall from classes that there is a bit of the brain which, when electrically stimulated, causes ‘religious experiences’.

I didn’t suggest either that secular societies must be more immoral than religious ones, or that ‘atheists have no morality’.

Just to be clear:

I assert that all human beings have the cognitive machinery to construct moral codes, but not inbuilt moral codes. Therefore (as superking hinted somewhere back there) both atheists and theists will construct a moral code from whatever ideas are floating around in the air. The process is identical in both cases (it must be - they’re all human beings). People who live in fucked-up societies will absorb bad moral codes, and people people live in stable ones will absorb good moral codes. The labels placed upon those codes are of no importance.

  • If a country calls itself Christian and yet perpetuates non-Christian (anti-Christian?) morals, it clearly isn’t Christian, and it will be fucked-up.
  • If a country calls itself ‘atheist’ or ‘secular’ and yet is based on values that are congruent with Christian tradition (as, for example, in the US and the UK), those values will produce a strong and successful nation.
  • A country that is explicitly atheist lays itself open to poisonous ideas because there is no religious tradition that would reject such ideas.
  • A country that subscribes to a poisonous religion will be fucked-up forever without hope of redemption.

Which all boils down to a fairly mundane observation: a Christian country which is genuinely Christian will embody a socially-useful set of morals. MikeN, I think, is arguing that this is a circular definition, but it’s only so for people who don’t know what’s written in the New Testament. I’m not arguing that it’s the only way that such morals can arise.

But you’re right: all this is testable. I wonder who would be interested in funding me? :whistle:

Confucianism is an interesting case. Modern Confucianism has been heavily modified since Confucius’ original writings. During his lifetime, he was largely ignored anyway; he was a fairly minor figure until various political factions started to find his ideas useful. In their original form, his proposals were very similar to the teachings of Christ, although for obvious reasons no contemporary link exists. The correlation with Christian thought may have resulted in some cultural cross-pollination (in both directions) as the centuries rolled on. From Wikipedia:

One of the deepest teachings of Confucius may have been the superiority of personal exemplification over explicit rules of behavior. His moral teachings emphasized self-cultivation, emulation of moral exemplars, and the attainment of skilled judgment rather than knowledge of rules. Confucian ethics may be considered a type of virtue ethics. His teachings rarely rely on reasoned argument and ethical ideals and methods are conveyed more indirectly, through allusion, innuendo, and even tautology. His teachings require examination and context in order to be understood.

Chomskyan linguistics. Conclusion = erm … we don’t know but a bunch of men will squirt off on the topic till the cows come home.

[quote=“finley”]

I assert that all human beings have the cognitive machinery to construct moral codes, but not inbuilt moral codes. Therefore (as superking hinted somewhere back there) both atheists and theists will construct a moral code from whatever ideas are floating around in the air. The process is identical in both cases (it must be - they’re all human beings). People who live in fucked-up societies will absorb bad moral codes, and people people live in stable ones will absorb good moral codes. The labels placed upon those codes are of no importance.

  • If a country calls itself Christian and yet perpetuates non-Christian (anti-Christian?) morals, it clearly isn’t Christian, and it will be fucked-up.
  • If a country calls itself ‘atheist’ or ‘secular’ and yet is based on values that are congruent with Christian tradition (as, for example, in the US and the UK), those values will produce a strong and successful nation.
  • A country that is explicitly atheist lays itself open to poisonous ideas because there is no religious tradition that would reject such ideas.
  • A country that subscribes to a poisonous religion will be fucked-up forever without hope of redemption.

Which all boils down to a fairly mundane observation: a Christian country which is genuinely Christian will embody a socially-useful set of morals. MikeN, I think, is arguing that this is a circular definition, but it’s only so for people who don’t know what’s written in the New Testament. I’m not arguing that it’s the only way that such morals can arise.[/quote]

Not exactly circular; more special pleading.

At least we now have a standard: Protestant nations of northern Europe and the Anglosphere are Christian- or, these days, I suppose coasting on the fumes of Christianity.

But this leads us into historical questions, such as: at the time the US and UK were becoming strong and successful nations, they were busily engaged in stealing land from its original inhabitants and enslaving other people. Now while these are both Biblical values, do they fall into your definition of Christian ones?

How about France? For most of the 19th Century, they were number 2, gradually being overtaken by the US and then Germany, but still undoubtedly strong and successful

Another question: over the course of human history, China has probably spent the longest period as a strong and successful nation. Where does it fall in your categories? Or are you restricting human history to the last few hundred years?

Spain? The Roman Empire? Persia? The Ummayad Caliphate? The Ottomans? the Mauryan Empire? Where do they fit?

Not to mention our beloved ROC (3% Christian).

Chomskyan linguistics. Conclusion = erm … we don’t know but a bunch of men will squirt off on the topic till the cows come home.[/quote]

Conclusin=erm…I have no interest in the OP’s topic, but I do enjoy stopping by to toss off random insults

Chomskyan linguistics. Conclusion = erm … we don’t know but a bunch of men will squirt off on the topic till the cows come home.[/quote]

Conclusin=erm…I have no interest in the OP’s topic, but I do enjoy stopping by to toss off random insults[/quote]

That’s not an insult. It’s me saying that it’s something that’s studied in a lot of fields. This stuff may be interesting if he’s interested in the q because I’m guessing finley studied something less stoopid that linguistics (my first degree).

I am very interested in the topic but this discussion is not going anywhere because you are all just repeating stuff you read.

Chomskyan linguistics. [/quote]

How so? It seems to be cognitive moral realism to me: we don’t have inbuilt codes (so not rationalism or Natural Law) but we do construct codes which reveal moral truths that can be tested by consequentialism.

Here is a little (food for) thought experiment

A prisoner is placed alone in a cell. A chain hangs from the ceiling and the prisoner discovers that pulling on the chain causes a portion of food to fall from a small hole in the ceiling neat the chain. And so the prisoner learns to feed himself - each time he pulls the chain, food falls through the hole into the cell. Opposite the cell is a second cell, able to be seen into by the prisoner. Initially, it is empty.

One day the prisoner wakes up to find the cell opposite occupied by a second prisoner wearing a collar. The first prisoner is hungry so he pulls the chain to get some food but at that exact moment the second prisoner is given an electric shock by the collar. After a couple of repetitions the first prisoner realizes that pulling on the chain now simultaneously delivers food but also shocks the second prisoner in the cell opposite.

And so the question is: if the first prisoner begins to starve himself, rather than shock the second prisoner, would that be evidence of morality?

An interesting footnote is that this is actually a real experiment performed in the 1960s by a Jewish psychiatrist on rhesus macaques. A large majority of macaques tested chose to effectively starve themselves for days rather than electrocute the monkey in the other cage. The study has not been repeated. None of the macaques in the study displayed sadism, although the sample size was not large enough to be representative macaquedom.

Why is it important that the psychiatrist was Jewish?