How about this concideration

[ProfessorDavey]

which is why I used the term non religionist. Don't understand why you think that studies which show people judge non religionist as less likely to be moral, and that people who affirm are less likely to be truthful isn't an argument to move to a general non specific affirmation.

No - from what I read in the article the study focussed entirely on belief in god, not on religiosity.

I'm also rather sceptical of the study as the wording of the question seems rather biased - if the article is correct the terms used were ' a believer in God' and a 'non believer'.

These aren't really neutral and equivalent - surely better to talk about someone who 'believes in God' compared to someone who 'does not believe in God'.

The exact wording in surveys of this type can completely change the fundings, so need to be chosen very carefully.

Unfortunately there isn't a link to the actual published research study so it is rather difficult to judge its quality.

However I remain unconvinced it is relevant as making the following statement:

"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

tells us nothing about the person's belief in god nor their religiosity - I suspect that there are many believers and religious people who chose to affirm rather than give a religious oath, as they will feel that a court of law is a secular rather than a religious institution.

[Nearly Sane]

No - from what I read in the article the study focussed entirely on belief in god, not on religiosity.

I'm also rather sceptical of the study as the wording of the question seems rather biased - if the article is correct the terms used were ' a believer in God' and a 'non believer'.

These aren't really neutral and equivalent - surely better to talk about someone who 'believes in God' compared to someone who 'does not believe in God'.

The exact wording in surveys of this type can completely change the fundings, so need to be chosen very carefully.

Unfortunately there isn't a link to the actual published research study so it is rather difficult to judge its quality.

However I remain unconvinced it is relevant as making the following statement:

"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

tells us nothing about the person's belief in god nor their religiosity - I suspect that there are many believers and religious people who chose to affirm rather than give a religious oath, as they will feel that a court of law is a secular rather than a religious institution.

Which is all well and good but if there is a perception that a religious affirmation is somehow seen as more trustworthy , I still don't see why your position is relevant to it being better for all affirmations to be the same

[Shaker]

But giving an affirmation rather than an oath is no guarantee that the person is an atheist [...] I suspect that there are many believers and religious people who chose to affirm rather than give a religious oath, as they will feel that a court of law is a secular rather than a religious institution.

May be wrong on this but typically don't Quakers affirm?

[Robbie]

Yes they do, that's where I go t the idea from as my mother comes from a Friends background. Lots of people affirm though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32809040

[ProfessorDavey]

Which is all well and good but if there is a perception that a religious affirmation is somehow seen as more trustworthy , I still don't see why your position is relevant to it being better for all affirmations to be the same

But you haven't provided any evidence to support a suggestion that a religious affirmation is somehow seen as more trustworthy. In the increasingly secular UK it could just as easily be argued that someone who places their hand on a religious text and make an oath to god may be seen as odd, different and therefore inherently less trustworthy.

Truth is neither of us has evidence to support either assertion. A universal affirmation, which would necessarily need to be secular, would solve the problem in part - however jury members will still make snap judgements about a person based on other things - so for example were the person giving evidence dressed in a manner that clearly indicates they are likely to be a muslim, or an orthodox jew inherent biased (whether that be good or bad) is likely to come into play.

[Nearly Sane]

But you haven't provided any evidence to support a suggestion that a religious affirmation is somehow seen as more trustworthy. In the increasingly secular UK it could just as easily be argued that someone who places their hand on a religious text and make an oath to god may be seen as odd, different and therefore inherently less trustworthy.

Truth is neither of us has evidence to support either assertion. A universal affirmation, which would necessarily need to be secular, would solve the problem in part - however jury members will still make snap judgements about a person based on other things - so for example were the person giving evidence dressed in a manner that clearly indicates they are likely to be a muslim, or an orthodox jew inherent biased (whether that be good or bad) is likely to come into play.

The original article gives indication that it might be an issue. There is at least sine methodology in the combination of the mock trials and the concept that the religious are seen as more moral. I agree that it's not any where near conclusive but it has more validity than you just suggesting with nothing more than your opinion that people swearing a religious oath might be seen as somehow less reliable.

Even were it to be so, then that would then be an argument from the other side for there to be a single affirmation, since I think we should be aiming to reduce any prejudices caused by different methods. That we can't eliminate them all isn't an argument against doing as much as possible.

[ProfessorDavey]

The original article gives indication that it might be an issue. There is at least sine methodology in the combination of the mock trials and the concept that the religious are seen as more moral.

No - the original article makes an assertion - the 'mock trials' are from the USA, where there is a massively greater prejudice against atheists than in the UK. And, of course, as I keep pointing out - opting for affirmation rather than oath doesn't indicate that the person is atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

No - the original article makes an assertion - the 'mock trials' are from the USA, where there is a massively greater prejudice against atheists than in the UK. And, of course, as I keep pointing out - opting for affirmation rather than oath doesn't indicate that the person is atheist.

Yes, I know you keep pointing it out, I just don't know why as it's essentially irrelevant to the question of removing as much prejudice as possible as I pointed out in my last post. However  you edited that bit out for some reason.

[ippy]

I thought in the UK you had the choice to swear or affirm (the latter being a non religious alternative). I've only given evidence in Tribunals, but these are still courts of law, and I've always been given the option to affirm.

Yes you're right Proff D but have a look at the link it's very interesting.

ippy

[ippy]

I thought the suggestion of taking the oath or affirming before going in front of the jury held a certain amount of credence, I don't know.

I doubt the religious minded would want to go for a level playing field, however fairly it was arranged.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes you're right Proff D but have a look at the link it's very interesting.

ippy

Yes I have now - but I think attitudes, certainly in the UK are rather more complicated than the 'believer in god = good', 'atheist = bad' assertion.

As we become increasingly secular in the UK we become, as a society, less accepting of religion and religious people as inherently good. Indeed with a decline in the proportion of actively religious people in the UK those that are left tend to be rather more likely to be seen as extreme rather than good.

So for example a comprehensive survey of social attitudes a couple of years ago showed that 61% of people agreed or strongly agreed that religion was a negative influence compared to just 15% who saw religion as a force for good. Is a jury with a similar demographic make-up more or less likely to look favourably to someone who swears a religious oath on the bible or koran compared to someone who makes a much more neutral secular affirmation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes they do, that's where I go t the idea from as my mother comes from a Friends background. Lots of people affirm though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32809040

It would be interesting to know the proportions of people nowadays who affirm rather than make a religious oath on the bible/koran etc.

My experience is very limited, restricted to a couple of employment tribunals - but in those, all but one of those giving evidence (probably about a dozen people) affirmed rather than gave an oath. I suspect that probably isn't far off the norm, as I suspect all but the most religious would feel a bit uncomfortable making an oath on a holy book. That would include people who believe in god but aren't religious and probably those who have nominal but not active religious belief - I suspect for those swearing on the bible (for example) would seem just odd, particularly when there is a much more accessible alternative, the affirmation, available.

[ProfessorDavey]

It would be interesting to know the proportions of people nowadays who affirm rather than make a religious oath on the bible/koran etc.

My experience is very limited, restricted to a couple of employment tribunals - but in those, all but one of those giving evidence (probably about a dozen people) affirmed rather than gave an oath. I suspect that probably isn't far off the norm, as I suspect all but the most religious would feel a bit uncomfortable making an oath on a holy book. That would include people who believe in god but aren't religious and probably those who have nominal but not active religious belief - I suspect for those swearing on the bible (for example) would seem just odd, particularly when there is a much more accessible alternative, the affirmation, available.

Hunting around I can't find any stats on affirmation vs oath, although there are a few 'blog' pieces on experience.

I think a lot will depend on the clerk and the neutrality with which they explain the options to witnesses etc. In my case the clerk was entirely neutral, he explained that I could either affirm (and gave me a card with the words I would have to say) or I could swear an oath on a holy text (and also he gave a card with the words). I was then asked which option I wished to go for, and my choice was recorded. I think with that kind of unbiased neutrality many, probably most, will go for affirmation.

Reading around I've heard of other experiences which weren't neutral at all - including a jury where the clerk asked whether everyone was OK to swear on the bible, without actually explaining that there is another equally acceptable alternative.

[ippy]

Hunting around I can't find any stats on affirmation vs oath, although there are a few 'blog' pieces on experience.

I think a lot will depend on the clerk and the neutrality with which they explain the options to witnesses etc. In my case the clerk was entirely neutral, he explained that I could either affirm (and gave me a card with the words I would have to say) or I could swear an oath on a holy text (and also he gave a card with the words). I was then asked which option I wished to go for, and my choice was recorded. I think with that kind of unbiased neutrality many, probably most, will go for affirmation.

Reading around I've heard of other experiences which weren't neutral at all - including a jury where the clerk asked whether everyone was OK to swear on the bible, without actually explaining that there is another equally acceptable alternative.

Yes it would be imteresting to me, having said that I think you'll find we're allready making quite a substancial impression into the Humanist weddings and funerals departments.

ippy