Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Religion Study Shows the Nonreligious More Compassionate than the Religious
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:03 AM
“Love thy neighbor” is preached from many a pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people.
Why is this the case?
“Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,” said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. “The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”Anyone who has read Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity, which was translated into English by George Eliot (this brilliant 19th century mind also translated Spinoza's Ethics), we will not be surprised by this finding. To believe that there is a better world beyond than the one that's here and now, here and all around us, is to see your time on earth as a great big test, a great big life simulator. For them, the world is fallen, the world is not real, the world is the shadow of a better place that's really real (Christianity is indeed a footnote on Plato). Those who believe in this kind of thing (the temporary world of life is fallen) will necessarily convince themselves that they are by nature bad and that all good acts do not come naturally to humans but are the fruits of great labor, soul-toil, vigilance, and fortitude.
On the other hand, those who do not believe that this world is preparing them for eternal life in the next, that this world is it, are more likely to see acts of kindness, compassion as a normal and necessary part of social existence.
2
Religion came from an even more violent, hungry, diseased and hopeless world than we can know. It is the result of desparation and lack of control in this world. It is the creation of the savage. And like the savage it breeds mistrust and fear and tribalism. Protect yourself and only those you know are safe. Fear reigns supreme.
3
@1: For exactly the reasons cited in the study: "doctrine, communal identity, and reputational concerns". And tithing goes into the church coffers, so I wouldn't use that as an example of compassion but rather as an example of club dues.
4
Good Morning Charles,
Happy May Day & Happy Law Day to you.
I do believe you and the study will get some dissent. I'll start by merely disagreeing. The study is self-serving and unbalanced. For an exercise, try the oppostie conclusion by the same means and you would find me in great disagreement as well. Would any atheist deny that he or she were charitable or compassionate?
Look, I do believe and it's evident that there are compassionate people that are religious and of course, compassionate people that aren't religious at all. An endpoint for a study to determine which side is more compassionate is absurd as sentiments for both sides would be very passionate. I dismiss this study Charles.
Happy May Day & Happy Law Day to you.
I do believe you and the study will get some dissent. I'll start by merely disagreeing. The study is self-serving and unbalanced. For an exercise, try the oppostie conclusion by the same means and you would find me in great disagreement as well. Would any atheist deny that he or she were charitable or compassionate?
Look, I do believe and it's evident that there are compassionate people that are religious and of course, compassionate people that aren't religious at all. An endpoint for a study to determine which side is more compassionate is absurd as sentiments for both sides would be very passionate. I dismiss this study Charles.
6
The motivation of people helping others is ultimately unimportant. Why people help is moot as long as they are helping. The big question is: who are kinder and more likely to help a stranger, religious or non-religious?
7
@4 Christ, you're one pretentious son of a bitch, you know that?
@6 Actually it matters quite a bit why people think they are helping, and not just that they think they are. It's the difference betwixt coming to an impoverished village with Bibles and to teach that condoms are evil versus coming with medicine and food. Both groups think they're helping there, but only one group, the one with it's motivation based in reality, is.
@6 Actually it matters quite a bit why people think they are helping, and not just that they think they are. It's the difference betwixt coming to an impoverished village with Bibles and to teach that condoms are evil versus coming with medicine and food. Both groups think they're helping there, but only one group, the one with it's motivation based in reality, is.
8
@4 - The other side of that coin is that people often self-identify as "religious," when they are nothing of the kind. Take that Republican audience at one of those endless debates who cheered at the prospect of letting people without insurance die. I'm sure they all claim to be Christians.
If this survey limited itself to people that actually understood their religions' teachings, I bet the results would be different.
If this survey limited itself to people that actually understood their religions' teachings, I bet the results would be different.
9
@6
"The big question is: who are kinder and more likely to help a stranger, religious or non-religious?"
I'd break it down a bit more:
1. a friend
2. a friend of a friend
3. someone in the same community (town / whatever)
4. someone in a different but non-aggressive community
blah blah blah
x. an enemy who had actively opposed you in the past
For an example of that last one, how many religious conservatives would help Dan if his car broke down?
How many Liberal atheists would help an anti-gay Republican if his car broke down?
"The big question is: who are kinder and more likely to help a stranger, religious or non-religious?"
I'd break it down a bit more:
1. a friend
2. a friend of a friend
3. someone in the same community (town / whatever)
4. someone in a different but non-aggressive community
blah blah blah
x. an enemy who had actively opposed you in the past
For an example of that last one, how many religious conservatives would help Dan if his car broke down?
How many Liberal atheists would help an anti-gay Republican if his car broke down?
10
Or, if you were into Nietzsche, you could argue that many Christians are nihilistic and decadent, and care nothing for this life or good acts or deeds for their own sake. Or is that too trite a 19th century German philosopher?
11
As my college roommate, a devout Christian, said to me once, "You're a better person than I am. We act in generally the same way but you do it with no fear of punishment nor expectation of reward".
@4, I think you're not grasping the distinction between deeds done and the motivation behind deeds done.
An atheist's motivation for doing a good deed is rooted in compassion and compassion alone. While a religious person's motivation is influenced by rules, regulations and doctrines - not to mention by the selfishness of believing that good works will win you favor in the eyes of god. This doesn't mean the work is devoid of compassion; just that it isn't the sole motivator.
@6, I'm with @7 here. Motivation can mean quite a bit. If you believe that sinners are unworthy of help regardless of their situations then your motivation is not human compassion and you're less likely to reach out to certain people. And the type and quality of help that you do give to people is impacted. Crisis pregnancy centers don't do a damn bit of good for young, unwed pregnant women. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, will give them whatever information they want, plus provide actual medical care, advice, and information. Plus, PP won't browbeat them into making a particular decision.
@4, I think you're not grasping the distinction between deeds done and the motivation behind deeds done.
An atheist's motivation for doing a good deed is rooted in compassion and compassion alone. While a religious person's motivation is influenced by rules, regulations and doctrines - not to mention by the selfishness of believing that good works will win you favor in the eyes of god. This doesn't mean the work is devoid of compassion; just that it isn't the sole motivator.
@6, I'm with @7 here. Motivation can mean quite a bit. If you believe that sinners are unworthy of help regardless of their situations then your motivation is not human compassion and you're less likely to reach out to certain people. And the type and quality of help that you do give to people is impacted. Crisis pregnancy centers don't do a damn bit of good for young, unwed pregnant women. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, will give them whatever information they want, plus provide actual medical care, advice, and information. Plus, PP won't browbeat them into making a particular decision.
12
@9. a relatively higher number than most other testable in/out-group scenarios. (how's that for hedging a hypothesis?) personally, i'd see it as a chance to model pro-social behavior.
also @9 is pretty much on point with the studies i'm familiar with, if we tweak her hierarchy a little. evo psych* seems like a good starting point for informing the ranking. most of its adherents would posit that "compassionate" behavior is applied with the greatest frequency/intensity beginning with those who share the most genetic similarity to you (&or otherwise benefit the survival rate of you and your offspring&kin). at least in hyper-social species like the human animal.
but then, enter mega societies that our brains are not evolved to work in. ideologies and the exploitation of vulnerabilities in our brain (perpetrated by powerful sources including but not limited to religious institutions) murk things up even more.
this context helps me understand the results of charles' study. please correct me if im wrong.
*from the quickest source to cite, wikipedia:
"In 1964, William D. Hamilton proposed inclusive fitness theory, emphasizing a "gene's-eye" view of evolution. Hamilton noted that individuals can increase the replication of their genes into the next generation by helping close relatives with whom they share genes survive and reproduce. According to "Hamilton's rule", a self-sacrificing behavior can evolve if it helps close relatives so much that it more than compensates for the individual animal's sacrifice. Inclusive fitness theory resolved the issue of how "altruism" evolved. Other theories also help explain the evolution of altruistic behavior, including evolutionary game theory, tit-for-tat reciprocity, and generalized reciprocity. These theories not only help explain the development of altruistic behavior, but also account for hostility toward cheaters (individuals that take advantage of others' altruism).[2]"
More...
also @9 is pretty much on point with the studies i'm familiar with, if we tweak her hierarchy a little. evo psych* seems like a good starting point for informing the ranking. most of its adherents would posit that "compassionate" behavior is applied with the greatest frequency/intensity beginning with those who share the most genetic similarity to you (&or otherwise benefit the survival rate of you and your offspring&kin). at least in hyper-social species like the human animal.
but then, enter mega societies that our brains are not evolved to work in. ideologies and the exploitation of vulnerabilities in our brain (perpetrated by powerful sources including but not limited to religious institutions) murk things up even more.
this context helps me understand the results of charles' study. please correct me if im wrong.
*from the quickest source to cite, wikipedia:
"In 1964, William D. Hamilton proposed inclusive fitness theory, emphasizing a "gene's-eye" view of evolution. Hamilton noted that individuals can increase the replication of their genes into the next generation by helping close relatives with whom they share genes survive and reproduce. According to "Hamilton's rule", a self-sacrificing behavior can evolve if it helps close relatives so much that it more than compensates for the individual animal's sacrifice. Inclusive fitness theory resolved the issue of how "altruism" evolved. Other theories also help explain the evolution of altruistic behavior, including evolutionary game theory, tit-for-tat reciprocity, and generalized reciprocity. These theories not only help explain the development of altruistic behavior, but also account for hostility toward cheaters (individuals that take advantage of others' altruism).[2]"
13
@12
"but then, enter mega societies that our brains are not evolved to work in."
I'd say that we have trouble working in any society larger past the point where we can recognize all the members. And even then we have problems if there's any kind of resource shortage.
Which gets back to the point of recognizing people who belong to a different group and who have personally attacked your group in the past.
If an anti-gay Republican saw Dan's car broken down, would he help Dan?
Or would he drive by content in the knowledge that God probably personally broke Dan's car to keep Dan away from infecting some religious group like their's?
If reversed, would the atheist stop or drive on with the comment "where is your God now"?
"but then, enter mega societies that our brains are not evolved to work in."
I'd say that we have trouble working in any society larger past the point where we can recognize all the members. And even then we have problems if there's any kind of resource shortage.
Which gets back to the point of recognizing people who belong to a different group and who have personally attacked your group in the past.
If an anti-gay Republican saw Dan's car broken down, would he help Dan?
Or would he drive by content in the knowledge that God probably personally broke Dan's car to keep Dan away from infecting some religious group like their's?
If reversed, would the atheist stop or drive on with the comment "where is your God now"?
14
Some people are dicks, and some people are nice.
Some people are religious, and some people are not.
I don't think there's anything like a perfect correlation between categories here.
Some people are religious, and some people are not.
I don't think there's anything like a perfect correlation between categories here.
15
@14: Of course there isn't a perfect correlation between the categories you list, however it's not outside the realm of possibility, or even probability, that there is a strong correlation between acting out of compassion and atheism, for all the reasons people cited above. Yes, some atheists are going to be assholes and not help anyone (I'm looking at you, Ayn Rand), and some religious people will act compassionately (now I'm looking at, uh, Mother Theresa, I guess), but we're not talking about the behavior of individuals, we're discussing broad trends associated with religious belief (or lack thereof).
16
@15, Hitchens had harsh words for Mother Teresa and I have to agree with him: Mother Teresa claimed to be acting out of compassion for these poor women and children. However, she did her absolute best to prevent them from getting access to or information about the one thing that is best able to help them escape from poverty: birth control. Women in developing countries who have access to birth control/the means to plan their families are the women - and consequently the entire families - that are able to claw their way out of poverty.
Mother Teresa's/The Catholic Church's charity wasn't without strings and one of those strings was no birth control. If you use birth control we won't feed your children. That's not compassion, if you ask me, that's coercion. And it goes back to the question of motivation in doing good works and what counts as compassion and what counts as a good deed without compassion. Good deed = feeding starving children. Good deed without compassion = feeding starving children only if you continue to birth more starving children.
Mother Teresa's/The Catholic Church's charity wasn't without strings and one of those strings was no birth control. If you use birth control we won't feed your children. That's not compassion, if you ask me, that's coercion. And it goes back to the question of motivation in doing good works and what counts as compassion and what counts as a good deed without compassion. Good deed = feeding starving children. Good deed without compassion = feeding starving children only if you continue to birth more starving children.
17
@14
"I don't think there's anything like a perfect correlation between categories here."
It doesn't have to be perfect.
But are more of the helpful people likely to be religious than atheists?
Or are more of the religious people likely to be helpful than mean?
And then reverse "religious" and "atheists" to cover the other side.
Particularly towards recognized individuals antagonistic to their group.
Jesus had the parable of the good Samaritan.
So the issue was recognized 2,000 years ago.
"I don't think there's anything like a perfect correlation between categories here."
It doesn't have to be perfect.
But are more of the helpful people likely to be religious than atheists?
Or are more of the religious people likely to be helpful than mean?
And then reverse "religious" and "atheists" to cover the other side.
Particularly towards recognized individuals antagonistic to their group.
Jesus had the parable of the good Samaritan.
So the issue was recognized 2,000 years ago.
18
@16: yeah, I don't really know much about the woman. Hence, my totally noncommittal reference. I would have cited my compassionate, loving, Christian uncle, but nobody knows that guy.
19
@8
Immoral people who claim to be religious aren't necessarily lying. They are probably just bad people AND religious people. Saying someone isn't "really Christian" because they don't act like you think a Christian should doesn't make it so. I'm sure you would fit that same criteria, in many others minds. It's easy for someone of a particular group to imagine that anyone in their group who behaves immorally was simply fooling everyone else the whole time because it serves your own pride in your community. All communities breed loyal and perverse members. You're no exception.
Immoral people who claim to be religious aren't necessarily lying. They are probably just bad people AND religious people. Saying someone isn't "really Christian" because they don't act like you think a Christian should doesn't make it so. I'm sure you would fit that same criteria, in many others minds. It's easy for someone of a particular group to imagine that anyone in their group who behaves immorally was simply fooling everyone else the whole time because it serves your own pride in your community. All communities breed loyal and perverse members. You're no exception.
20
@18, Ha! I hear you, I know plenty of decent compassionate Christians but "my best friend is a total sweetheart" isn't much of an argument.
I wasn't trying to attack your main poing but trying to build on the point made in earlier posts about why the motivation for doing something good is important.
I wasn't trying to attack your main poing but trying to build on the point made in earlier posts about why the motivation for doing something good is important.
21
I'll just point out my own personal example of christain charity. When I was 12 and my brother 10 we were told to save our allowances to put in the "children's tithe" a public display of ostentatious piety. My brother spent most of his on video games I saved all of mine but only put in half of what I had. When our dad found out I had not given all the money I had I got lectured for hours even though I had given twice what my brother had. My brother's donation of less was more meaningful even though he had spent most of it on himself.
22
I've found these conclusions to be true in my personal experience. Christians are all about rules and doctrines, do's and thou shalt not's. In the back of their minds, they think they are "storing treasures in heaven" and scoring brownie points for their good deeds. They fantasize and thirst for the approbation of others. Atheists and non-religious types, on the other hand, don't believe that their good deeds somewhere, somehow are getting tabulated and that they'll get a nice pat in the back. They do their good deeds out of empathy.
In short, Christians do their good deeds in public and atheists do then in private. Christians want credit for their good deeds and atheists just want the satisfaction of having made another's life just a little better.
This is one of the big reasons I've lost my respect for Christians. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt anymore because I've lived long enough. Generally speaking, the nicest, most considerate people are the secularists, while the Christians are punishment fetishists. They're the Republicans.
In short, Christians do their good deeds in public and atheists do then in private. Christians want credit for their good deeds and atheists just want the satisfaction of having made another's life just a little better.
This is one of the big reasons I've lost my respect for Christians. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt anymore because I've lived long enough. Generally speaking, the nicest, most considerate people are the secularists, while the Christians are punishment fetishists. They're the Republicans.
Comments (23) RSS