Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers

Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers

Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers


Since it is not possible to edit the title of the thread,
Highly Religious People Are Less Motivated by Compassion Than Are Non-Believers

Interesting.

Indeed.

Religion = Fake morals?

Oh my... so since "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," well then that's obviously irrefutable proof. End of story. No need for discussion. Research has proven it and we all know that research is never biased...never wrong... never starts out with an agenda and proves what it already set out to prove. Uh huh.

Well, consider how many self-proclaimed True Believers(tm) kept telling us that without their religious beliefs they would be raving murderous psychopaths?

Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.
(from the linked article)

I know: Sanguinemoon blocked me! (But –seriously– this is deemed science?!)

"Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people," Willer said.
(ibid)

Con men just love this trait! (Ask Obama…)
The article can be found here.

Anyone want to pony up $25 USD for one day's access to this ground-breaking work? (Let me know: I'll read it, for free… )

Originally posted by leushino:

Oh my... so since "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," well then that's obviously irrefutable proof. End of story. No need for discussion. Research has proven it and we all know that research is never biased...never wrong... never starts out with an agenda and proves what it already set out to prove. Uh huh.

Of course, that's why it's posted in Debates & Discussions. Obviously that means no need for discussion

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by leushino:

Oh my... so since "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," well then that's obviously irrefutable proof. End of story. No need for discussion. Research has proven it and we all know that research is never biased...never wrong... never starts out with an agenda and proves what it already set out to prove. Uh huh.

Of course, that's why it's posted in Debates & Discussions. Obviously that means no need for discussion

Of course not. Onward Christian Soldiers!

Originally posted by leushino:

Oh my... so since "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," well then that's obviously irrefutable proof. End of story. No need for discussion. Research has proven it and we all know that research is never biased...never wrong... never starts out with an agenda and proves what it already set out to prove. Uh huh.

This isn't the plain packaging thread, research can be debated here.

Odd (no it's not) you didn't try. It's more than likely true tho. Religious folk probably do pretend to be compassionate more often than not because it's expected by their social standards. Why wouldn't they? To not or to be out done by another means you're less righteous. Atheists and less religious people aren't measured by how good they act... They do what they feel is right because it's right. Not cause they wanna look good to others.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

(But –seriously– this is deemed science?!)

I also have similar thoughts when I see "science news" like this.

I even begin to think that poor Russian science is not that bad. At least it does not waste it's money on researches like "how blindness is connected to sex orientation".

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Of course not. Onward Christian Soldiers!

I'm pretty sure you mean (and everyone takes you to mean): Onward! Anti-Christian soldiers!

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Atheists and less religious people aren't measured by how good they act... They do what they feel is right because it's right. Not cause they wanna look good to others.

Of course, only "in the moment"…

I'm hungry! Do I care if you refuse me a crust of bread because you're a Save Yourself! Republican Christian or because you know you can't pass me off as a legitimate voter at the polls?

BTW, ensbb3: "Atheists and less religious people aren't measured by how good they act..." That's exactly how I've always measured people: By how good they act.
I have never cared what they understood to be their reasons, nor their motives — when their acts had bad effect.

You think (and measure) differently?

Apparently.

Sincerity earns points. Being generous is fake if you only want to impress me or the great sky daddy. Do it because it feels right, you'll feel better and it'll be more effective. It's not a competition. Fake leads to fake and nothing of substance.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Sincerity earns points.

With whom?

Results matter. Good intentions are quite often the means of achieving great evil… (You've heard of the Spanish Inquisition? The best interests of the heathens, Jews, Mohammedans and heretics were paramount, you know?) Simply achieving a little good along with your warm fuzzy feeling doesn't seem a great advance, to me.
(Of course, you have the means to determine what's in a man's heart? )
But –as George Burns said, long ago– "Sincerity's the key! Once you learn to fake that, you've got it made…" Nah. I don't buy it.

Psychology is to science as pandering is to orange juice.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Good intentions are quite often the means of achieving great evil…

How about: Bad intentions disguised as good intentions are quite often the means of achieving great evil.

The study was funded by grants from UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center, UC Berkeley's Center for the Economics and Demography of Aging, and the Metanexus Institute. (from the article)

Greater Good Science Center? Is "Good Science" just as "good intentions"? No wonder such a nonsense.

Curious. Maybe you don't like the name or the research results, and I'm not saying I know it's 100% correct. But it does seem to have a point. Other than the name, can you refute it?

Christians act in public based on how they wanna be precived. Yet behind closed doors, or when pushed to the limit show their true colors. I've seen it so many times. If it's not sincerely what you think it will come out eventually. You're not fooling anyone. Other Christians just talk about you behind your back then smile when they see you. Such fake morals from such fake people, not all, but usually from the more devout.

One can only assume belief in a fake being leads to fake people and morals. Thus, fake leads to fake and nothing of substance.

Apart from noting where this comes from it is in simple terms - balderdash. Surveys are very often contradicted by actual outcomes,like say in the political world. In my long community work I did in a difficult and challenging area, compassion was my main exercise and included saving the lives of sucicidal young men in such backgrounds. Too much of an overstatement in this thread. Would be condemning all non-religious folk because Joe Stalin was a bad guy be just as balanced?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Greater Good Science Center? Is "Good Science" just as "good intentions"? No wonder such a nonsense.

(Sorry to be so late with this:) Had you decided to "miss" the obvious, that the center's name refers to the "greater good" of Utilitarianism?

(Needless to say?: I'm more of a Consequentialist…)

Originally posted by ensbb3:

One can only assume belief in a fake being leads to fake people and morals. Thus, fake leads to fake and nothing of substance.

Perhaps you'd read this by G. E. M. Anscombe? Or are you too young to have the patience for such discourse? (Would you define virtue as authenticity? )

This is not surprising, given the politics of most religious people in the US. They line up in droves to vote GOP candidates that promise to reduce social spending, funding for women's healthcare, etc.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Had you decided to "miss" the obvious, that the center's name refers to the "greater good" of Utilitarianism?

Utlitarianism doesn't make too much sense, hell is full of good intentions.
I wanted to point that "greater good" is a dangerous and frequently abused concept, as that "science" center seems to be doing by supporting a biased article.
Afterall the greater good for German was to got rid of Jews.

Briggs mentioned this "study" a while back… (The previous post on WEIRD test subjects is also good!) ensbb3 asks "can you refute it?" I wouldn't pay $25 to do so! Besides, Sang's opinion is good enough for me: If he isn't surprised, it's surely politically motivated pseudo-science.

It is a rather puzzling oddity that the more active religious people (not all of course but large numbers) go delirious over much of the GOP's stances. As much as I like my kirk, I am glad we don't have that phenomena here. We just wouldn't recognise such a national strangeness at all.

Really? It seems that religious people are more driven forward by feeling than non-believers. Just listen to any hymn. Also, there are videos where religious people whip themselves into hysteria over "God."


Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnpI-4HgZnc

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Psychology is to science as pandering is to orange juice.

Quoting myself? Is there a D&D rule against that?

Babies -- so cute, so precious, so ... racist? University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers placed sensors on the heads of 9-month -old babies (this already sounds like a dystopian nightmare) and measured brain activity when infants were shown pictures of white and black faces expressing emotion. Five-month-old babies could differentiate between happy or sad faces in both races equally. Nine-month-old babies related better to their own race. Also, the 5-month-olds' brain activity happened in the front of the brain; the older, more racist babies experienced activity in the back. Researchers agree the clear solution is to put those racist babies in timeout! Just kidding: Researchers hope this sheds light on how our minds develop connections to different races in the first year of life.

See what I mean about psychology?

The "older, more racist babies"? WTF.

Ah! The pursuit of diversity yields some strange fruit:

Never has a human population been found that has no racial stereotypes. Not in other cultures or far-flung countries. Nor among tiny tots or people with various psychological conditions.

Until now.

Children with Williams syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that makes them lack normal social anxiety, have no racial biases. They do, however, traffic in gender stereotypes, said study researcher Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg of the University of Heidelberg in Germany.

Normally, children show clear preferences for their own ethnic group by the age of three, if not sooner, other research has shown.

And, indeed, the children in this study without Williams syndrome reliably assigned good traits, such as friendliness, to pictures of people the same race as themselves. When asked something negative, such as "which is the naughty boy," they overwhelmingly pointed to the other race.

Children with Williams syndrome, however, were equally likely to point to the white or black child as naughty or friendly.

While this study was done with white children, other research has shown that blacks and people of other races also think more highly of their own, Meyer-Lindenberg told LiveScience.
(read the whole article)

Note: "They do, however, traffic in gender stereotypes"! The search for human "perfection" continues...

Of course, there's good news: "Laughter is one of the least understood of human behaviors. Scientists have found that during a good laugh three parts of the brain light up [.]"

Unfortunately, they're only "[a] thinking part that helps you get the joke, a movement area that tells your muscles to move, and an emotional region that elicits the giddy feeling."
Still, it helps!

Wikipedian, I have no problem with Christianity as it has been a long influence on my family. Of course there are those who get into a frenzy but a tiny minority thank goodness and no doubt over-emotional folk. However such actions also can be attributed to unbelievers but the Atheist mob here like to be huffy, puffy, selective. And by the way Jaybro, I pander to orang juice but not for any suspect motive at all. In fact Irn Bru (especially the Diet version) is a non-pandering thingy too. In fact, blow the cocao, a wee glass of Irn Bru and then a lip-smaking sigh. Hope it doesn't make me a cultist of some sort?

To be honest, I consider myself to be an athiest.

Direct link for mobile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwwvBygoFA

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Wikipedian, I have no problem with Christianity as it has been a long influence on my family.

Yet one more reason to be wary of Christianonymity.

Kind of bemusing coming from someone who is overly sharp toothed and flaying around here on religion. You have one thing in common with the religious Right in the ex-Colonies - rabid.

This article seems to be somewhat of a Rorschach test - I'm reading the opinions here and everyone seems to have a different idea of what it says.

It's not saying that Christians lack compassion. It's saying that the religious will tend to act charitably regardless of their emotional connection to that person, whereas those who are not religious will only be more likely to help if they feel compassion.

Or to put it another way - if you're taught that helping is a good thing, then do it without having the internal debate. Introspection is for moral relativists.

What would be more interesting is to analyse the motivations for refusing to help.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Kind of bemusing coming from someone who is overly sharp toothed and flaying around here on religion. You have one thing in common with the religious Right in the ex-Colonies - rabid.

I would call it more
"once bitten twice shy".

Regarding "Babies -- so cute, so precious, so ... racist? University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers placed sensors on the heads of 9-month -old babies […]" — Briggs reports:

Anyway, our trio gathered babies together whose “parents reported their infants having had little to no previous experience with African American or other Black individuals.” They did not do the opposite and find babies who never saw white faces. They had 24—count ‘em—5-month-olds and 24 9-month-olds. This makes 24 + 24 = 48, a simple math equation, but important to assimilate because of the authors’ admission that for the behavioral analysis

43 infants were excluded due to experimenter or technical error (n = 8), because they became fussy during testing (n = 1), because they exhibited a side looking bias (n = 14), because they failed to fixate both images during one of the test trials (n = 18), or because the infant was not Caucasian (n = 2).

I leave it as homework to discover what is 48 minus 43. For the electrophysiological analyses, they had 15 5-month-olds and 17 9-month-olds, but 19 these were added to the result from the homework question (how many were 5-months old or 9-months old we are never told); however, 23 of these 15 + 17 = 32 were excluded too. What we have here, in statistical terms, is small sample (get it? get it?).

(Of course, there's more…)

It seems like such a long time ago that Jerry Pournelle wrote about the Voodoo Sciences. And –sometimes– it seems like only yesterday.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

It seems like such a long time ago that Jerry Pournelle wrote about the Voodoo Sciences. And –sometimes– it seems like only yesterday.

Even trials that don't produce positive results need to be published. That's not voodoo, it's essential. One other thing to learn from this - don't read the PR piece, read the paper.

I think you'll find it's a lot worse than that! Give Daniel Sarewitz's editorial in Nature, Beware the creeping cracks of bias, a peek...

(I certainly agree, that reading the published paper is to be preferred. But I won't pay what I consider an outrageous price to do so.)

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Religion = Fake morals?

YES!!! Religion, if given the leway, will tell you that certain morals are either good or bad.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Really? It seems that religious people are more driven forward by feeling than non-believers. Just listen to any hymn. Also, there are videos where religious people whip themselves into hysteria over "God."

i'm not religious and im pretty sure i can do a lot more than the closed minded super-christian.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

I think you'll find it's a lot worse than that!

And I think you'll it's not as bad as you think. A little critical thinking and debate tends to keep the boogeymen at bay. And if we could push the corporate interests back a bit too, that'd be great.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

YES!!! Religion, if given the leway, will tell you that certain morals are either good or bad.

So will the non-religious. There isn't one among us that doesn't live by a code of values, whether it be derived from a holy book or a lifetime of watching Disney films.

The only difference is that some feel the authority is more important than the teachings.

When I help out a friend, or a stranger, you can bet your bottom dollar it's due to compassion and emotion.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

And if we could push the corporate interests back a bit too, that'd be great.

I'm guessing it's a Scottish thing-ie…

"They're turnips fro' which ye canna' get blood!
But ha' been like that sin' a'fore the flood…"
They're no more misers then any others;
Tho' to hear 'em speak, none else had mothers!
You'd think from all their rhetoric-lathers
That they'd all been slighted as without fathers…
Well, they might ha' been. And they might well be:
What matters that, to no posterity?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

There isn't one among us that doesn't live by a code of values, whether it be derived from a holy book or a lifetime of watching Disney films.

Jaybro is code free. He eats sparrows, or not, totally on whim. It's called random morality.
.....
Never help a stranger unless you know him....or her.

I would remind you Virusboy that it is not just super Christians who have closed mindsets. Super Atheists have them and surface here as you will note above.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I would remind you Virusboy that it is not just super Christians who have closed mindsets. Super Atheists have them and surface here as you will note above.

no they just got sick and tired of the Jesus freak crap(don't blame them) and that science proves what a deity can't. Or as my fiancee' puts it "I have no problem with GOD, just can't stand his followers."