Religious people are 'more helpful, honest and generous'

[Virgil]

Elements of whether religion makes people better is throughout this forum. I came across this article of a study which I thought fascinating. I can tell you personally, when I get angry at someone and stop myself to ponder if God would want me to retaliate I behave better than when I don't stop to think of God.



Religious people are 'more helpful, honest and generous' say scientists
By David Derbyshire

Believing in God makes people nicer, a major study has concluded.

After analysing three decades of research, scientists say religion encourages individuals to be more helpful, honest and generous.

But believers acting for the greater good may be doing so to enhance their own reputation among friends and acquaintances, according to the review published today in the journal Science.

A study suggests that religion encourages people to be more helpful, honest and generous
Dr Ara Norenzayan, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia, Canada, said the debate over whether religion improves behaviour has too often been driven by opinion and anecdote. 'We wanted to look at the hard scientific evidence,' he said.
Published research into the links between religion and 'pro-social' behaviour showed that religious and spiritual thoughts reduced rates of cheating in games and increased trust between strangers.

Repeated studies have shown that those who frequently pray and attend religious services report more charitable donations and volunteer work, they said.
Religious people are more likely to take part in volunteer work, according to researchers


Some experts have questioned whether religious thoughts make you behave better - or whether nicer people are more likely to be religious in the first place. But the evidence suggests that fear of an all-powerful presence encourages good behaviour. [SNIP]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066784/Religious-people-helpful-honest-generous-say-scientists.html

Whatever you make of it, and I don't think it will alter anyone's opinions, it is an interesting study.

[billyjack]

That study rings true, no doubt. It leaves out the non-dutiful aspect of the religious folk though, their personality. It seems that religion, if followed in certain ways, can strip a person from that which made them them. Making an interesting guy of questionable morals into a "good" drag

[JCamilo]

It is non-sense. Religious institutions are more prone to organize voluntary work so they convice religious people to do it more often than not. It is a matter of how society is organized and not a matter of belief or not.

[wilbur lim]

Our Almighty LORD hitherto teaches us morals,obeisances,et cetera which is laudable.His teachings had instilled in all undoubtedly.Having morals inevitably alter one's demeanour.

[El Viejo]

Reminds me of another 'study' I heard touted months ago that found smarter people, ('smarter' as in higher IQ), are more likely to be acerbic, rude, and intolerant.

Science is about repeatable results. One study may bear further examination. Several with similar results suggests that we're on to something.

Taking the nice religious people and rude smart people studies together, without any other information, would suggest that smart people are likely to be irreligeous and religious people are likely to be dumb.

[Mr. Vandemar]

An interpretation of religion similar to mine does make a person more "helpful, honest, and generous" but that is not the only way. I know many atheists and agnostics that are much better people than myself.

[Drkshadow03]

Science is about repeatable results. One study may bear further examination. Several with similar results suggests that we're on to something.


From the article Virgil quoted, "Repeated studies have shown that those who frequently pray and attend religious services report more charitable donations and volunteer work, they said" (emphasis mine).

And from the article itself that Virgil didn't quote: "After analysing three decades of research, scientists say religion encourages individuals to be more helpful, honest and generous" (emphasis mine).

[JBI]

Just to play the Devils Advocate, it is true on a case by case study people may act better if they believe they will rot in hell otherwise, or that they have a "moral obligation" or some other such justification, but can we not root major problems to religion? Some people may throw a five dollar bill in a donation basket, but a country in the name of religion may also throw a 5 ton bomb on a country with the same justification. As it stands, religion has ceased to be a moral guideline, as it has ceased its applicability in the modern world, the way we see it.

What I mean is, there are nice people on both sides. But the truth is, especially here in Canada, people get a tax receipt for donations - no big deal, they merely transfer their money to their friends I.E. other believers, rather than the general public. Someone who pays his income tax (mostly people from lower and middle class brackets, as upper class people seem to find tricks to pay less than they should, and get away with it) are fulfilling their economic obligation. If we have taxes, we no longer need the donations basket, and therefore we no longer need god.

It is because of this that said justification has no purpose. Besides which, where is the sample taken? How does it work?

Most Atheists are hidden amongst the population, and don't personally care about this new atheist riff raff of hibity jibbity politics. They simply don't believe. Who is going knocking on their door and saying, "sir, do you believe in god, and if not, are you a stingy rude person?" There is a sample bias on this "study" to say the least.

Either way though, I can't see how this has any bearing. It is one study, and for the most part, Canadians are not as religious as they say. Besides which, giving 1000 dollars to a missionary group to go invade a culture and destroy it, which is counted charitable, is not actually. Going around helping to build churches is charity, but it shouldn't be considered as such. Giving money to your place of worship is considered charity, but it isn't. There are all sorts of technicalities which go against this argument, and seem to break it down.


Faulkner I think portrays the negative of religiosity the best, especially in Light In August. What "good behavior" (which is problematic of term to say the least) is done in the name of god is not necessarily good. Since we have no terms for what makes someone a "good" or "bad" person, than we simply cannot even begin to consider a sample, especially a one page article which clearly has no justification embedded in it.

Another note, to look at this in terms of class, and Marxist terms - Who is controlling the infrastructure? Is it religious people or Atheists, is it rich people, or poor people?

The majority of people are of a lower class, and the majority are religious. If one's religion helps them stay in line, as the cliché of the opiate purposes, it is understandable that they are "nicer, and more helpful' as apposed to actually doing something about it. The bulk of atheists are more educated, studies have shown, and the bulk of atheists aren't apparent in the population, studies have shown. How can we factor this in?

If the church, which is a business, there is no doubt, is sucking money out of people's pockets, and sticking it into their own causes, is that really making people "Better people" or "more helpful"? Is it really morally better? Christian culture may take care of its own, but look at all the Aboriginal Canadians who are suffering because of these charitable recites. The conditions on reserves in Canada are some of the worst in the country, yet which church is helping them? Maybe if they convert, and give up their culture more to the colonial god, the church may go ahead and build them a nice church on the reserve. But really, Christians helping eachother isn't a moral justification.

What is charity, and what is not is a subjective matter. Is volunteering at a Sunday school to preach the gospel really a volunteer job? The picture of the happy workers looks more like propaganda than anything else, as it is meant to show how "happy and hardworking" these religious people are, but what is really going on?

[princesspoppi]

I don't act 'nicer' because I am afraid of going to hell. For me when I became a Christian my worldview changed and I became more tolerant of other people and honestly I just wanted to be a better person ie tolerant, helpful, giving etc.

It is an interesting study, but I also know of Christians who are really not that nice after all. I think you have to look at the individual and their own views rather than grouping the 'religious' under one big 'nice' banner. Some have a motive that is purely for their own gain and there are others who do good works for others and not their own self gratification.

[Virgil]

Just to play the Devils Advocate, it is true on a case by case study people may act better if they believe they will rot in hell otherwise, or that they have a "moral obligation" or some other such justification, but can we not root major problems to religion? Some people may throw a five dollar bill in a donation basket, but a country in the name of religion may also throw a 5 ton bomb on a country with the same justification. As it stands, religion has ceased to be a moral guideline, as it has ceased its applicability in the modern world, the way we see it.

What country dropped a five ton bomb in the name of religion? I hope you don't mean the Iraq war, because, whether you support it or not, the war had nothing to do with religion.


What I mean is, there are nice people on both sides. But the truth is, especially here in Canada, people get a tax receipt for donations - no big deal, they merely transfer their money to their friends I.E. other believers, rather than the general public. Someone who pays his income tax (mostly people from lower and middle class brackets, as upper class people seem to find tricks to pay less than they should, and get away with it) are fulfilling their economic obligation. If we have taxes, we no longer need the donations basket, and therefore we no longer need god.
That's rediculous. Getting a tax break when you make a donation still means you are paying. If you donate $100 and you are able to deduct that from your taxes and you are in a 30% tax bracket, then you saved $30 off your taxes. That still means $70 came out of your pocket. And actually most people are not in a 30% tax bracket. Most are way less than that. Most charitble contribution is a persons free time in helping, and there is no compensation for that. Other than knowing you did a good deed. And what difference does that have between religious people and atheists? Atheists still get the same tax break and they despite that they don't donate as much as religious people.


From the article Virgil quoted, "Repeated studies have shown that those who frequently pray and attend religious services report more charitable donations and volunteer work, they said" (emphasis mine).

And from the article itself that Virgil didn't quote: "After analysing three decades of research, scientists say religion encourages individuals to be more helpful, honest and generous" (emphasis mine).

Very good D-Shadow. I was waiting for the typical "it's only a study" comment to point those things out. :D

When in this type of discussion, I'm always reminded of a quote from the great mafia movie "Goodfellas" where the narrator tells why he went into the life of crime.


Henry Hill: For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked ****ty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.

That my friend is the philosophy of the sstreets. If there is no fear of God and divine justice, then being a "goody-good" person is being a "sucker." It's what you can get out of life. There is no reason for doing good.

Here's the actual youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atsijRdLovo&feature=related. The actual quote is around the eight minute mark.

[SirRaustusBear]

A Goodfellas quote doesn't really fit here since your stereotypical Italian gangsters are usually pretty strict catholics. I'm not saying they all are, and the main character of Goodfellas was Irish anyway, but the point is that God doesn't stop people from agreeing with that quote.

The whole opiate of the masses argument fits this quite well, as the study demonstrates the religious to be more likely to acquiesce to societal mores in this respect. That being said, I'd rather live in a mean, free thinking society than a polite brainwashed one.

Also, even Christians should admit there is reason to do good without divine justice. How about valuing your fellow man. If you do good only for fear of punishment that isn't morality, it's self-preservation.

[Virgil]

A Goodfellas quote doesn't really fit here since your stereotypical Italian gangsters are usually pretty strict catholics.

Oh really? And how many Italian gangsters do you know?


Also, even Christians should admit there is reason to do good without divine justice. How about valuing your fellow man.
That and $2 gets you a ride on the New York City subway. In other words why should I value my fellow man? Give me a reason. Sure, if it doesn't cost me anything I'll be good to my fellow man. But if it costs me something, puh, I've got better things to do. ;)


If you do good only for fear of punishment that isn't morality, it's self-preservation.
Doing good is a comandement from God.

[Drkshadow03]

Uhm, looking at JBI's comments again makes me want to remind everyone that this wasn't a NEW study. It was a literature review that synthesized MULTIPLE previous studies and drew conclusions based on the results of those multiple studies.

I also find it really odd that he is willing to accept the multiple studies that show that atheists are smarter than religious believers, but not this one because it happens to have conclusions anathema to his own world-view, especially without having read the actual article.

-----------------------------------------------------------

With that said, now having read the article myself, JBI raises some good points that the researchers themselves brought up. Many of his accusations about sample "bias" against atheists are unfounded based off the structure of the various studies. The class and demographic issues are ameliorated since as the editors point out many of the studies adjusted for "income disparities, political orientation, marital status, education level, age, and gender." In other words, they kept many of those criticisms in mind and made sure it didn't bias their studies.

Now let's talk about where the review does collaborate with some of JBI's points. JBI's claim that religious generosity generally extends only to other believers seems spot-on with the results of the study, even more accurate would be to say other believers of the same religion or denomination. The literature review on the topic concluded that religious Prosocial behavior tended to benefit and occur specifically within the in-group where one's social reputation was at stake. Also, the belief in an anonymous being, whether that be G-d, the flying spaghetti monster, or the ghost of a classmate produced more Prosocial behavior (all these studies focused on environments that artificially created "in-groups" so to speak).

[JCamilo]

Because it is flawed, Religious institutions are how the western society organized most of voluntary work and all. There was never atheist institutions since atheists are not an organized cultural group.
So, the result is only logical as result of a society that is basically religious and until 2 centuries ago dominated by religious institutions. Not because an individual morality.

[hellsapoppin]

"Believing in God makes people nicer"


Definitely worth a thought or two. Here in Minnesota, I would say it is true, especially in regard to the more liberal religions such as Universalists, MCC, Catholics, and Lutherans. I cannot say this is true for the more conservative churches, especially the born again right wing Evangelicals who seem to view themselves as being better than everyone else.

[JBI]

When I was talking about the 5 ton bomb, I was more talking about the pending Iranian nuclear technology program. If Iran gets a nuke, you have to admit the chances of someone (I.E. either Iran or Israel) attacking is high. A war like that has nothing to do with anything but religion. In fact, it's only a matter of time before the pending disaster occurs, as Israel has already said they plan to bomb the development centers before said bomb is created.

Again, I must drag the conversation back to the niceness - is that a good thing? Is that religion keeping people in line, and slowing people's lives down, or is it really religion helping people? Do we want to keep, for instance, poor people quiet by feeding them religion? Marx is clear on this subject, when he notes that religion shuts people up - is this shutting up really a good thing? Perhaps it would be better if people, especially from the lower income brackets, weren't as nice and helpful, and did something about social injustice. Just a thought.

[Virgil]

When I was talking about the 5 ton bomb, I was more talking about the pending Iranian nuclear technology program. If Iran gets a nuke, you have to admit the chances of someone (I.E. either Iran or Israel) attacking is high. A war like that has nothing to do with anything but religion. In fact, it's only a matter of time before the pending disaster occurs, as Israel has already said they plan to bomb the development centers before said bomb is created.

Yes I didn't know what you were referring to. I see what you mean.



Again, I must drag the conversation back to the niceness - is that a good thing? Is that religion keeping people in line, and slowing people's lives down, or is it really religion helping people? Do we want to keep, for instance, poor people quiet by feeding them religion? Marx is clear on this subject, when he notes that religion shuts people up - is this shutting up really a good thing? Perhaps it would be better if people, especially from the lower income brackets, weren't as nice and helpful, and did something about social injustice. Just a thought.
Well, it was the religious institutions in the US that pushed for the end of slavery and for civil rights. Those poor people that you talk about could just as likely be atheists. I don't see atheist poor people doing any more or less for what you call social justice. [In my opinion and this is certainly a side note, social justice is equal opportunity.]

[SirRaustusBear]

I don't know any Italian gangsters, that's why I said stereotypical.

You used the quote from Goodfellas to suggest that if people didn't believe in God they would just sit around looking for the next opportunity to rip each other off. I was saying that people can come up with ways to rip each other off even if they believe in God.

I don't believe there is a supernatural being who decides which actions are good and which are bad. Morality, then, becomes a set of agreed upon guidelines within a society. Philosophers disagree how morality came about, Nietzsche thought it was the result of an instinctual pleasure felt upon witnessing the pain of others, and he may be right, I don't know. The point is, since our moral laws are not handed down by God, we are able to review them, and decide if they are really for the best for individuals and society as a whole. If everyone cares for their fellow men, everyone benefits, so there is a reason to do so.

Of course this is an honor system, and you could argue that as long as society in general follows this rule, you are better of as an individual cheating people. That would make you Thrasymachus, and Plato spent the entirity of The Republic trying to prove him wrong, so I'll let Plato's conclusions stand here, though I don't necessarily believe they are foolproof.

Making moral decisions based on societal good rather than on what God says allows morals to be adaptable, so we can realize that homosexuals or people of different faiths aren't hurting anyone simply by holding those beliefs or preferences, and can shift our morals to stop persecuting the innocent.

As for doing good being a commandment from God, that just reinforces my point. God tells you to be good, if you don't you don't get to go to heaven, so you're good out of self-interest. I am not saying all Christians are moral only out of fear of punishment, I'm just saying the threat of punishment cheapens the deed.

[Shalot]

Who is going knocking on their door and saying, "sir, do you believe in god, and if not, are you a stingy rude person?"


:lol: How funny. Maybe the next time one of those Russellites comes knocking on my door on Saturday morning, I should give them a "niceness" survey in exchange for their religious pamphlet. Unfortunately, I never answer the door when they come. They just slide their religious pamphlet under the door, so that I can pick it up and throw it away later. Did it never occur to them that maybe they shouldn't leave behind trash for other people to pick up?

How rude.

I don't think they're actually "Russellites" though. That's just the name my great-great aunt has for them and she's as country as they come. I think they're actually Jehovah's Witness.

And yeah, I don't really have anything to add to this discussion. I just read JBI's sentence and started laughing so of course I had to post.

But, speaking of rude, I was sitting in the courtyard at school reading the newspaper, when a guy came up to me and started his holiness talk and I tried to tell him in the nicest way I could that I had my own spiritual beliefs and that I just needed to read my paper at the moment. He became "huffy" to say the least. The way he acted, you'd have thought I told him to buzz off, using some other word besides buzz. He said something about how reading the paper was not more important than the salvation of my soul and his face was red and angry and I got up and left of course. He was not nice at all.

So maybe, in some instances religious people are not necessarily nicer, just nuttier.

Personally, I believe, with no research to back it up, that "spiritual" people and not necessarily "religious" people are nicer, and more willing to help out their fellow man. But that's just me.

[JBI]

Also, another point - do religious people get negative points for annoying non believers? On Friday afternoons when I was at high school (in a predominantly Jewish area) I was constantly being harassed by members of the Orthodoxy to go and worship with them. These missionaries consider themselves doing a "mitzvah" but are they really? Aren't they just annoying? Did the survey count all the other annoyances, like the people selling Bibles on the street, or the missionaries who keep knocking on my door with their pamphlets? What about missionaries who destroy cultures? were they included? Where is the line between good and bad here? What do we consider to be morally good?

Clearly everyone's perception of good and bad is a little different. For the most part, the Canadian diagram is founded upon the Christian diagram.Thereby, are we judging the differences between believers and non-believers by a believer's diagram? What sort of bias is that?

Since no one can define morality, and there needs to be a bias, I think it impossible for such a survey to actually prove anything, as it is an assumption. It relies on the diagram of what is good and what is bad, without defining them properly, and playing off assumptions. For instance, likely to cheat when gambling, fine, but gambling according to the law, outside of a casino is illegal, so where is the relevance there? I doubt anyone in the sample has cheated in a casino and gotten away with it, and if they did, I doubt they would admit it. But, as the survey says, religious people were more likely to volunteer, wouldn't that mean they were more likely to volunteer to be surveyed? Isn't that problematic in itself.

The survey only proves that Christians adhere more to the Christian morality code. Big surprise.

[Drkshadow03]

Also, another point - do religious people get negative points for annoying non believers? On Friday afternoons when I was at high school (in a predominantly Jewish area) I was constantly being harassed by members of the Orthodoxy to go and worship with them. These missionaries consider themselves doing a "mitzvah" but are they really? Aren't they just annoying? Did the survey count all the other annoyances, like the people selling Bibles on the street, or the missionaries who keep knocking on my door with their pamphlets? What about missionaries who destroy cultures? were they included? Where is the line between good and bad here? What do we consider to be morally good?

Clearly everyone's perception of good and bad is a little different. For the most part, the Canadian diagram is founded upon the Christian diagram.Thereby, are we judging the differences between believers and non-believers by a believer's diagram? What sort of bias is that?

Since no one can define morality, and there needs to be a bias, I think it impossible for such a survey to actually prove anything, as it is an assumption. It relies on the diagram of what is good and what is bad, without defining them properly, and playing off assumptions. For instance, likely to cheat when gambling, fine, but gambling according to the law, outside of a casino is illegal, so where is the relevance there? I doubt anyone in the sample has cheated in a casino and gotten away with it, and if they did, I doubt they would admit it. But, as the survey says, religious people were more likely to volunteer, wouldn't that mean they were more likely to volunteer to be surveyed? Isn't that problematic in itself.

The survey only proves that Christians adhere more to the Christian morality code. Big surprise.

Are these questions for me? JBI, what are you even talking about? Have you read any of my comments thus far that said there is no single sample since its a literature review that synthesizes multiple studies with diverse populations ranging various ages and religions? Who exactly are you accusing of relying on religious assumptions of morality? Which survey? Certainly not the literature review I just read . . .

Or you talking about something else then?

[Virgil]

Also, another point - do religious people get negative points for annoying non believers?

Yes we do. :D We get extra points in heaven because we have started your infernal eternity early. :p

[JCamilo]

Well, it was the religious institutions in the US that pushed for the end of slavery and for civil rights. Those poor people that you talk about could just as likely be atheists. I don't see atheist poor people doing any more or less for what you call social justice. [In my opinion and this is certainly a side note, social justice is equal opportunity.]

Well, if you are comparing Atheists and Religious people, then it does not help much, since the religious institutions also helped to push foward the slavery and all - A negative not nullified by anything else.
And Civil Rights? Isnt funny the question of Civil Rights was raised with aheists as well ? A great deal of critics of Religous institutions beneficts was behind the XVIII century raise for civil rights. It was not a movement lead by the religious leader, what you get as best are deists or "spinozists" who are certainly critics of the old religious instituions.
Even more, the XIX humanism, it is linked very alikely to religous or atheists individuals.

[JBI]

Are these questions for me? JBI, what are you even talking about? Have you read any of my comments thus far that said there is no single sample since its a literature review that synthesizes multiple studies with diverse populations ranging various ages and religions? Who exactly are you accusing of relying on religious assumptions of morality? Which survey? Certainly not the literature review I just read . . .

Or you talking about something else then?

Why would you get the impression these were directed at you? Either way, I mean to refute the study as biased, not contradict what you said (did I even mention you?). The study is naturally biased. What are helpfulness, honesty and generosity but constructs? What constitutes helpfulness, what honesty and what generosity? The question always comes back to what codified expectations and qualifications are going into the survey.

All surveys like this are based on the faith given in the "objectivity" of the things being tested. Generosity is not objective. Honesty most certainly is not objective. And I would argue Helpfulness is not objective. But what the study is really trying to ask, is whether or not people are better for being religious, as that is what the purpose of such studies would show. The article isn't going around saying "Belief is proven to be a tool to scam people out of money, and convince them to give up their time to volunteer." It is clearly portraying religion in a good light. I haven't seen the study, of course, as there isn't a link posted, but the article is clearly biased. Look at the silly picture they stuck in it. If that isn't biased, I don't know what to call it.

[princesspoppi]

I really like this discussion

[Drkshadow03]

Why would you get the impression these were directed at you?

::shrugs:: Apparently I'm the only one who actually read the literature review. You were talking about the study so logically I assumed the comments must be directed at me.


Either way, I mean to refute the study as biased, not contradict what you said (did I even mention you?). The study is naturally biased. What are helpfulness, honesty and generosity but constructs? What constitutes helpfulness, what honesty and what generosity? The question always comes back to what codified expectations and qualifications are going into the survey.

Generally you cannot refute a study or discover bias if you haven't actually READ it.

All of your criticisms are pretty much invalid because the study is interested in Prosociality, a specific sociological term.

Assertions are NOT the same as evidence. You cannot possibly have evidence of bais until you've read the study.


All surveys like this are based on the faith given in the "objectivity" of the things being tested. Generosity is not objective. Honesty most certainly is not objective. And I would argue Helpfulness is not objective.

Except only a fourth of the literature reviewed were self-reported surveys. The rest were experiments and anthropological studies. For the self-reported surveys the researchers here raised many of the same questions such as whether those who are self-reporting are being honest about their giving.



But what the study is really trying to ask, is whether or not people are better for being religious, as that is what the purpose of such studies would show. The article isn't going around saying "Belief is proven to be a tool to scam people out of money, and convince them to give up their time to volunteer." It is clearly portraying religion in a good light. I haven't seen the study, of course, as there isn't a link posted, but the article is clearly biased. Look at the silly picture they stuck in it. If that isn't biased, I don't know what to call it.

Really do you have evidence that this is what the literature review was really trying to prove?

With quotes like this, "Belief is proven to be a tool to scam people out of money, and convince them to give up their time to volunteer." The fact that you're railing against a bunch of studies you haven't read, are you sure that you're not the one making ridiculous assumptions?

This is like someone trying to engage in a conversation about James Joyce having only read three pages of Ulyssess. By all means keep going, this is hilarious as hell watching you rail against the supposed biases of something you haven't read.

[JBI]

Where are you getting your facts? Your assuming the study is in good faith, and true, without having read it either. The article is clearly biased, I can't see how you can refute that, but the question must fall to what sort of study could prove such things.

As Plato pointed out in the beginning of the Republic, it is not a "generous" thing to hand a blind man a sword. Then that raises the question of what exactly generosity is. Can we say it is not helpful to give a bad person money, or not honest to not lie, or cheat, simply because you fear the consequences? What sort of definitions of what is "truly honest" or "truly helpful" or even "truly generous" can possibly be constructed. They must naturally reflect a value system, and since it is a Canadian study, I would assume it would adhere more to the Canadian value system, which is derived primarily from the European value system.

The problem with this article, is it doesn't even provide a link to the so called study. It makes a giant statement from the get-go, "Religious people are 'more helpful, honest and generous' say scientists" yet doesn't provide me with a link to the review, or even the name of the study.

There is even a conflict within the study announced right at the beginning, which you have failed to answer, "But believers acting for the greater good may be doing so to enhance their own reputation among friends and acquaintances, according to the review published today in the journal Science." If that has been established, is that taken into the "honesty", "generosity", or "helpfulness" factor? Can we consider any actions done under such duress as being helpful, generous, or honest? Wouldn't they be selfish, self-helping, and dishonest?

Keep in mind, you are going on a leap of faith. You have not seen the study either.

[Drkshadow03]

Where are you getting your facts? Your assuming the study is in good faith, and true, without having read it either. The article is clearly biased, I can't see how you can refute that, but the question must fall to what sort of study could prove such things.

As Plato pointed out in the beginning of the Republic, it is not a "generous" thing to hand a blind man a sword. Then that raises the question of what exactly generosity is. Can we say it is not helpful to give a bad person money, or not honest to not lie, or cheat, simply because you fear the consequences? What sort of definitions of what is "truly honest" or "truly helpful" or even "truly generous" can possibly be constructed. They must naturally reflect a value system, and since it is a Canadian study, I would assume it would adhere more to the Canadian value system, which is derived primarily from the European value system.

The problem with this article, is it doesn't even provide a link to the so called study. It makes a giant statement from the get-go, "Religious people are 'more helpful, honest and generous' say scientists" yet doesn't provide me with a link to the review, or even the name of the study.

There is even a conflict within the study announced right at the beginning, which you have failed to answer, "But believers acting for the greater good may be doing so to enhance their own reputation among friends and acquaintances, according to the review published today in the journal Science." If that has been established, is that taken into the "honesty", "generosity", or "helpfulness" factor? Can we consider any actions done under such duress as being helpful, generous, or honest? Wouldn't they be selfish, self-helping, and dishonest?

Keep in mind, you are going on a leap of faith. You have not seen the study either.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I HAVE in fact read the actual study in Science. It's a literature review technically, not a new study. I'll link back to the post in this thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=626568&postcount=18)where I first mentioned that I had read it. Re-reading that post I see perhaps I wasn't clear.

Also, as far as the conflict you feel I haven't addressed. Click on the link I provided and read the post of my summation of the actual study.

[Virgil]

Where are you getting your facts? Your assuming the study is in good faith, and true, without having read it either. The article is clearly biased, I can't see how you can refute that, but the question must fall to what sort of study could prove such things.


You have no evidence that it wasn't in good faith or it was biased. If you're going to make a general statement like that, then all studies of everything is not in good faith and is biased. If you have any evidence of what you claim, put it forth, or you're just spouting empty words.

[JBI]

You have no evidence that it wasn't in good faith or it was biased. If you're going to make a general statement like that, then all studies of everything is not in good faith and is biased. If you have any evidence of what you claim, put it forth, or you're just spouting empty words.

OK, so when the Nazis published their scientific evidence against Jewish people, it was in "good faith as well" based on the newest scientific models. Seriously, the article doesn't even give one actual fact, and merely says, "scientists say" to cover outrageous comments. Does that not seem the least problematic?

Of course, Drkshadow is the only one here who has read the study, therefore he can be the only one to really comment on bias (I had not realized he had read the study, and I am perplexed as to which study the article is even talking about). But a general statement in an article like that has to be subject to biases, as it is a biased subject. Prosociality isn't an objective approach even in itself.

edit: from looking at the abstract, the results of the study don't seem to correspond well with the article in question, as they seem to be on different agendas, and saying different things.

[Psycheinaboat]

I have skimmed the thread, so hopefully I am not about to bring up something someone else has already pointed out...

Religion can make people better, but it seems to me that those people were good to begin with. The idea of "making good men better" from the Freemasons comes to mind.

Perhaps it is not that religion scares people into behaving with kindness and goodness as much as that it attracts people who already have an inclination toward goodness. I think most of us are at a real loss to accept our own demise, so the idea of fear of hell being a motivation is one I doubt.

[Drkshadow03]

I should point out that the conclusions of the literature review in Science are far more nuanced than what was reported in the newspaper article.

Link to the article's abstract. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/322/5898/58)

The reason the newspaper article is confusing is that what the researchers did was a literature review. They didn't perform any new research or scientific experiments, but instead went through the books and journals in the field in an attempt to report on every study done on this subject and synthesize the conclusions of a lot of different studies dealing with religion and prosociality.

So all the studies the newspaper article talks about are really different studies. The article appearing in Science goal was to look at all these different studies, discuss their methods, and results, and then draw conclusions by synthesizing these variously different studies dealing roughly with the same topic. Another task was to identify areas where not enough research has been performed (i.e. where future research should go).

My blog has an example of a literature review (http://beyondassumptions.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/gender-stereotypes-in-childrens-literature/) on Gender Stereotypes in Children's Literature for anyone curious on what one does in a literature review. I didn't actually do my own experiment, all I did was bring together a variety of studies on that topic and synthesize the results.

[TheFifthElement]

Don't really want to get involved in the debate here which seems, to be honest, kind of pointless, but this made me giggle:


You have no evidence that it wasn't in good faith or it was biased. If you're going to make a general statement like that, then all studies of everything is not in good faith and is biased. If you have any evidence of what you claim, put it forth, or you're just spouting empty words.

in the context of these little gems...


Atheists still get the same tax break and they despite that they don't donate as much as religious people.


If there is no fear of God and divine justice, then being a "goody-good" person is being a "sucker." It's what you can get out of life. There is no reason for doing good.

not general at all, and of course all supported with a wealth of empirical evidence ;)

Sorry Virge, couldn't help myself :D

[Virgil]

OK, so when the Nazis published their scientific evidence against Jewish people, it was in "good faith as well" based on the newest scientific models.

We're discussing a specific study. If you're making the claim that all studies are worthless. Ok, but to smear one bad study with another study is irrelevant.


Seriously, the article doesn't even give one actual fact, and merely says, "scientists say" to cover outrageous comments. Does that not seem the least problematic?
I think D-Shadow answered this nicely.

[JCamilo]

By all logic, atheist devoted to democracy are also going to be more honest, helpful and the fear of a law would cause it, after all it seems the study does not exactly excluded such group in his study (as matter of fact, since religious institutions are social organizations, finding a study that shows the religious doctrines help to build up the group ties of such societies is just expected. Strange would be to find - hey, christianism promote selfishness and no society ties but yet they lived with each other for centuries)

[Virgil]

Don't really want to get involved in the debate here which seems, to be honest, kind of pointless, but this made me giggle:



in the context of these little gems...

not general at all, and of course all supported with a wealth of empirical evidence ;)



Originally Posted by Virgil
Atheists still get the same tax break and they despite that they don't donate as much as religious people.
Well, that's a fact. Everyone gets the same gets the same tax break. The article points out that religious people donate more than non-religious. And to throw in a little different fact, though it does not really deal with religious versus non-religious, it has been documented that Conservatives donate far more than Liberals in the United States. http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/.

And here:


Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true?
A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times).
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers


Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If there is no fear of God and divine justice, then being a "goody-good" person is being a "sucker." It's what you can get out of life. There is no reason for doing good.
No I wasn't making a factual claim there. That was a potential philosophic underpinning to support the data being discussed, more specifically as to why religious people donate more than non-religious. So I ask you Fifth, since I know you're an atheist, why should an atheist do good in life? Why shouldn't he grab life for his total pleasure, despite who it may hurt along the way? What philosophic basis is there for self-sacrifice and doing good if there is no God? Why don't people if they don't believe in God look at do-gooders as suckers ?


Sorry Virge, couldn't help myself :D
That's ok. Especially when it's easy to refute back. ;)

[Shield&Sword]

nice research virgil.
I wanted to paste some of my thoughts about athiesm but these days i dont have enough time to enter in discussion, university is about to start.

[Virgil]

nice research virgil.
I wanted to paste some of my thoughts about athiesm but these days i dont have enough time to enter in discussion, university is about to start.

Thanks S&S. I haven't even mentioned all the good charity that Muslims are required to perform in life. Islam has a great tradition in charity and helping the less fortunate.

[Pendragon]

Being a minister for years and a traveling one at that, I must disagree with the study. In many cases, religion makes people only more judgmental and less tolerant. Salvation on the other hand, will tend to make anyone a better person in both church and home and community life. But Salvation and religion or being religious are emphatically not interposing words. One can have little to do with the other!

God Bless

Pen

[Nossa]

Why do people always, like ALWAYS, blame religion for every single thing? Did it ever occur to you that we, as people, are not as perfect as we might like to think we are? Anyone can be offensive and judemental, you don't need a religion to do that.
For me, I do mistakes, but the point is that I know there's someone watching me when I do it, so I try as much as I can not to do them, not cuz I'll rot in hell if I did, but cuz I simply love and respect God. We all have that in ourselves, whatever you wanna call it, and no matter what you believe in. People try to be good and kind to others simply cuz this is the right thing to do. Religious people derive it from their beliefs, non-believers do it for other reasons. Why is it that when things go wrong we blame religion rather than human nature? Are believers less nice than non-believer? I just don't get it.
If you don't believe that religion makes people better, then I respect your right in saying that. But you don't have to say that religion makes people worse. I mean, unless you see every religious person on this forum as a horrible person, then don't you think you might be a bit wrong? (I'm not adressing a certain person here, just generally speaking)

[JCamilo]

No I wasn't making a factual claim there. That was a potential philosophic underpinning to support the data being discussed, more specifically as to why religious people donate more than non-religious. So I ask you Fifth, since I know you're an atheist, why should an atheist do good in life? Why shouldn't he grab life for his total pleasure, despite who it may hurt along the way? What philosophic basis is there for self-sacrifice and doing good if there is no God? Why don't people look at do-gooders as suckers if they don't believe in God?


That's ok. Especially when it's easy to refute back. ;)

You are joking right? The concept of evil and good is not even the same inside the same religions during the century they exist. Sometimes killing is allowed, sometimes it is not. Sometimes spanking a woman is allowed, something having slave is allowed. Saying that people are good only for religiousity only is only fair if you say they are only evilo for religiousity only. (plus, there is religious and gods that are dedicated to pleasure.).
Take the romans, no self sacrifice for god, no fear of punishment - Yet, they build a society that lasted centuries basead on civil principles and nacionality.
What keep an atheist from being a mad scientist willing to destroy the world (Keep in Mind that the only organized groups that aknowledge selfsacrifice and world's end were religious groups, so I doubt all the time the good of world and people are part of religious dogmas) is either our biological disposition and species preservation and something called ethical education. (It was not like an atheist is educated out of a religious society in the western. How many western countries have a secular majority or only families and schools completelly secular?)
I am atheist but I was raised as catholic, where did I lost my altruistic capacity?
All those research are searchng is quite simple, religious groups are organized and religious organizations have lost almost all their social role but of charity and help. They had historically the position to give charity (in past was a form of political power). Our societies are also still pretty much organized like this. It does not point an ethical diference or even spiritual, but a historical difference, only this and nothing more.

[Virgil]

You are joking right?
I said a potential philosopphic underpinning. And the study did not say that every single religious person was good and that every single secular person was bad or uncaring. It said a higher percentage of religious were good or charitable than secular or atheists. Do you understand the concept of statistics or does that need to be explained to you?


The concept of evil and good is not even the same inside the same religions during the century they exist.
So? The study was focused on western cultures I believe. It made not statements on other cultures. The study held constant the notion of what is good and what is not.


I am atheist but I was raised as catholic, where did I lost my altruistic capacity?
I'll ask it again, do you understand the concept of statistics?


All those research are searchng is quite simple, religious groups are organized and religious organizations have lost almost all their social role but of charity and help. They had historically the position to give charity (in past was a form of political power). Our societies are also still pretty much organized like this. It does not point an ethical diference or even spiritual, but a historical difference, only this and nothing more.
So then you agree with the study. Why are you arguing? For whatever reason religious people are more altruistic.

Ok, smarty pants, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Fifth:

Why should an atheist do good in life? Why shouldn't he grab life for his total pleasure, despite who it may hurt along the way? What philosophic basis is there for self-sacrifice and doing good if there is no God? Why don't people if they don't believe in God look at do-gooders as suckers ?

I truely want to know.

[JCamilo]

I said a potential philosopphic underpinning. And the study did not say that every single religious person was good and that every single secular person was bad or uncaring. It said a higher percentage of religious were good or charitable than secular or atheists. Do you understand the concept of statistics or does that need to be explained to you?

Too fast attacking me. Statistics are just number, like all numbers they are going to need interpretation, they do not offer you conclusion. However in no part of my arguments I attacked the numbers offered, so trying to imply I am needing to learn what statistic is just trying to switch the argument to me. Thanks, I need no central stage.
As well, my answer also pointed to your potential underpinning, which is not statistics at all, just a reasoning you developed.



So? The study was focused on western cultures I believe. It made not statements on other cultures. The study held constant the notion of what is good and what is not.

Sorry, but this afirmantion is joke. US Americans do not even agree if certain libertities taken while dealing with prisioners suspect of terrorismo are justifiable or not, if a certain war is justifiable or not, etc. Imagine the whole western cultures (Hope you are couting latin america), how can you just pull out such generalization about a study that can classify all that. (As matter of fact, during some period, Religious institutions are against certain level of charity because they should encourage work and not "vagabonds")



So then you agree with the study. Why are you arguing? For whatever reason religious people are more altruistic.

So, you just posted a study here so we call say "Hey nice study", "hey bad study" (Considering the study itself was not posted, what would be the point of arguing it without even knowing the study) ?
Wait, but the very first post you posted is arguable. it ends with a "they are nicer people" or anything that implies, so the conclusions are arguable, only this.
Plus, yourself asked things beyond the study, so I guess we are arguing because we can not drink tea together.


Ok, smarty pants, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Fifth:


I truely want to know.

Actually I answered that question but you somehow considered that you should lecture me about statistics.

[SirRaustusBear]

Virgil, that question has been pondered for thousands of years. In the republic Plato came to the conclusion that living virtuously enables one to live a happier life.

If everyone was injust, society would cease to function because no one could work together. Therefore it is in the interest of society as a whole to be just. This still leaves it open for an individual to prosper through injustice as long as the rest of society continues to be just, or "suckers" as you said.

Plato argued that those who resist the urge to commit injustice have constitutions that allow reason to prevail over our appetites both for immediate pleasures like food and sex, as well as for honor and pride. This is because reason is always looking out for the greater long term good for ourselves.

The unjust man, who commits crimes in order to satisfy appetites, is perpetually weak-willed. There is therefore unhapppiness to be found in the inability to control oneself.

More importantly however, is the idea of what is the best kind of happiness. Plato believes it to lie in philosophical contemplation. Those who are weak-willed are unable to appreciate this due to constant appetitive indulgence any more than someone who eats only fast food every day will be unable to truly know that a fine meal cooked with fresh vegetables is the best food. You can repeat that healthy food is the best kind but you cannot truly know it because it tastes bad to you after a lifetime of fast food. Constant indulgence in the appetite renders one incapable of truly knowing that intellectual stimulation is more rewarding.

Plato offers several reasons why practicing philosophy is more rewarding but none of them are thoroughly convincing so his argument is left incomplete. I think he was on to something though.

There is a scene in The Republic, however, that is very affecting. A character mentions a magic ring that renders the wearer invisible, and goes on about how with the ring, everyone would rob and kill at will. This is very similar to your statement about morality without God. The character goes on to say that if the wearer saw a woman he was attracted to, he could and would rape her without recourse.

Whether this is intentionally over the line or not it makes a statement. The comments about stealing with the ring may strike modern readers as accurate, but upon reading the line about rape, the typical reader would recoil and say no, even without accountability I would never rape anyone. This is because humans feel sympathy and empathy for one another. This is why I remain moral without belief in a God, because I do not want to cause others to suffer. I value others and understand that their suffering is as real as mine, and I do not like it when others make me suffer.

This is in direct opposition to thinkers like Nietzsche, who believe that schadenfreude, or pleasure in the misery of others, is a natural human instinct. But like I said, philosophers have been thinking about this question forever, and there is no real conclusive answer. On this subject I prefer Plato's line of thought to Nietzsche's.

[JCamilo]

I would end with ethical vallues can keep any human acting with care and respect for others. We must be teached by this, religion is one of the ways that it is done, but not the only one.

[Virgil]

Well, I prefer Plato's thinking too, but it's not realiatic. Plato obviously never met a drug dealer. But we don't even have to talk about extreme immoralities. What about a person who cheats on his wife? Or a person who lies on his taxes? Or a a guy who runs over squirrel or a cat with his car when he could have avoided it? Without God, why not have the mentality, if I don't get caught no harm done. Or what about even abortion? How do people rationalize the killing of innocents as merely a choice?


I would end with ethical vallues can keep any human acting with care and respect for others. We must be teached by this, religion is one of the ways that it is done, but not the only one.

Teached where? Like from movies or television or rock music or pornography? The real teaching of morality comes from the worse places. Other than religion, where have you ever been taught morality?

[JCamilo]

Meh, art can be a source of teaching yes. After all, Storytelling was the primary source of education and the religious stories that build most of the religious beliefs are born from there.
Ethics and Morals are a field of Philosophy, so it is another souce. After all, the whole story of Socrates "death" is a moral teaching.
You, we, are other source. I am atheist and I educated not only my younger sisters as I work with education. (Schools are a good source for education as well).
Do you really it came from worse places ? I think that is a very romantic notion, go to a bordel and learn from life from the local hot whore with good heart :D

[Virgil]

Meh, art can be a source of teaching yes. After all, Storytelling was the primary source of education and the religious stories that build most of the religious beliefs are born from there.
Ethics and Morals are a field of Philosophy, so it is another souce. After all, the whole story of Socrates "death" is a moral teaching.
You, we, are other source. I am atheist and I educated not only my younger sisters as I work with education. (Schools are a good source for education as well).
Do you really it came from worse places ? I think that is a very romantic notion, go to a bordel and learn from life from the local hot whore with good heart :D

:lol: Well, I was being sarcastic whe I mentioned movies and Tv and others. I'm thinking of the average person who may not even have an education. You're thinking of a college educated person.

[JCamilo]

Well, it is one of the reasons why tv is so much attacked, as some people consider it replaced the family center of home-education (as important as external education). So, yeah, many are going to have moral education from a very bad place and no sex in exchange :D

Anyways, some african tribes that still exist and preserve a primitive organization have a seperation between the religious leader (lets call priest) who is the one that can perform the rituals and the other , the storyteller who can guard the stories of the creation of the religious rituals, which means explaning it. It is the storyteller that will educate, not exactly the priest (more like, will legitimate).
Other example is your "Namesake", Virgil as a moralist, Aeneid have a lot of moral teaching (from the roman point of view) and worked under a very moralist leader that only linked himself wiht religion because of political power. Being afraid of law, legal power, is, maybe, incentive enough for a person to behave according the proper moral.

[SirRaustusBear]

I was providing a reason to be good, not saying no one is bad.

I gave two reasons:

1. Sympathy for others that may be instinctual or it may be taught, either way I feel it so I know it exists. The golden rule is applicable even in the absence of God.

2. Being just enables us to experience greater happiness than being unjust.

Additionally, everyone can agree in a self-interested manner that it is better for the individual that everyone treats them justly. Therefore we make laws as a society that force everyone else to treat us justly. Our society enforces these laws objectively, so imprisonment is a reason to avoid injust behavior. This is reflected in Goodfellas, which started this whole discussion, since one of the main characters ends up dead, one in prison. Two out of three, so you're playing the odds in acting unjustly.

[Virgil]

Well, I agree that society creates laws to prevent such self willed people to hurt others. Just look what happened with Stalin when he had no fear from any law. Actually Stalin is the perfect example of an unchecked conscience (if that's the right way to decribe it). But all the laws do is established a bar to not exceed. The lesson is then to be as selfish as possible without exceeding that bar. So one cheats on one's wife, fudges on one's taxes, and runs over cats. And create all sorts of rationalizations as to why one aborts babies. And it provides no reason to be altruistic. This line of thinking actually proves the study. Why give up anything for charity? It's not against the law to not be charitable.

[SirRaustusBear]

Plato would have said that despite Stalin's power he was not truly happy, and likely did not even know what it is to be truly happy.

Christianity does not want people to be good just to avoid hell. Christians are supposed to want to be good for its own sake. The same questions are the napplicable to a world where God exists as to one without it. Why and how are Christians expected to be good if not simply to avoid hell.

[Virgil]

Plato would have said that despite Stalin's power he was not truly happy, and likely did not even know what it is to be truly happy.


Like many things Plato was wrong. I bet Stalin was happy.


Christianity does not want people to be good just to avoid hell. Christians are supposed to want to be good for its own sake. The same questions are the napplicable to a world where God exists as to one without it. Why and how are Christians expected to be good if not simply to avoid hell.
I fail to understand ths. Does it really matter why people do good, as long as they do? Plus there are gradations of good behavior. What you are describing are saints. No one can expect most people to be saints. Most people (actually all to varying levels of gradations) are sinners.

[JCamilo]

Well, I agree that society creates laws to prevent such self willed people to hurt others. Just look what happened with Stalin when he had no fear from any law. Actually Stalin is the perfect example of an unchecked conscience (if that's the right way to decribe it). But all the laws do is established a bar to not exceed. The lesson is then to be as selfish as possible without exceeding that bar. So one cheats on one's wife, fudges on one's taxes, and runs over cats. And create all sorts of rationalizations as to why one aborts babies. And it provides no reason to be altruistic. This line of thinking actually proves the study. Why give up anything for charity? It's not against the law to not be charitable.

Well, first I must say I do not consider it a matter of happiness or not.
But yes, Stalin is a case of someone who put himself above the law. So goes for a thousand other individuals who ignored the principles they received from education (they do even if they are religious, Hittler was christian because the fear from God can be as easily ignored from the momment you discover God is not punishing you with sky's fire. In some case they even start to believe God is reward them. A big problem because ambition usually forms a new way to interpretate this complex book that god is).
Second, the lesson is not to be as selfish as possible. Just imagine how impossible this conclusion is 1 - Not all religions give afterlife rewards or punishments. 2 - China and RUssian population are not chaotic, hate mongering individuals despite the communism restrictions against religion. So, something else but Hell and Heaven keep individuals acting as a colective group.
You seem to think man is naturally wicked. If the law does not nominate a crime, a human would do it. But if does not nominated a good, a man would never consider it. But I would point to you man naturally take care of others. High primates are able to educate, raise and even protect the members of the group, even if it is not their own children. They are able to share food and educate younglings. Chimps or Gorillas already have this behaviador. So, humans have feelings to protect and help members of the pack (Which soon would became society, city, country, etc) naturally. Of course, those same feelings live wiht the capacity of killing, stealing, abusing power. Guilty, shame, etc are natural mechanism that our psyche produces. How it will manifest, how it will be understood changes according the culture, but even an atheist feels guilty from killing.
And there is the pratical reasons, if we are taught that all humans are equal, the notion of slavery is illogical and that is why XIX saw the end of slavery, not because religion dogmas who protect slave traders.
That is why some people may consider that having excess, they can share - thus giving reason for charity - Self-satisfaction, doing a social good, social status, and there goes. There is a natural inclination of humankind to not be selfish as well, and you are not considering it.

[Drkshadow03]

And the study did not say that every single religious person was good and that every single secular person was bad or uncaring. It said a higher percentage of religious were good or charitable than secular or atheists.


So? The study was focused on western cultures I believe. It made not statements on other cultures. The study held constant the notion of what is good and what is not.

So then you agree with the study. Why are you arguing? For whatever reason religious people are more altruistic.


Not necessarily. This is what I mean when I said the study was more nuanced than the newspaper article made it sound.

The literature review looked at Prosociality, not altruism. They are slightly different terms. Prosociality is broader than altruism and also less moralistic. It's more objective. I don't have an actual definition on me, but it seems to any behavior that allows for a positive functioning society.

For example one study in the literature review looked at an experiment in a Kibbutz in Israel where they gave a packet of money to both a secular group and an Orthodox group to take from anonymously for their needs. The study found that members of the Orthodox each took less money on whole than members of the secular group suggesting to the researchers that the Orthodox group was less greedy, had less personal needs, but also that they communicated more between each other.

So the ability to communicate effectively with each other over dividing up resources would fall under Prosocial behavior, but I don't think anyone would call it altruistic.

However, there were studies that were more directly about giving to others. I should also point out that the Review did mention at the end one study where they found non-believers equally as likely to give to charity as believers, but that was only one study.

[Virgil]

Thanks for the clarification D-Shadow.


Well, first I must say I do not consider it a matter of happiness or not.
But yes, Stalin is a case of someone who put himself above the law. So goes for a thousand other individuals who ignored the principles they received from education (they do even if they are religious, Hittler was christian because the fear from God can be as easily ignored from the momment you discover God is not punishing you with sky's fire. In some case they even start to believe God is reward them. A big problem because ambition usually forms a new way to interpretate this complex book that god is).
Second, the lesson is not to be as selfish as possible. Just imagine how impossible this conclusion is 1 - Not all religions give afterlife rewards or punishments. 2 - China and RUssian population are not chaotic, hate mongering individuals despite the communism restrictions against religion. So, something else but Hell and Heaven keep individuals acting as a colective group.
You seem to think man is naturally wicked. If the law does not nominate a crime, a human would do it. But if does not nominated a good, a man would never consider it. But I would point to you man naturally take care of others. High primates are able to educate, raise and even protect the members of the group, even if it is not their own children. They are able to share food and educate younglings. Chimps or Gorillas already have this behaviador. So, humans have feelings to protect and help members of the pack (Which soon would became society, city, country, etc) naturally. Of course, those same feelings live wiht the capacity of killing, stealing, abusing power. Guilty, shame, etc are natural mechanism that our psyche produces. How it will manifest, how it will be understood changes according the culture, but even an atheist feels guilty from killing.
And there is the pratical reasons, if we are taught that all humans are equal, the notion of slavery is illogical and that is why XIX saw the end of slavery, not because religion dogmas who protect slave traders.
That is why some people may consider that having excess, they can share - thus giving reason for charity - Self-satisfaction, doing a social good, social status, and there goes. There is a natural inclination of humankind to not be selfish as well, and you are not considering it.

Good points. I do think that man is both selfish and self sacrificing. I am not saying that a completely secular view would be a hot bed of selfish chaos. The question then is under which world view brings out the better angels of our nature, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.

[TheFifthElement]

Well, that's a fact. Everyone gets the same gets the same tax break. The article points out that religious people donate more than non-religious. And to throw in a little different fact, though it does not really deal with religious versus non-religious, it has been documented that Conservatives donate far more than Liberals in the United States. http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/.

And here:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

Yes, this was more aimed at the statement that religious people donate more than non-religious people. I've read the article. What I'm curious about is how the conclusion has been drawn - both in relation to religion vs non-religion and conservative v liberal. And the conclusion that because one is religious or conservative that means you must be more of the good things (fill in the blanks, kind, generous, blah, blah) than someone who is the opposite. Because, in my view, posting the statement in the first place was self defeatist, kind of like the very valid point Nossa was making here:


Are believers less nice than non-believer? I just don't get it.

and here:


But you don't have to say that religion makes people worse.

which is true, and true in reverse too. And I just want to say for the record Nossa, I completely agree with you, and I understand your frustration. People are people, we are all equally capable of being good and not so good, kind and not so kind. One might ask if it was 'helpful' or 'generous' posting a statement which, by saying people who are religious are more helpful, generous and honest means by implication people who are not religious are less helpful, generous and honest. Effectively you're saying because I don't believe in God I must not be a nice person, which I don't think is generous or helpful. In fact, if you'll forgive the pun, it's what you might call a holier-than-thou approach which, quite naturally, makes the non-believer keen to thrust under the believers face all the evils conducted by the various churches over the years. Like has happened on this thread. And neither is 'helpful' or 'generous'. So in a sense all that has been proven is that neither groups are these things.

And it made me wonder, why is it that we are so keen to accept generalisations where generalisations reflect positively, but not so much when they reflect negatively. As Nossa said, just because some religious people do bad things doesn't make all religious people bad, and obviously the same is true in reverse. Which is what makes this debate so pointless. For every argument you post about the kindness of the religious community someone can post an argument for the opposite, paedophiliac priests, children physically and mentally abused in religious homes, religious wars and hate crime, the disenfranchisement of homosexuals, even down to the inconveniences as mentioned in the example posted by Shalot earlier in the discussion. Ultimately the argument just goes round in circles. Because really the actions of the individuals only really reflect on the individual, whether those actions are good or bad. If a priest sexually abuses a child that doesn't mean that the whole church is bad, it just means that the one man is bad. I'm sure you'd agree with that if I posted statistics that showed that religious people were more likely to be child abusers? (which I'm not going to, by the way).


So I ask you Fifth, since I know you're an atheist, why should an atheist do good in life? Why shouldn't he grab life for his total pleasure, despite who it may hurt along the way? What philosophic basis is there for self-sacrifice and doing good if there is no God? Why don't people if they don't believe in God look at do-gooders as suckers ?

Interesting that you badge me an athiest Virgil, that's not how I consider myself at all. To be an athiest you would really have to believe there is no God. I don't actively not believe in God, and I don't believe either. I'm ambivalent either way. If there is a God there is one, if there isn't a God there isn't one. Whatever I think won't change what is. I don't know the answer and I don't think you know the answer either (even if you believe you do!) and so it seems rather a waste of effort speculating on the question.

But in answer to your question, I think Nossa made an interesting statement here:


People try to be good and kind to others simply cuz this is the right thing to do. Religious people derive it from their beliefs, non-believers do it for other reasons.

Maybe you should try thinking about it a different way. Maybe people who believe in religion do so because it underpins their inherent belief that it is right to be kind, generous, thoughtful, considerate, whatever, and their religion supports and affirms that inherent belief. Why do you think that the belief is there because of religion, and not that the religion is there because of the belief?

Of course religion goes one step further than just human interaction, and provides an explanation, some purpose or meaning of life. Not everyone needs an answer to that question Virgil. I certainly don't. It doesn't really matter to me why I am here, it is a question on which I can only speculate. What does matter to me is how I conduct myself while I am here.

So, ask yourself the question the other way around Virgil, why shouldn't I be kind? And if I am kind, does it matter why? What is kindness? And is there such a thing as true altruism?


Like many things Plato was wrong. I bet Stalin was happy.

Oh I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. I studied Stalin in college. Stalin was completely paranoid and afraid. He wasn't happy at all. Why do you think he had all those people killed? If you're truly confident and strong you don't need to resort to those kind of tactics.

[JCamilo]

I would say that any point, any social group that have success managed it with some degree of balance. We cann't just say that religious societies are a failure because X,Y or Z sittuation or that a secular institution (even those build with religious individuals, such as the legal system of most our country) do it with the same degree of success.
In the end there is universal vallues inside, lets say christianism, that I can follow without the need to believe in god, (and vice-versa), so depends more of those vallues that the package that wraps it.

[Taliesin]

The question then is under which world view brings out the better angels of our nature, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.
Well, as this study shows, statistically, people who believe in God, tend to be more pro-social. Okay.
Doesn't say anything about certain people, though.

[mangueken]

Dickens is filled with wonderfully charitable characters. They do their good deeds in "secret" and never seek to change the situation of the people they are "helping".

[Virgil]

Yes, this was more aimed at the statement that religious people donate more than non-religious people. I've read the article. What I'm curious about is how the conclusion has been drawn - both in relation to religion vs non-religion and conservative v liberal. And the conclusion that because one is religious or conservative that means you must be more of the good things (fill in the blanks, kind, generous, blah, blah) than someone who is the opposite.
I think both studies were very detailed . There was many criteria. I think the criteria of how much a person donates as documented on their tax forms. We have to provide that annually on our tax forms and have to provide reciepts if we are ever audited. The person who performed the conservative versus liberal study was himself a liberal who was surprised at the results. He wound up writing a book on it.


Because, in my view, posting the statement in the first place was self defeatist, kind of like the very valid point Nossa was making here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nossa
Are believers less nice than non-believer? I just don't get it.
Look, I admit I'm being somewhat provactive with my statements. But I am not saying (and neither is the study) that every religious person is more altruistic than a secular. All it is saying is that there is a trend for a religious person to be more altruistic. This is what I said earlier:

And the study did not say that every single religious person was good and that every single secular person was bad or uncaring. It said a higher percentage of religious were good or charitable than secular or atheists.
Frankly I don't find that hard to believe. If you ever meet and talk to church people you can see their charitable nature. And not just in the US. When I was in Scotland, I met up with a friend who had moved to Edinburg and she in finding an activity to participate in found a church dance. She is very secular but she wanted to do some local Scotish dancing, and so we went to this church auditorium. The people were wonderful. We were visibly strangers and not of the church but they welcomed us in and taught us the dances. They had the same nature of many of the religious people I've come across here in the US.



Originally Posted by Nossa
But you don't have to say that religion makes people worse.
which is true, and true in reverse too. And I just want to say for the record Nossa, I completely agree with you, and I understand your frustration. People are people, we are all equally capable of being good and not so good, kind and not so kind
Which is roughly (I may not agree with the word "equally" since the statistics showed otherwise) what I said when I said this:

I do think that man is both selfish and self sacrificing. I am not saying that a completely secular view would be a hot bed of selfish chaos. The question then is under which world view brings out the better angels of our nature, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.


One might ask if it was 'helpful' or 'generous' posting a statement which, by saying people who are religious are more helpful, generous and honest means by implication people who are not religious are less helpful, generous and honest. Effectively you're saying because I don't believe in God I must not be a nice person, which I don't think is generous or helpful.
Well, I did not say that. I guess people don't understand the nature of statistics. Let me illustrate it this way. Out of a 1000 religious people and a 1000 secular people, it could be said (and I'm making these numbers up becuase I don't want to go back to the article to pull the actual figures) 600 religious people might be considered altruisitc and 525 secular people might be considered altruistic. Look, the soup kitchens for the dire needy around here are run by religious organizations by people who are donating their time.


In fact, if you'll forgive the pun, it's what you might call a holier-than-thou approach which, quite naturally, makes the non-believer keen to thrust under the believers face all the evils conducted by the various churches over the years. Like has happened on this thread. And neither is 'helpful' or 'generous'. So in a sense all that has been proven is that neither groups are these things.
Well, I thought it would make for a good discussion. :D I think it has. And perhaps the practical result of this is to not shake a finger at secular people but to make them aware of this and perhaps strive to be more altruistic. Religious people get Homilies in church on the need to do good; I don't think secular people have a similar medium.


For every argument you post about the kindness of the religious community someone can post an argument for the opposite, paedophiliac priests, children physically and mentally abused in religious homes, religious wars and hate crime, the disenfranchisement of homosexuals, even down to the inconveniences as mentioned in the example posted by Shalot earlier in the discussion. Ultimately the argument just goes round in circles.
Again, we are talking statistics. Not every religious person is a good person. And the peadophiliac argument doesn't reflect how many secular people are paedophiliacs.


Because really the actions of the individuals only really reflect on the individual, whether those actions are good or bad. If a priest sexually abuses a child that doesn't mean that the whole church is bad, it just means that the one man is bad. I'm sure you'd agree with that if I posted statistics that showed that religious people were more likely to be child abusers?
Well, I would like to see the statistics on that. As far as I know the statistics of a priest child abuser is no different than the population at large. It's just that when a priest does something like that it makes the news because it is such a shocking thing.


Interesting that you badge me an athiest Virgil, that's not how I consider myself at all. To be an athiest you would really have to believe there is no God. I don't actively not believe in God, and I don't believe either. I'm ambivalent either way.
I only "badged" you becaue you had stated somewhere (I think it was in one of your blogs after I made the comment that God was part of the beauty of nature, or something like that) that you were an atheist. Or at least that is how I understood it. If I misunderstood, I truely apologize. I don't mean to characterize your beliefs.


Maybe you should try thinking about it a different way. Maybe people who believe in religion do so because it underpins their inherent belief that it is right to be kind, generous, thoughtful, considerate, whatever, and their religion supports and affirms that inherent belief. Why do you think that the belief is there because of religion, and not that the religion is there because of the belief?
I don't understand the question, but I don't disagree with anything you said above it. I think I made the following reply to a similar statement:

I do think that man is both selfish and self sacrificing. I am not saying that a completely secular view would be a hot bed of selfish chaos. The question then is under which world view brings out the better angels of our nature, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.


Of course religion goes one step further than just human interaction, and provides an explanation, some purpose or meaning of life. Not everyone needs an answer to that question Virgil. I certainly don't. It doesn't really matter to me why I am here, it is a question on which I can only speculate. What does matter to me is how I conduct myself while I am here. But that mafia guy in Goodfellas who called people who acted kind suckers, has a great point. Why are we kind people who donate money to help people and strive for a better world at our expense, why are we not suckers?


So, ask yourself the question the other way around Virgil, why shouldn't I be kind? And if I am kind, does it matter why? What is kindness? And is there such a thing as true altruism?
People like Mother Theresa is certainly altruistic. I don't know what you mean by that last question.

On September 10, 1946, Teresa experienced what she later described as "the call within the call" while traveling to the Loreto convent in Darjeeling for her annual retreat. "I was to leave the convent and help the poor while living among them. It was an order. To fail would have been to break the faith."[19] She began her missionary work with the poor in 1948, replacing her traditional Loreto habit with a simple white cotton chira decorated with a blue border, adopted Indian citizenship, and ventured out into the slums."[20][21] Initially she started a school in Motijhil; soon she started tending to the needs of the destitute and starving.[22] Her efforts quickly caught the attention of Indian officials, including the Prime Minister, who expressed his appreciation.[23]

Teresa wrote in her diary that her first year was fraught with difficulties. She had no income and had to resort to begging for food and supplies. Teresa experienced doubt, loneliness and the temptation to return to the comfort of convent life during these early months. She wrote in her diary:

“ Our Lord wants me to be a free nun covered with the poverty of the cross. Today I learned a good lesson. The poverty of the poor must be so hard for them. While looking for a home I walked and walked till my arms and legs ached. I thought how much they must ache in body and soul, looking for a home, food and health. Then the comfort of Loreto [her former order] came to tempt me. 'You have only to say the word and all that will be yours again,' the Tempter kept on saying ... Of free choice, my God, and out of love for you, I desire to remain and do whatever be your Holy will in my regard. I did not let a single tear come.[24] ”

Teresa received Vatican permission on October 7, 1950 to start the diocesan congregation that would become the Missionaries of Charity.[25] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, "the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone." It began as a small order with 13 members in Calcutta; today it has more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

And let me tell you there are lots of Mother Thereas out there. She is not the only one by far.

Why shouldn't you be kind? For wealth, cheap thrills, an easier life, a bigger bank account, I don't know. You're probably kinder than me. Or at least that's how it appears to me. ;)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Like many things Plato was wrong. I bet Stalin was happy.Oh I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. I studied Stalin in college. Stalin was completely paranoid and afraid. He wasn't happy at all. Why do you think he had all those people killed? If you're truly confident and strong you don't need to resort to those kind of tactics.
Could be, but he lived an easier life than those he terrorized. Well, those kinds of tactics come with the territory of dictatorship. That's the only way to acquire it and maintain it. I do think he was confident and strong, whether he was happy could be dabateable.

[TheFifthElement]

All it is saying is that there is a trend for a religious person to be more altruistic.

which is the same as saying that non-religious people are less likely to be altruistic. Again, not helpful, not generous.


If you ever meet and talk to church people you can see their charitable nature.
Yes, I have noticed that there are some church people who go to great lengths to advertise their good deeds. ;)


I guess people don't understand the nature of statistics. Let me illustrate it this way.
Sigh. I could just refer you back to JCamillo's post. I understand statistics. I also understand that statistics need to be interpreted.


And perhaps the practical result of this is to not shake a finger at secular people but to make them aware of this and perhaps strive to be more altruistic.
Ouch. Quite patronising.


I don't know what you mean by that last question.

let me ask it a different way then. Is there such a thing as a selfless act? Do you really get nothing out of doing a good thing?


As far as I know the statistics of a priest child abuser is no different than the population at large.

which perhaps is the best answer to your 'why be kind' question. Have you noticed how people like to be associated with good things, and not with bad things. Note that you accept an article which asserts that religious people are 'helpful, generous, and honest' but not the counter argument highlighting the bad side of religion, for example the paedophelia which, by all accounts the church were aware of and covered up. So much for the moral high ground. Or the fact that religion has been a constant cause of conflict (which is a historical fact). Does this mean that because you are religious you are a warmonger, a paedophile and a bigot? Of course it doesn't. From the sounds of things your religion, your belief, makes you stronger and clearly you believe it makes you a better person. I've got lots of time for that, and I see that in a lot of people. I also see a lot of people who try to be strong, and try to be a good/better person without religion. At a root level, religious/non-religious, we're not all that different.

In your nature you are keen to associate with the good things and not the bad. So am I. So are most people. We all want to think that we are 'good' - you may feel that this comes from religion but then why would someone who is not, and has never been brought up into religion feel the same? Which brings it back to the question - which came first, the chicken or the egg?...or okay, which came first 'goodness' or religion? History would seem to suggest the former.


I do think he was confident and strong, whether he was happy could be dabateable.
this is really a separate discussion. Did you know that Stalin suffered a nervous breakdown when Hitler invaded Russia during world war 2? Not really a sign of a confident man. Details here, if you're interested: http://uktv.co.uk/history/item/aid/528558

[Virgil]

which is the same as saying that non-religious people are less likely to be altruistic. Again, not helpful, not generous.

Perhaps not generous, but yes I do think it's helpful. Plus this is the second major study to show this. Do you think it's best to hide one's head in the sand?


Yes, I have noticed that there are some church people who go to great lengths to advertise their good deeds. ;)
Frankly most don't.


Ouch. Quite patronising.
Hey religious people are constantly told we are sinners and have flaws. Is their something about secular people that don't wish to know their human frailties? :p I have said (perhaps not in this thread, I don't recall) I am a sinner. I don't consider myself the best person in the world. Logos can probably tell you, if you've never caught one of my angry posts before they've been deleted, :D how I can be when riled up. I have also said that you strike me as a good person, probably better than me. I don't think I've been patronizing.


let me ask it a different way then. Is there such a thing as a selfless act? Do you really get nothing out of doing a good thing?
Yes I do, but nonetheless, and this question seems to keep coming up, I don't know what difference that makes. If the threat of heaven and hell are required to make people better, than so what? That's part of being religious.


which perhaps is the best answer to your 'why be kind' question. Have you noticed how people like to be associated with good things, and not with bad things...In your nature you are keen to associate with the good things and not the bad. So am I. So are most people. We all want to think that we are 'good'

Ok, I'll go along with that. I don't think that will convince large number of people but it is a rationale. The part in between the "..." that I didn't include in your statement is disputable and for another conversation. I have said elslewhere religions don't cause wars; human identities cause wars. Religion is just one sub set of identity. If religion was there to use as an excuse for war, something else would be used.


you may feel that this comes from religion but then why would someone who is not, and has never been brought up into religion feel the same? Which brings it back to the question - which came first, the chicken or the egg?...or okay, which came first 'goodness' or religion? History would seem to suggest the former.
I can't speculate into such complexity. I have no idea which came first. I'm not sure anyone does. My intuition tells me the other way around. But who knows.


This question remains unanswered, and I reask it not to Fiftrh but to everyone because I do feel it's a very central question to this discussion. It's a question that has been at the back of my mind probably since a teenager growing up in Brooklyn.


That mafia guy in Goodfellas who called people who acted kind suckers, has a great point. Why are we kind people who donate money to help people and strive for a better world at our expense, why are we not suckers if there is no God?

[TheFifthElement]

Do you think it's best to hide one's head in the sand?
No, I think it's best to judge individuals on what they personally do, not what someone else has/hasn't done.


Frankly most don't.
In which case, how do you know this:

If you ever meet and talk to church people you can see their charitable nature.
if they don't tell you, then it must be based on perception. Can you entertain the possibility that your perception may be skewed by your own idea of what being religious/a church goer means?


Hey religious people are constantly told we are sinners and have flaws. Is their something about secular people that don't wish to know their human frailties? :p I have said (perhaps not in this thread, I don't recall) I am a sinner. I don't consider myself the best person in the world. Logos can probably tell you, if you've never caught one of my angry posts before they've been deleted, :D how I can be when riled up. I have also said that you strike me as a good person, probably better than me. I don't think I've been patronizing.
Well, imagine how you feel when an athiest tries to 'show you the light' and the 'error of your ways'. It was patronising in that respect. Not necessarily to me personally.
We are all 'sinners' Virge, people are people. There are good things and bad things about them. There are people who try to do a kindness and end up making things worse for the person they are trying to be kind to. There are people who do things purely motivated by blatent self interest and still make a massive positive difference to another person's life. I don't think anything much is that clear cut. I'm not convinced there's any value in arguing who is better than who.



Yes I do, but nonetheless, and this question seems to keep coming up, I don't know what difference that makes. If the threat of heaven and hell are required to make people better, than so what? That's part of being religious.
Well, it does make a difference. Forget heaven and hell, for a moment. If you do something nice for someone it makes you feel good, so it's not entirely selfless. I really don't think there is any such thing as a truly selfless act. If you do something kind for someone else you get rewarded for it whether that reward is transparent or otherwise. You might feel proud of yourself, you might have fulfilled a commitment to God, you might feel that in doing a kindness to others that you have, in part, earned the right to accept kindness from others, that because you have shown kindness and generosity to another that someone might do the same for you if you need it. Empathy. If I'm kind to you you're more likely to be kind to me, right?


I have said elslewhere religions don't cause wars; human identities cause wars.
indeed. Just like religion doesn't cause 'helpfulness, honesty and generosity'. Human individuals do. N'est pas?


This question remains unanswered, and I reask it not to Fiftrh but to everyone because I do feel it's a very central question to this discussion. It's a question that has been at the back of my mind probably since a teenager growing up in Brooklyn.
Actually Virge, both JCamilo and I have answered this question. Perhaps we haven't made it transparent enough, or perhaps the difficulty comes down to the answer you gave to this question:


which came first 'goodness' or religion?

I have no idea which came first. I'm not sure anyone does. My intuition tells me the other way around. But who knows.
Your answer seems to suggest that your instinct is that religion came first. This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma, because there's a question over morality. It seems (and I'm paraphrasing for you here, please feel free to clarify if I've misinterpreted) that you believe that morality is seated in religion, or rather religion creates morality. So if this is true then taking our person who is not religious and has had no religious upbringing this must mean that they are without morality. Is this what you believe? Or is it possible, as the other alternative, that morality exists independently of religion? If morality exists independently of religion then this is really the answer to your question, people are kind because it is innate within people to be moral (and by moral this must be considered in the social context - for example, once it was moral to conduct human sacrifice but that would not be considered moral in the current social structures). Religion may have codified that morality, like common law becomes codified into statute, but the morality was always there, and is still there whether you believe in God or not.

May I ask you a different question? Religions are comprised of quite a number of 'rules' correct? How then do people reconcile beliefs that conflict with their religious 'rules', for example, Catholics that practice contraception, Jews that work on the Sabbath, Christians that advocate the death penalty? I'm not asking to be inflamatory (I hope everyone understands) it is just something I don't understand. Maybe you can shed some light?

[JCamilo]

The problem is that study does not show that people are more altruist or anything. There is considerable problems.
For example, definition of altruism is not the same as definition of heat, something we can easily measure with a mathematical vallue. So the study would have to build up this definition. The problem that altruism, good, helpfull, ec - Are relative moral vallues. We can have vague definitions (People who help each other), but we can not measure it as we can measure heat. So, the given study would have to limit by his own definiton the result. (The studies are all showing group dynamics and social interation, the conclusion that it is altruism is a matter of interpretation).
Then you may collect data and build statistical information.
Then you may give your interpretion of the data, but since the definition of those vallues are subjective, the conclusion is arguable and not exactly supported by statistic.
As result I found the studies, showing that social groups (religious groups) have a more "positive" dynamic as a social body than non-groups (the so called secular individuals) a bit obvious. And the rest is just people using those results for more than they really mean.

[Virgil]

No, I think it's best to judge individuals on what they personally do, not what someone else has/hasn't done.

Well, I haven't said otherwise.


In which case, how do you know this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If you ever meet and talk to church people you can see their charitable nature.
if they don't tell you, then it must be based on perception. Can you entertain the possibility that your perception may be skewed by your own idea of what being religious/a church goer means?
I can entertain that. ;) Yes that was not a factual statement but one based on my perception.


Well, imagine how you feel when an athiest tries to 'show you the light' and the 'error of your ways'. It was patronising in that respect. Not necessarily to me personally.
Atheists try to do that to me all the time. :lol: Fundementally I think the study has merit. I don't wish to repeat myself. I don't expect the study to make people rethink religion. I do think it will push those who do not normally donate to do so. If in the future secular people reverse the trend and put religious people on the spot, so be it. That will be good too.


We are all 'sinners' Virge, people are people. There are good things and bad things about them. There are people who try to do a kindness and end up making things worse for the person they are trying to be kind to. There are people who do things purely motivated by blatent self interest and still make a massive positive difference to another person's life. I don't think anything much is that clear cut. I'm not convinced there's any value in arguing who is better than who.
I agree with all that.


Well, it does make a difference. Forget heaven and hell, for a moment. If you do something nice for someone it makes you feel good, so it's not entirely selfless. I really don't think there is any such thing as a truly selfless act.
Ha! You actually agree with me. It doesn't make a difference why you do it.


If you do something kind for someone else you get rewarded for it whether that reward is transparent or otherwise. You might feel proud of yourself, you might have fulfilled a commitment to God, you might feel that in doing a kindness to others that you have, in part, earned the right to accept kindness from others, that because you have shown kindness and generosity to another that someone might do the same for you if you need it. Empathy. If I'm kind to you you're more likely to be kind to me, right?
Yes, and for the record other than my temper gets in the way I always try to be kind.


indeed. Just like religion doesn't cause 'helpfulness, honesty and generosity'. Human individuals do. N'est pas?
:lol: Touche.


Your answer seems to suggest that your instinct is that religion came first. This leaves us with a bit of a dilemma, because there's a question over morality. It seems (and I'm paraphrasing for you here, please feel free to clarify if I've misinterpreted) that you believe that morality is seated in religion, or rather religion creates morality. So if this is true then taking our person who is not religious and has had no religious upbringing this must mean that they are without morality. Is this what you believe? Or is it possible, as the other alternative, that morality exists independently of religion? If morality exists independently of religion then this is really the answer to your question, people are kind because it is innate within people to be moral (and by moral this must be considered in the social context - for example, once it was moral to conduct human sacrifice but that would not be considered moral in the current social structures). Religion may have codified that morality, like common law becomes codified into statute, but the morality was always there, and is still there whether you believe in God or not.
Oh I agree with that. That's actually a restatement of Natural Law. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law. This is something the Catholic Church has always said in some form or another and it has been sited as a proof of God's existance. Atheists generally refute the notion of Natural Law and claim morality is an agreed to human notion based on particaular societies. Basically that's Christ's golden rule: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version. Not sure how valid this web site is, but it claims 21 religions to have some version of this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm.


May I ask you a different question? Religions are comprised of quite a number of 'rules' correct? How then do people reconcile beliefs that conflict with their religious 'rules', for example, Catholics that practice contraception, Jews that work on the Sabbath, Christians that advocate the death penalty? I'm not asking to be inflamatory (I hope everyone understands) it is just something I don't understand. Maybe you can shed some light?
First let me say you can ask me anything. You and Sleepywitch have this ability to converse with me so that even if I'm completely getting beat up in the discussion I walk away with a smile. ;) I can't speak for other people and other religions. I do have some differences with my Cathlocism. Contrary to popular notion it is not heretical to disagree with a Church position. Let me just qualify that with there are different classifications of positions. Obviously you can't claim to believe that Christ is not the son of God and still be Catholic. But on certain rules one can disagree. My differences I hold as personal and I generally understand where the Church is coming from but I think otherwise. If the Church is correct when we come before God than I will have accept what may. But the Church has reversed itself on things over the centuries and I hold that they may see it my way in the future. A little presumptuous I know, but I have frequently said that my greatest sin has been pride. :D


The problem is that study does not show that people are more altruist or anything. There is considerable problems.
For example, definition of altruism is not the same as definition of heat, something we can easily measure with a mathematical vallue. So the study would have to build up this definition.
Well, every study of social phenomena faces the same difficulties. That does not mean they don't have merit or on a macro level aren't accurate. Of course one doesn't look at the data and hold it to be accurate to a decimal place. But if the spread is large enough one can claim its accuarcy.


The problem that altruism, good, helpfull, ec - Are relative moral vallues. We can have vague definitions (People who help each other), but we can not measure it as we can measure heat. So, the given study would have to limit by his own definiton the result. (The studies are all showing group dynamics and social interation, the conclusion that it is altruism is a matter of interpretation).
Now that is an interesting statement. That's a refutation of Natural Law (see above). That's the general atheist notion on morality. Now if you believe that then you can't answer the question I keep posting:


Quote:
That mafia guy in Goodfellas who called people who acted kind suckers, has a great point. Why are we kind people who donate money to help people and strive for a better world at our expense, why are we not suckers if there is no God?

Fifthelement provided an answer to it that doing good feels good. That would imply a Natural Law of morality. But if you claim there is no Natural Law then feeling good is a random or individual occurance, or maybe even a remnant of a religious era cultural phenomena, which by the way after several generations of a completely atheistic world will disappear.

So Fifth has answered the question, now how about you answering the question, why are people who self sacrifice not suckers?

[JCamilo]

I already did it.
Now, you are subscribed to a dogma that only religious doctrination can make us do a good thing. I wish to see evidences for that, because I never saw a non-religiou society turned in a land of evil and destruction. (You may claim China or Soviet Union governament caused evil, but that is different from the their population).

Another thing, I do not adhere Natural Law because it is a nice way to write that god give us a lesson. Now, philosophically wise, I do think there is ethical vallues are universal (not a dogma, but vallues that are reckonized everywhere, and that can be illustrate by jesus saying) but those vallues have no origem on god. Usually I use Moral to specific vallues from societies, not universal, but that is not how everyone deal with those concepts.
I do not know where you got that part of atheist morality. I have no idea, atheists is not an organized society so they can have a moral. And you can adhere to ethical discussion (lets bring Kant here) without need of religion. It is a main part of philosophy, so I doubt atheists are all united in anything about it. But calling it natural law is bringing an religious element, and I am sure most atheist would avoid it.The point is not if there is an possible universal law but rather if it was developed after or before religious doctrines, and I am sure most atheists would point it was before.
For example, most biologists would point that feelings and notions of social good are universal because they are developed by our instincts during evolution. So, I have no idea what you mean by what atheist believe.
Now, It is a big jump of logic from the relativism of what define altruism, how to measure it and how the conclusion of those studies (they do not seem that out of place, but the conclusions about morality of the groups does seems) means not believing in natural law.

[The Atheist]

People like Mother Theresa is certainly altruistic. I don't know what you mean by that last question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

And let me tell you there are lots of Mother Thereas out there. She is not the only one by far.

Scary.

I'm with Hitchens on her and consider her to be one of the most evil women of all time, directly responsible for thousands of deaths.

And you reckon there are more?

[Virgil]

I already did it.
Now, you are subscribed to a dogma that only religious doctrination can make us do a good thing. I wish to see evidences for that, because I never saw a non-religiou society turned in a land of evil and destruction. (You may claim China or Soviet Union governament caused evil, but that is different from the their population).

I never said I subscribe that only religous teaching can make us do good.


For example, most biologists would point that feelings and notions of social good are universal because they are developed by our instincts during evolution.
That sounds like Natural Law to me. If it's biologically based then it's natural.


Scary.

I'm with Hitchens on her and consider her to be one of the most evil women of all time, directly responsible for thousands of deaths.

And you reckon there are more?

Good God, how in the world is she responsible for deaths?

[The Atheist]

Good God, how in the world is she responsible for deaths?

Here (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html)

.
.

[NikolaiI]

Haha!

Quote, Hitchens, "It is a positively immoral remark in my opinion, and it should be more widely known than it is."

My opinion actually really should be more widely known.

[The Atheist]

Haha!

Quote, Hitchens, "It is a positively immoral remark in my opinion, and it should be more widely known than it is."

My opinion actually really should be more widely known.

That's not what it means. Hitchens is saying that Mother Theresa's remarks need to be more widely known.

Mind you, as an author, Hitchens probably does want his own opinions to be known widely!

[The Atheist]

It is absolutely true that religion preaches the good things and diverts our lives to success.

Odd then, that so many people in prison claim to be religious (http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm).


Your post reminds me of one another post which i have seen atsucccess.org/2008/09/01/the-belief-tree-why-success-is-binary/#commentsbased on success in life. Your post also depicts the lesson of success

Worthy of Rhonda Byrne (http://www.thesecret.tv/)

[TheFifthElement]

Ha! You actually agree with me. It doesn't make a difference why you do it.
Yikes! How did this happen? Are we agreeing again? Interesting, how you can get to a similar place from slightly different directions.


Oh I agree with that. That's actually a restatement of Natural Law. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law. This is something the Catholic Church has always said in some form or another and it has been sited as a proof of God's existance. Atheists generally refute the notion of Natural Law and claim morality is an agreed to human notion based on particaular societies. Basically that's Christ's golden rule: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version. Not sure how valid this web site is, but it claims 21 religions to have some version of this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm.
I see. I hadn't heard about Natural Law. I'm not sure I would subscribe it to God, though I can understand why the church would. I'm not sure if we see it entirely the same way; I can see what JCamilo is saying here:


The problem that altruism, good, helpfull, ec - Are relative moral vallues. We can have vague definitions (People who help each other), but we can not measure it as we can measure heat. So, the given study would have to limit by his own definiton the result. (The studies are all showing group dynamics and social interation, the conclusion that it is altruism is a matter of interpretation).
because whilst I agree with the concept that there is an inherent morality within human nature, how that morality presents itself is dependent upon the society in question. So, to reuse an example, if a society considers it 'moral' to commit human sacrifice then in order to be 'good' most people will accept/agree with human sacrifice. And it will be acceptable. I think this is where JCamilo is coming from when he talks of relative morality. Whether something is moral or not may be dependent upon the receipient, or the views of the society, or a judgement based on intention. I'm not sure if that makes much sense!!!


First let me say you can ask me anything. You and Sleepywitch have this ability to converse with me so that even if I'm completely getting beat up in the discussion I walk away with a smile. ;) I can't speak for other people and other religions. I do have some differences with my Cathlocism. Contrary to popular notion it is not heretical to disagree with a Church position. Let me just qualify that with there are different classifications of positions. Obviously you can't claim to believe that Christ is not the son of God and still be Catholic. But on certain rules one can disagree. My differences I hold as personal and I generally understand where the Church is coming from but I think otherwise. If the Church is correct when we come before God than I will have accept what may. But the Church has reversed itself on things over the centuries and I hold that they may see it my way in the future. A little presumptuous I know, but I have frequently said that my greatest sin has been pride. :D

Thanks for clarifying this Virge, I'm glad I can ask you anything! It is one of the things I would struggle with, I think, probably one of the main reasons I can't embrace religion. On the basis that God is infallible, but his mouthpiece is not, I don't think the Church provides clarity and it would worry me, if I were a believer, that I could act in good faith my whole life and still be condemned in the end because someone didn't interpret the commandments right, or the person who I put my faith in misled me to their own end. It seems such a minefield. But I guess we all act in a way in which we're comfortable right? I think I've said it before, but I can conceive of a God, in a way God makes sense - God is the writer and we are the story, I guess - but religion, for me, passes too close to the interest of man and I find it hard not to question that. So, in the end, I do what makes sense to me which, by the sounds of things, is exactly the same as you do. We just approach it in different ways.

You know, this has been quite an elightening debate. Thanks :D

[JCamilo]

I never said I subscribe that only religous teaching can make us do good.

You cann't even conceive how without god we are going to do good things. At least you do not even try to present your own opinion and often you return to the most pessmistic scenario about what we would do without religion.
Also you do not even consider the other possibility : That religion can give you a free ticket to immorality. After all Jesus also talked about forgiveness (an act that is uplifting more from the part of those who are forgiving) and repenteance. That is one of the meanings behind the two thieves story - One showed no repenteance and the other did. So the other would meet Jesus in the heaven kingdom, etc. (Which make me recall a very good Isak Dinnesen story). But anyways, for all that we know, the thief that was forgiven could have killed, raped and the other was there just for stealing a lamb (forgive me the lack of historical accuracy since the romans would not crucify for those reasons) to feed his kids. It didnt mattered how much evil one did, all that mattered was the notion of forgiveness. As such, it generate the good old medieval notion of buying your forgiveness, etc. So, how come a religion that considers a good thing capacity of forgiveness even if the sinner do not realise any ammend for his sin, just show legitimate regret, convice people to do any good?
After all, we had several moral systems inside religion and some allowed killing, slavery, class oppression, etc. It is not like they are perfect and adhere all to the ideal "Natural Law". (Something almost impossible).



That sounds like Natural Law to me. If it's biologically based then it's natural.

so, it would be a natural law and not The Natural Law, if you get the difference.
Anyways, I would be very carefull to say anyone follow something St.Thomas defended but since people give the name to anything they want and this is all a matter of interpretation and St. Thomas could be describing the same object just using his point of view and words, then I would not rant about the naming of the baby.
But, the field of Ethics is considerable more complex than this. Some, very good people, would not subscribe to this platonic view of morality (and it is not a matter of religion or not, but rather, what Coleridge would say, a matter of those who are born platonic and those born aristotelic) and others would adhere to moral relativism, even accepting the existence of such ideal. The truth is, historically each society discovered ways to deal with ethical vallue and produced their own interpretations, moral rules, laws that reflect it but are not the ideal of the "Natural law". Just observe how Freedom of Speech is dealt in USA and how it is dealt in other western countries, even if they all came from the same ideal, the pratical approaches are quite different.

[Virgil]

Here (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html)


Goodness, everyone's got a critic, even Mother Theresa. :lol: Well, Hitchens is not objective on this issue and I could provide a list of awards Mother Theresa has been given longer than a page if I were to list them, including the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sure she wasn't perfect and ideologues can really slant something. It's amazing how biographies of political candidates come out here, one completely supportive making the candidate look like a god, and another completely detrimental making the same person look like satan incarnate. :D I do agree that nuturing poverty is actually counter productive. As a free marketeer I believe that capitalism is the best medium for improving standards of living. On that I tend to disagree somewhat with my church, especially this current Pope who seems to repeatedly criticize capitalism. But nonetheless there are moments when a person needs a helping hand and a compassionate heart to help them along.

By the way, I find Hitchens entertaining, especially when he agrees with me. ;)


Yikes! How did this happen? Are we agreeing again? Interesting, how you can get to a similar place from slightly different directions.

Hehe. :D


I see. I hadn't heard about Natural Law. I'm not sure I would subscribe it to God, though I can understand why the church would.
Understood. This is not why I believe in God. I just pointed how some point to that. I agree with JCamillo on that, but shush, don't tell him I agree. ;):p


I'm not sure if we see it entirely the same way; I can see what JCamilo is saying here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
The problem that altruism, good, helpfull, ec - Are relative moral vallues. We can have vague definitions (People who help each other), but we can not measure it as we can measure heat. So, the given study would have to limit by his own definiton the result. (The studies are all showing group dynamics and social interation, the conclusion that it is altruism is a matter of interpretation).
I think giving to charity is not so vague. I think volenteering in a soup kitchen is not so vague. I don't think its all relative. I think we could agree (yes within the context of our culture) on 90% what is and is not altruism. If you want to make a philosophic point on the remaining 10%, ok,but that's all that is a philosophic point.


because whilst I agree with the concept that there is an inherent morality within human nature, how that morality presents itself is dependent upon the society in question. So, to reuse an example, if a society considers it 'moral' to commit human sacrifice then in order to be 'good' most people will accept/agree with human sacrifice. And it will be acceptable.
Perhaps. And again this is not how I'm persuaded in the existence of God. (That's for a different discussion ;) You know I used to be an atheist at one point.) But one can also make the argument that since the predominant number of cultures don't do this, we could conclude that the few that do have warped their innate morality.


I think this is where JCamilo is coming from when he talks of relative morality. Whether something is moral or not may be dependent upon the receipient, or the views of the society, or a judgement based on intention. I'm not sure if that makes much sense!!!
No it makes sense. I think I addressed it above.


Thanks for clarifying this Virge, I'm glad I can ask you anything! It is one of the things I would struggle with, I think, probably one of the main reasons I can't embrace religion. On the basis that God is infallible, but his mouthpiece is not, I don't think the Church provides clarity and it would worry me, if I were a believer, that I could act in good faith my whole life and still be condemned in the end because someone didn't interpret the commandments right, or the person who I put my faith in misled me to their own end. It seems such a minefield. But I guess we all act in a way in which we're comfortable right? I think I've said it before, but I can conceive of a God, in a way God makes sense - God is the writer and we are the story, I guess - but religion, for me, passes too close to the interest of man and I find it hard not to question that. So, in the end, I do what makes sense to me which, by the sounds of things, is exactly the same as you do. We just approach it in different ways.
I understand that organized religion is not for everyone. There was that thread not too long ago (the one about parents having the right to raise their children with their religion) where Sweets America asked me if a person cold reach a path to God without an orgainzed religion. I said yes. (I also said that the average person probably couldn't do it on thier own.) There are some people who can find the spark of God on their own. Much like in the Kerouac novels Sweets loves. In some ways I went through it on my own, finding God that is, but I wound up asking myself whether the institution of churches provide benefits. I find they do. It brings community to people. It brings people together. The model of an individualist's religion creates I believe in the end isolation and alienation. The church provides social stability.


You know, this has been quite an elightening debate. Thanks :D
I'm enjoying it too. :)


You cann't even conceive how without god we are going to do good things. At least you do not even try to present your own opinion and often you return to the most pessmistic scenario about what we would do without religion.

I only asked the question why we shouldn't be considered suckers in doing good if there is no God. If you want me to be more specific I will. It's a question of statistics. Without the concept of God more people (not everyone, but more) will be less self sacrificing. I do believe that. The study showed it.


Also you do not even consider the other possibility : That religion can give you a free ticket to immorality. After all Jesus also talked about forgiveness (an act that is uplifting more from the part of those who are forgiving) and repenteance. That is one of the meanings behind the two thieves story - One showed no repenteance and the other did. So the other would meet Jesus in the heaven kingdom, etc. (Which make me recall a very good Isak Dinnesen story). But anyways, for all that we know, the thief that was forgiven could have killed, raped and the other was there just for stealing a lamb (forgive me the lack of historical accuracy since the romans would not crucify for those reasons) to feed his kids. It didnt mattered how much evil one did, all that mattered was the notion of forgiveness. As such, it generate the good old medieval notion of buying your forgiveness, etc.
Oh come on. The theif that was forgiven was forgiven before God's judgement, not from human laws. There is a big difference. And even if the criminal confesses to a priest and gets his sin absolve, it does not free him from facing the law.


So, how come a religion that considers a good thing capacity of forgiveness even if the sinner do not realise any ammend for his sin, just show legitimate regret, convice people to do any good?
After all, we had several moral systems inside religion and some allowed killing, slavery, class oppression, etc. It is not like they are perfect and adhere all to the ideal "Natural Law". (Something almost impossible).
I'm not sure I completely understand the question. If you're saying that some religions have advocated slavery and killing, yes they have. But those things are actually in viloation of Natural Law. Those things violate "do onto others as you would have one do onto you." That's the heart of Natural Law and the heart of Christ's message.

By the way, isn't it ironic your initials are JC. ;)


so, it would be a natural law and not The Natural Law, if you get the difference.
Anyways, I would be very carefull to say anyone follow something St.Thomas defended but since people give the name to anything they want and this is all a matter of interpretation and St. Thomas could be describing the same object just using his point of view and words, then I would not rant about the naming of the baby.
But, the field of Ethics is considerable more complex than this. Some, very good people, would not subscribe to this platonic view of morality (and it is not a matter of religion or not, but rather, what Coleridge would say, a matter of those who are born platonic and those born aristotelic) and others would adhere to moral relativism, even accepting the existence of such ideal. The truth is, historically each society discovered ways to deal with ethical vallue and produced their own interpretations, moral rules, laws that reflect it but are not the ideal of the "Natural law". Just observe how Freedom of Speech is dealt in USA and how it is dealt in other western countries, even if they all came from the same ideal, the pratical approaches are quite different.
I agree. It is more complex. I'm no expert. But I still maintain that at the heart of ethics is the golden rule.

[NikolaiI]

Of the people in my life Virgil, it is a positive yes.

[JCamilo]

I think giving to charity is not so vague. I think volenteering in a soup kitchen is not so vague. I don't think its all relative. I think we could agree (yes within the context of our culture) on 90% what is and is not altruism. If you want to make a philosophic point on the remaining 10%, ok,but that's all that is a philosophic point.

Well, we here have a very close sense of vallue and understanding, since our culture is very similar. But I would like to remember than Catholic Church didn't considered charity (soup example) good because it would promote iddleness and such. Until recently here in brazil the more conservative groups promoted the idea that giving the fish was bad, correct was teaching how to catch the fish.
But that wasn't even the only point - Those vallues being subjective cann't be measured by simple numbers. I charge less where I work when I see the place is asking for the work is poorer. Yet, it certainly cannt be measured since it is not something most people would identify (after all I still had profit), while a Homer Simpson giving money just because he was envy of Flanders would ? The impulse towards those vallues are too subjective to be measured by any statistical system I know off. Hence those questions and conclusions are more bound to our definition and interpretation than anything else.


Perhaps. And again this is not how I'm persuaded in the existence of God. (That's for a different discussion ;) You know I used to be an atheist at one point.) But one can also make the argument that since the predominant number of cultures don't do this, we could conclude that the few that do have warped their innate morality.

Those perfect vallues (the golden rule) is often an ideal. Maybe possible for an individualist. All societies are going to warp this because life in society will always bring up conflicts that can not be solved just by reasoning with those principles. So, all societies are going to bring moral variations, all. We can pick a Budha or one version of Jesus to point - here, perfect examples of those ethical vallues (probally we can find one or another) - but those are almost mythical names.


Oh come on. The theif that was forgiven was forgiven before God's judgement, not from human laws. There is a big difference. And even if the criminal confesses to a priest and gets his sin absolve, it does not free him from facing the law.

Which would mean that a secular law stopped him but fear of God didn't. We are talking about God here, if God is what stops him and not something else, it would not matter if the law caught him or not.



I'm not sure I completely understand the question. If you're saying that some religions have advocated slavery and killing, yes they have. But those things are actually in viloation of Natural Law. Those things violate "do onto others as you would have one do onto you." That's the heart of Natural Law and the heart of Christ's message.

I do not know if every version of Jesus is bringing this message at his heart. But I concende that I consider Jesus a benefict character, just as much Budha or Socrates, or the less famous individuals who tryied to follow this principle.
What I am pointing is that religious doctrines do not actually follow this ethical vallue. The fear of God (or his rewards) have pushed against and favorable this vallue (like any law or society) so, it is not as you claim, God that bring us closer to this vallue.


By the way, isn't it ironic your initials are JC. ;)

It also works for Julius Caesar :D



I agree. It is more complex. I'm no expert. But I still maintain that at the heart of ethics is the golden rule.

Yes, the question is this rule stands by itself - atheists also can try to follow it and more than anything. It does not depend and mostly likely, wasnt generated by religion.

[Virgil]

Well, we here have a very close sense of vallue and understanding, since our culture is very similar. But I would like to remember than Catholic Church didn't considered charity (soup example) good because it would promote iddleness and such. Until recently here in brazil the more conservative groups promoted the idea that giving the fish was bad, correct was teaching how to catch the fish.

Oh that's completely untrue. There was an obligation for charity in the Old Testament and the main reason Christianity became so large in the ancient world was mostly because of its notion of charity. Here: http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_charity.html


Yet, it certainly cannt be measured since it is not something most people would identify (after all I still had profit), while a Homer Simpson giving money just because he was envy of Flanders would ? The impulse towards those vallues are too subjective to be measured by any statistical system I know off. Hence those questions and conclusions are more bound to our definition and interpretation than anything else.
I think we're now repeating ourselves. You've made your points and I've made mine. We're not going to change each other's minds.


Those perfect vallues (the golden rule) is often an ideal. Maybe possible for an individualist. All societies are going to warp this because life in society will always bring up conflicts that can not be solved just by reasoning with those principles. So, all societies are going to bring moral variations, all. We can pick a Budha or one version of Jesus to point - here, perfect examples of those ethical vallues (probally we can find one or another) - but those are almost mythical names.
Well I agree that that humanity cannot live up to an ideal. But with proper instruction (and belief system ;)) it can be better. That's what the study shows.


Which would mean that a secular law stopped him but fear of God didn't. We are talking about God here, if God is what stops him and not something else, it would not matter if the law caught him or not.
Well we don't know why God exonerated him. The man was executed along with Christ. Perhaps that was punishment enough. We also don't know if he had to go through purgatory in the after life. ;)


It also works for Julius Caesar :D
:lol: I was thinking you might say that.

[JCamilo]

Oh that's completely untrue. There was an obligation for charity in the Old Testament and the main reason Christianity became so large in the ancient world was mostly because of its notion of charity. Here: http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_charity.html

That cann't be untrue since it happened. And even more, I know several principles written in the bible that are not supported by the several versions of Catholic Church (or all other born from the book religions.) Certainly you are aware of St. Agostyne notion that the bible is not literal but a piece to be interpretaded ?


Well I agree that that humanity cannot live up to an ideal. But with proper instruction (and belief system ;)) it can be better. That's what the study shows.

The study does not show it - It shows that people who goes to the church are more like to participate on charity actions. Going to the church certainly does not equate as having the tennets (or one as relevant as the golden rule) on their interests.
And I sometimes wonder if you remember than you are calling me a imoral person, unable to do any good or follow such moral principles (funny, somewhere else I was called stoic today, which could fit this discussion so well) or the golden rule because I lack a belief system ? Because if that is the tendency that I should follow in, why myself (and the small group of atheist friends I have) are not able to do such immorality? If one example is enough to show that it is not necessary a belief system to be ethical and respectful, then what teach us that must be something else.



Well we don't know why God exonerated him. The man was executed along with Christ. Perhaps that was punishment enough. We also don't know if he had to go through purgatory in the after life. ;)

We know. He showed regret. That is one of the basic intepretations of the parable in question. And he wasn't punished (considering the believe of Heaven, being accepted there, something as rare, cann't be punishement while the other, also executed there, had no such chance).
The possiblity of such interpretation is so big that you know about nobleman who gave up their lands or money to the church to grant them salvation. Or even those who fought in Crusades, they are given indulgences as well. We had a medieval system of belief which fear/respect for the God was not cause of good deeds, but rather created way to dodge it.



:lol: I was thinking you might say that.

it is also for Johny Cash :D

[Virgil]

:lol: Ok I think we're now going around in circles. I don't think I have anything new to say. But it was a good discussion. I thank you for it. :)

[Judas130]

i think throughout history, 'religious people' are hypocritical, judgmental, and not in the least bit generous.

we've always had hypocrites, those in power who don't practice what they preach to others, they judge others by social class when in the eyes of God, as they would have taught, we all are equal, and if a wealthy sadduccee saw a poor peasant begging alms would he help? no. what about a well-thought-of christian-puritan preacher? society would not think much of him for it.

There are no real 'religious people', only people. However, what determines you to fit this description mentioned in this thread is if your charitable efforts go unnoticed, if the act you execute is internal, not external. The idea is to look not at religious figures, but in people.

Most religious people give what they can out of goodness to charities through their parishes or religious community. They don't brag about it, they just do it. What you also get is Billionaires, giving less than 0.01% of their wage to charity and receiving publicity and praise for it. one act is internal, and good, the other external, and false.

The 'more helpful, honest and generous' values mentioned are seen in the motives for the act. it doesn't necessarily apply to religious people, but moral values such as these are taught from an early age. There is the difference in how children are raised: non-religious children and taught what not to do, religious children are told what they can and should do.

[Josef K]

I place more value on someone who is helpful, honest and generous simply out of philanthropy than out of fear of being punished by a god or gods.

Just my opinion though.

[Bitterfly]

The title of the topic forgot... and therefore more boring. :D

I've met a few believers who were helpful, generous etc. but I think the potential to be so must have been in them from the start, and religious education merely developed these traits. Because I've met other believers who weren't at all like that, but on the contrary snobbish and narrow-minded and selfish. And I've met atheists of both sorts.

[Virgil]

The title of the topic forgot... and therefore more boring. :D

I've met a few believers who were helpful, generous etc. but I think the potential to be so must have been in them from the start, and religious education merely developed these traits. Because I've met other believers who weren't at all like that, but on the contrary snobbish and narrow-minded and selfish. And I've met atheists of both sorts.

You miss the point of the article and the discussion at the beiginning. It's a statstical analysis that shows that in general there is a larger group of religious people who can be considered generous/charitable than non-religious.

[Bitterfly]

Ooh, sorry. :blush:
Interesting article, I suppose. I'm not too convinced by the examples showing that negative behaviour is lesser because of fear of divine retribution, because even atheists have something to fear if they act wrongly - cheating for example can create fear of punishment even in someone who doesn't believe he's being spied upon by an omniscient deity. But maybe religion does encourage positive behaviour. Maybe because there is a community effect? For having been to church for a long time, I noted that things are easier to organise when you're part of a religious community, and even not very enthusiastic people are made to participate. Perhaps it becomes a habit?

But do all religions encourage charity? Because it's all very well speaking about religion, but if it's just Christianity, that theory doesn't work, does it? I know Islam does, but what about the others?

[Virgil]

But do all religions encourage charity? Because it's all very well speaking about religion, but if it's just Christianity, that theory doesn't work, does it? I know Islam does, but what about the others?

That question crossed my mind too. I can't answer that. I assume the poll was taken in the context of Chrstian nations. I will say that Christianity, Judiism, and Islam all have strong tenets of charity. Not just tenets but obligations. I am just not familiar with other religions.

[absurda]

If a Christian saw a man in rags, begging for money, and then saw that he had a tatoo of Satan. Would he/she still help this man? Does not helping him make him/her less generous?

The Christians I know (I don't know all of them) would not help the man, they would say that that's what happens when you worship Satan, but if he repents, than God will forgive him and he will be saved.

[teleios]

If a Christian saw a man in rags, begging for money, and then saw that he had a tatoo of Satan. Would he/she still help this man? Does not helping him make him/her less generous?

The Christians I know (I don't know all of them) would not help the man, they would say that that's what happens when you worship Satan, but if he repents, than God will forgive him and he will be saved.

Perhaps that man had a rough childhood.

I don't think a Christian should really make much of a distinction over sins. If you see a man in rags, begging for money, and saw that he had a porno mag next to him, that wouldn't change the fact that he's a human being desperately in need of some hope. Nor would a tattoo of Satan.

There are some sins that if someone you are helping commits, they should influence your lifestyle - if you are trying to reach to someone that has a history of rape, it would be stupid to leave him alone with your wife.

But I digress. My point is - a tattoo should not 'turn off' a Christian.

[DapperDrake]

I place more value on someone who is helpful, honest and generous simply out of philanthropy than out of fear of being punished by a god or gods.

Just my opinion though.

I think this is a common misconception, the vast majority of Christians (in my experience) do not act out of fear of any kind (not even fear of God) but purely out of love.
I often hear people say Christians do good things because they are afraid of hell rather than out of goodness and that is plain wrong.