Study Reveals Atheists Are MORE Compassionate And Generous Than Highly Religious People
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
For years, religious conservatives, despite their hatred for the poor and sick, have been denouncing atheists, agnostics, and those they feel are less religious, such as liberals, as being godless heathens who are destroying the morality of America. A new study, however, finds that less religious people are actually more compassionate and generous than highly religious people.
In a study published in the latest edition of Social Psychological and Personality Science journal, researchers performed three experiments and concluded that highly religious people are apparently more stingy with money and less compassionate overall than those who are less religious.
First, researchers analyzed data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults in which they were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement,
“When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.”
Less religious participants who agreed with the statement were more likely than those who are more religious to give to charity and help homeless people. The study found “that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals.”
In another experiment, 101 American adults were asked to watch one of two separate videos. One video was neutral, while the second video portrayed children living in poverty. After being given ten “lab dollars,” the participants were told to give any amount they wanted to a total stranger. According to UC Berkeley social psychologist and co-author of the study Robb Willer, “The compassion-inducing video had a big effect” on the generosity of the least religious, “but it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants.”
The last experiment asked 200+ college students “to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played “economic trust games” in which they were given money to share – or not – with a stranger. In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, and that they were free to reward them by giving back some of the money, which had since doubled in amount. Those who scored low on the religiosity scale, and high on momentary compassion, were more inclined to share their winnings with strangers than other participants in the study.”
The research clearly shows that less religious people are more likely to be compassionate and generous toward others, while highly religious people are less likely to show empathy for their fellow citizens.
Willer states that, “Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people. Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not. The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”
This study flies in the face of conservative claims that America is losing it’s morality because of a lack of religion. Of course, conservatives will attack the study as having a liberal bias because it was done by UC Berkeley in California, which Rick Santorum falsely contends doesn’t teach American history. But based on this study, it looks like we’d all be more compassionate with a little less religion in our lives.
Since 1old and his ilk always try to paint the opposite picture, I thought I'd post this here.
Study Reveals Atheists Are MORE Compassionate And Generous Than Highly Religious People
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
For years, religious conservatives, despite their hatred for the poor and sick, have been denouncing atheists, agnostics, and those they feel are less religious, such as liberals, as being godless heathens who are destroying the morality of America. A new study, however, finds that less religious people are actually more compassionate and generous than highly religious people.
In a study published in the latest edition of Social Psychological and Personality Science journal, researchers performed three experiments and concluded that highly religious people are apparently more stingy with money and less compassionate overall than those who are less religious.
First, researchers analyzed data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults in which they were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement,
“When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.”
Less religious participants who agreed with the statement were more likely than those who are more religious to give to charity and help homeless people. The study found “that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals.”
In another experiment, 101 American adults were asked to watch one of two separate videos. One video was neutral, while the second video portrayed children living in poverty. After being given ten “lab dollars,” the participants were told to give any amount they wanted to a total stranger. According to UC Berkeley social psychologist and co-author of the study Robb Willer, “The compassion-inducing video had a big effect” on the generosity of the least religious, “but it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants.”
The last experiment asked 200+ college students “to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played “economic trust games” in which they were given money to share – or not – with a stranger. In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, and that they were free to reward them by giving back some of the money, which had since doubled in amount. Those who scored low on the religiosity scale, and high on momentary compassion, were more inclined to share their winnings with strangers than other participants in the study.”
The research clearly shows that less religious people are more likely to be compassionate and generous toward others, while highly religious people are less likely to show empathy for their fellow citizens.
Willer states that, “Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people. Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not. The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.”
This study flies in the face of conservative claims that America is losing it’s morality because of a lack of religion. Of course, conservatives will attack the study as having a liberal bias because it was done by UC Berkeley in California, which Rick Santorum falsely contends doesn’t teach American history. But based on this study, it looks like we’d all be more compassionate with a little less religion in our lives.
Since 1old and his ilk always try to paint the opposite picture, I thought I'd post this here.
I'm sure that there is no undue bias on the UC of Berkley's behalf ...that said it has been clearly been shown that atheists and non-theists are capable of altruism and quite often put shame to a good many self-professed christians.
Jesus gives us the parable of the Good Samaritan is an excellent example of doing the right thing and what true followers of Christ ought to be anxiously engaged in.
In the end whether the good samaritan is atheist or a theist.... The act of altruism, compassion and kindness have a divine source...and does not originate from some promodial soup of interacting chemicals.
That being said the study seems to be very selective in its study of displays of human compassion from atheists and theists..but that is largely due to the perception of the media towards the religious as a whole.
Some of human history's most horrific attrocities were commited by tyrants and dictators who happened to be atheist. The argument by atheists counter by saying no wars or murders/genocides were ever committed in the name of atheism.
Fine...whatever but fanaticism is not relegated to religious extremism as it has been clearly demonstrated under communism where the state and the head of said state becomes its own diety.
This is an example of how humans through philosopies/beliefs of such as atheism/humanism/secularism seek to remove God as the supreme lawgiver and authority...by denying God's existence and therefore dismissing/removing His authority over all and elevates Man himself as the source/giver of law and justice.
And when that happens amen to human civilization.
Edited by 1oldminer (05/04/1205:59 PM)
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
#3798942 - 05/04/1211:41 PMRe: Study Reveals Atheists are more Compassionate and Generous than Highly Religious People
[Re: 1oldminer]
JT
Menounos Numero Uno
Registered: 08/09/04
Posts: 66282
Loc: Nueva York
Not for nothing, but alot of religious people are rather fake. They support the basic ideas of their religion, but don't really live it. They go to church or whatever similar once a week, but don't live what they learn. And then there's many that just get into religion for the benefit of a magical invincible genie that can magically benefit their lives through "prayer" or to hopefully spend afterlife in a good place. Not trying to mock those that really believe in religion. But there are many that just believe for rather selfish reasons. But lead lives that are far from what a religious person should be more like.
_________________________
Maria Menounos • Vanessa Hudgens • Minka Kelly • Jennifer Lawrence Emmanuelle Chriqui • Jessica Alba • Kelly Brook • Lucy Hale • Carmen Villalobos Jojo • Ashley Benson • Elisha Cuthbert • Kate Upton • Debby Ryan • Sophia Bush Sarah Shahi • Nina Dobrev • Emma Watson • Olivia Munn • Candice Swanepoel Anna Kendrick • Alison Brie • Frankie Sandford • Victoria Justice
Correct. His posts tend to be so ridiculous I feel compelled to respond.
I don't like talking about religion openly unless it's brought up, I have my own personal beliefs, but it just gets too personal on this topic of religion, and it doesn't need to be. Just my two cents.
On a related note, my state's governor signed a bill today to cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood. I just donated $100 to Planned Parenthood. I'm not an atheist, but I am on that end of the spectrum.
Someone has to. You make my brain explode. I have to speak out. It's a curse.
Then I suggest you should stop reading my posts.
It's pretty clear to me that believing in a higher power/intelligence isn't your cup of tea which is fine by me but you are unable to engage in a meaningful debate without having to resort to making inane pointless comments as well as unfunny jokes in most of these threads unless someone forces you to put your money where your mouth is.
Only then you actually engage in a civilized and intelligent converstion.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
On a related note, my state's governor signed a bill today to cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood. I just donated $100 to Planned Parenthood. I'm not an atheist, but I am on that end of the spectrum.
Good for you...
Do you believe in abortion on demand? Should it be used as a convient contreception? Even up to the time of full term gestation?
You might like to know in the province of Quebec alone out of population of 7 million..over 28,000 abortions were performed in 1998 in a province that has one of the lowest birthrates in the western world. This I find is disturbing statistics...
Do you believe in poor women getting low cost medical services? Our state already did not provide funding for abortion services. This new bill cuts off ALL funding.
As for the rest of it, you keep posting your stuff, I'll keep replying to it.
Oh yeah, I was driven to making jokes as a defense mechanism to prevent myself from going crazy by your complete lack of logic. You make so many baffling arguments and self contradictory statements with apparent sincerity in believing that they are actually logically sound that it makes my brain want to eat itself. Hence, jokes.
Do you believe in poor women getting low cost medical services? Our state already did not provide funding for abortion services. This new bill cuts off ALL funding.
As for the rest of it, you keep posting your stuff, I'll keep replying to it.
From hell's primordial soup, I stab at thee!
Then you are aiming at futility Foob.
You liberals champion the cause for removing the death penalty for hardcore rapists, child killers and others who have caused more suffering to others and be a drain to the country's resources which taxpayers have to pay for btw... but you have no qualms to deny those the unborn the chance to be born and thier potential to be positive contributors to society.
And you're avoiding my question..at what stage does the fetus earn the right to life? Does it have to survive birth to be considered a human being? Where do you distinguish what is a human being and what is just a lump of cells to be disposed of or used for stem cell research that more than likely won't produce limb or organ regeneration?
I believe in prevention of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.A ounce of prevention is better than the cure. There are many ways for women who do not want go through a pregnancy by making sure they don't get pregnant.
Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for abortions on demand as a convienent means of birth control? Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
Planned Parenthood != Abortion On Demand Factory. Those "many ways for women who do not want go through a pregnancy by making sure they don't get pregnant," guess who could help women with that? That's right! Planned Parenthood! Maybe you should donate some money to them.
And who's playing God now with that last sentence of yours?
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
Planned Parenthood != Abortion On Demand Factory. Those "many ways for women who do not want go through a pregnancy by making sure they don't get pregnant," guess who could help women with that? That's right! Planned Parenthood! Maybe you should donate some money to them.
And who's playing God now with that last sentence of yours?
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
Planned Parenthood = Abortion on Demand Factory???Are you trying to be funny?
Not surprising that you keep avoiding the question Foob.I'll ask again.
At what stage during pregnancy does the fetus earn the right to life and status as a human being?
And yes men can help women..the man does not get off scott free from sharing the responsibility of getting the woman pregnant in the first place. It takes two to tangle...and it takes both of them to take measures to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies without abortion.
And..only God has the right to decide whether or not the child will live or die. If the child does not survive for whatsoever reason medical or some other birth complications beyond the abilty of medical care.. then it is the will of God.
Edited by 1oldminer (05/05/1202:56 PM)
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
Planned Parenthood != Abortion on Demand Factory. !=. Not equals.
I will continue to ignore your attempts to move off the subject.
Your last sentence in this post is not the same as your last sentence in your previous post.
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
And..only God has the right to decide whether or not the child will live or die. If the child does not survive for whatsoever reason medical or some other birth complications beyond the abilty of medical care.. then it is the will of God.
Planned Parenthood != Abortion on Demand Factory. !=. Not equals.
You mean this...= but with a cross mark in the middle... or you must mean Planned Parenthood is not Abortion on Demand Factory.
But you support Abortion on Demand without regard for the rights of those who cannot speak on thier behalf.
Quote:
I will continue to ignore your attempts to move off the subject.
Your last sentence in this post is not the same as your last sentence in your previous post.
Then do what you will Foob as I am seeing you have ducked the question.
Quote:
[/quote]
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
And..only God has the right to decide whether or not the child will live or die. If the child does not survive for whatsoever reason medical or some other birth complications beyond the abilty of medical care.. then it is the will of God.
Like I said, self contradictory.
Only by your interpretation...it is up to you to view my answer however way you want to see it.I believe that the life of the mother and that of the child lives must be maintained with the best of medical care that is available. If the child is beyond viabilty due to complications or severe birth defects that will not result in survival then it is the will of the Lord to take that child home to heaven...but medical care must still be provided for to ensure care and make the child as comfortable as possible without due suffering/pain as well allow the parents privacy and the remaining time they do have with thier child to say thier goodbyes until such time that death comes.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
So you do support the taking of a life. In certain situations. As decided by you.
I notice you are now leaving out the rape part.
Your questions lead down rabbit holes. Any answers given always smack against the stone wall of your incomprehension. Also, your questions tend to be used to steer the conversation away from the topic at hand to whatever it is YOU want to talk about. That is why I no longer answer your questions.
Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. I, not an atheist but on that end of the spectrum, was spurred by the actions of my state's legislature and governor to spontaneous generosity last night to donate to Planned Parenthood. Anyone else, from any end of the spectrum, have similar examples of spontaneous generosity?
So you do support the taking of a life. In certain situations. As decided by you.
I do support the death penalty but that is just my personal opinion ultimely it is not up to me. Only God can decide who shall live and who shall die.
Quote:
Your questions lead down rabbit holes. Any answers given always smack against the stone wall of your incomprehension. Also, your questions tend to be used to steer the conversation away from the topic at hand to whatever it is YOU want to talk about. That is why I no longer answer your questions.
translation you prefer to avoid the ethical and moral ramifications concerning abortion on demand. You are the one who's stonwalling here...and this topic is about atheists (or liberals in your case) supposedly having more compassion and generousity than the religious or conservatives like myself right? So what about compassion for the unborn?
Quote:
Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. I, not an atheist but on that end of the spectrum, was spurred by the actions of my state's legislature and governor to spontaneous generosity last night to donate to Planned Parenthood. Anyone else, from any end of the spectrum, have similar examples of spontaneous generosity?
Not for promoting abortion on demand to be made available at taxpayer's money...whether they support the issue or not I myself would not support it.
Rush Limbaugh recently alluded to something similar concerning taxpayers having to foot the bill for contreceptives...when that young woman petitioned the governnment to provide to pay her contreceptives which are not life-sustaining such as medication for asthma for example.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
#3799828 - 05/05/1204:36 PMRe: Study Reveals Atheists are more Compassionate and Generous than Highly Religious People
[Re: 1oldminer]
Moonman
Lurking from the Darkside
Registered: 08/03/05
Posts: 41279
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
I am seeing you have ducked the question.
How does that feel, seeing as you do the EXACT same thing in nearly every post you make. Someone will pose a question directly to you, and you will ignore it outright or answer with a question of your own to evade giving an answer.
So you do support the taking of a life. In certain situations. As decided by you.
I do support the death penalty but that is just my personal opinion ultimely it is not up to me. Only God can decide who shall live and who shall die.
Abortion. You support abortion. Pay attention.
I notice you are now leaving out the rape part.
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
As for your questions, taunt all you want. I will no longer allow you to lead the conversation where you want it to go.
So, anyone have any good generosity stories to share?
I have this page bookmarked. Whenever I am tempted to answer a question from miner, I go back and look at this, to remind myself of the mindbending anti-logic which will surely follow. Behold it in all its awesomeness, and weep.
I would submit this video link on the issue on Abortion and Health Care in the words of Father Barron who is much more insightful and eloquent on the matter than I.
You would do well to listen to what he has to say on the matter.
As for the matter on rape unlike you I shall answer your question..my opinion is that when rape is involved then abortion can be consdered as a last option in the interests of the mother particularly if the rape victim is a minor.
But there is also the option of carrying that child to full term and giving the baby up for adoption if the mother is unable to care for the child.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
How does that feel, seeing as you do the EXACT same thing in nearly every post you make. Someone will pose a question directly to you, and you will ignore it outright or answer with a question of your own to evade giving an answer.
I have answered foob's question see my last post.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
So in some cases it is God's will that a baby should die, and thus abortion is acceptable. God wants that particular baby dead, so it's okay to help it along. But only when you think so. Even when it is not a medical emergency (rape).
So, anyone have any input to the spontaneous generosity topic?
#3799936 - 05/05/1205:58 PMRe: Study Reveals Atheists are more Compassionate and Generous than Highly Religious People
[Re: 1oldminer]
Feral
Taoiseach den fhoirm baineann
Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 2121
Loc: Wandering, but not lost
Don't mean to intrude on Foo's trolling, but I have a question miner:
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
Why do you make exceptions? I feel it's an important question. Not attacking you, or setting you up for attack. Sorry if it turns out that way.
In this video concerning the new findings being discussed that the non-religious are more compassionate and generous than religious. I noticed the participants failed to mention any church run programs that aid local communities and abroad in times of natural disasters..such the Helping Hands sponsered by my church for example were among the very first to arrive in Haiti and New Orleans before the federal government did.
While it is true that many non religious are in fact more christlike than many who claim to be followers of Christ..the study I find has holes in it and does not take account the good the religious do in service to God.
Don't mean to intrude on Foo's trolling, but I have a question miner:
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
Why do you make exceptions? I feel it's an important question. Not attacking you, or setting you up for attack. Sorry if it turns out that way.
Not at all Feral..it is an honest question to ask...I make abortion as a last option in the case for rape based on certain situations..especially if it is agreed by all parties involved when abortion might be the only option..when the trauma and shock over a enforced and violent event such as rape is too much for the mother and it could endanger her physical, mental and psycological well being...if she be forced to carry the child to full term.
But that's only my opinion.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
In this video concerning the new findings being discussed that the non-religious are more compassionate and generous than religious. I noticed the participants failed to mention any church run programs that aid local communities and abroad in times of natural disasters..such the Helping Hands sponsered by my church for example were among the very first to arrive in Haiti and New Orleans before the federal government did.
While it is true that many non religious are in fact more christlike than many who claim to be followers of Christ..the study I find has holes in it and does not take account the good the religious do in service to God.
You mean the holes of it not including every charitable act performed by every person, ever?
Scientific studies are ALWAYS limited in scope. They put forward a hypothesis, design an experiment with a manageable scope, then draw conclusions based on the results.
#3799952 - 05/05/1206:22 PMRe: Study Reveals Atheists are more Compassionate and Generous than Highly Religious People
[Re: 1oldminer]
Feral
Taoiseach den fhoirm baineann
Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 2121
Loc: Wandering, but not lost
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Originally Posted By: Feral
Don't mean to intrude on Foo's trolling, but I have a question miner:
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Abortion should be only be performed in situations involving rape, if the health of the mother is in endangered or the fetus has severe birth defects and has little or no chance of surviving.
Why do you make exceptions? I feel it's an important question. Not attacking you, or setting you up for attack. Sorry if it turns out that way.
Not at all Feral..it is an honest question to ask...I make abortion as a last option in the case for rape based on certain situations..especially if it is agreed by all parties involved when abortion might be the only option..when the trauma and shock over a enforced and violent event such as rape is too much for the mother and it could endanger her physical, mental and psycological well being...if she be forced to carry the child to full term. But that's only my opinion.
All parties except the baby? And pregnancy and birth is dangerous to women physically and mentally even if they weren't raped. Where do you make a distinction? And why?
In this video concerning the new findings being discussed that the non-religious are more compassionate and generous than religious. I noticed the participants failed to mention any church run programs that aid local communities and abroad in times of natural disasters..such the Helping Hands sponsered by my church for example were among the very first to arrive in Haiti and New Orleans before the federal government did.
While it is true that many non religious are in fact more christlike than many who claim to be followers of Christ..the study I find has holes in it and does not take account the good the religious do in service to God.
You mean the holes of it not including every charitable act performed by every person, ever?
Scientific studies are ALWAYS limited in scope. They put forward a hypothesis, design an experiment with a manageable scope, then draw conclusions based on the results.
Are not scientific studies supposed to be done objectively and without bias and not selectively as this study seems to imply?
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
All parties except the baby? And pregnancy and birth is dangerous to women physically and mentally even if they weren't raped. Where do you make a distinction? And why?
Well there is always the adoptive route which would be more preferable imo than abortion. But in the case of rape where especially the rape victim is a minor as they are not fully mature enough psycologically and emotionally to handle a raped induced pregnancy...the abortion can be considered but only when all other options are considered first.
Also abortion can be considered when the child is born with such severe abnomalities that any chances of long term survival or any length of survival at all is not feasable...that is more than a few days of needless suffering for all involved including the child itself...then it is in the best interest for all to terminate the pregnancy.
_________________________
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible". ~Thomas Aquinas
Oooh, you got me. Yes, the study is limited in scope, and thus not applicable to make universal statements about all religious people and atheists everywhere. Perhaps you are confusing the article ABOUT the study, which is certainly slanted and inflammatory, with the study itself, which I highly doubt makes any such claims.
#3799992 - 05/05/1207:10 PMRe: Study Reveals Atheists are more Compassionate and Generous than Highly Religious People
[Re: 1oldminer]
Feral
Taoiseach den fhoirm baineann
Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 2121
Loc: Wandering, but not lost
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Quote:
All parties except the baby? And pregnancy and birth is dangerous to women physically and mentally even if they weren't raped. Where do you make a distinction? And why?
Well there is always the adoptive route which would be more preferable imo than abortion. But in the case of rape where especially the rape victim is a minor as they are not fully mature enough psycologically and emotionally to handle a raped induced pregnancy...the abortion can be considered but only when all other options are considered first.
So, abortion is ok, only if it might be difficult?
Originally Posted By: 1oldminer
Also abortion can be considered when the child is born with such severe abnomalities that any chances of long term survival or any length of survival at all is not feasable...that is more than a few days of needless suffering for all involved including the child itself...then it is in the best interest for all to terminate the pregnancy.
What if the best interest of all involved is not to have any baby at all? And which is it? I've known quite a few wonderful people that didn't live very long. I also know quite a few that are terribly crippled. You are saying it would have been ok to terminate them? And needless suffering? Do you mean physical or mental? For who? What if the fetus has no brain activity, even late term? What about after the fact? What if the kid is born a vegetable? Is it ok to kill it after? How long after? What if a kid has a disease and lives for ten years and then loses all cognitive function? Is that kid 'alive'? Is it ok to kill them then, to save them suffering? Consistency is important.
Oooh, you got me. Yes, the study is limited in scope, and thus not applicable to make universal statements about all religious people and atheists everywhere. Perhaps you are confusing the article ABOUT the study, which is certainly slanted and inflammatory, with the study itself, which I highly doubt makes any such claims.
We won't know what the study actually said until someone with a subscription to the journal it was published in decides to post it here. The closest I could get to it was a UC Berkeley press release on it - which, by the way, was FAR less rabid and acusatory than the article above. In fact, it was remarkably even-handed and contained exculpatory information about possible reasons for the observed behavior of the "very religious."
But the presence or absence of "universal statements" is the least of my problems with this study.
First of all, we have no clue how the study defines "highly religious" and "less religious." Nor do we find any information on the ratio of atheists and agnostics to the "less religious" used in the study.
More to the point, are not the "less religious" still religious? Why does the study conflate the religious with the unreligious?
And then there is the problem inherent in doing lab experiments with people. The very fact that they are aware that they are involved in an experiment and are being observed has unintended effects on the outcomes. The highly respected economist John List actually exposed the problems inherent in such lab experiments by behavioral economists.
Bottom line, this report leaves much to be desired and is far from proof of anything.
But then the actual authors of the report (unlike the victory-dancing author of the story above) would very likely say the same thing.
On a personal level, even though I'm an agnostic, I have donated to both religious and secular charities quite often, though not as much recently given my current economic situation.
...that said it has been clearly been shown that atheists and non-theists are capable of altruism and quite often put shame to a good many self-professed christians. 
Previous Topic
Index
