It's also not what the study proves, as it turns out.
"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," study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. "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."So, in other words, religion performs the expected function after all: it drives people to help out that random guy. Without it, you're likely to help if and only if you have an existing emotional connection with the individual who wants help.
That's not shocking at all. It's just what you'd expect.
11 comments:
Of course you'll be happier if your feelings are fairly consonant with your values, but your duty is your duty.
An interesting question would be: are atheists motivated by compassion more often than believers are motivated by their religious convictions?
Also, isn't it also possible that religious people are more likely to give credit to their religion than themselves?
All the most religious people I know, if complimented on their altruism, will retreat to modesty and say something like "it's what God would have me do".
If you're motivated by compassion, you might react more quickly to the sob story, but I suspect it's the people motivated by duty that help the wretches in the gutters in the black hole of Calcutta. Of course, maybe I've just missed all the atheist rehab centers, homeless shelters, orphanges, and hospitals.
Hopefully so, Douglas, since the gov't seems inclined to force the Catholic ones to shut down. We'll be needing some of that atheist compassion soon!
I think you're right, Mr. King, that in general 'I'm just doing my duty' is the proper response for a religious person. It's even true, in the case of the religious orders particularly.
Of course, maybe I've just missed all the atheist rehab centers, homeless shelters, orphanges, and hospitals.
OK, that made me laugh out loud :p
So by "compassion," they just meant "feelings."
Well, right; but atheists are more rational than believers, so it wouldn't make sense to say they were motivated chiefly by "feelings."
But they're rational feelings, and therefore more admirable than the primitive, delusional feelings of clingy bible-thumpers.
To be fair to atheists, I like Penn Jillette, and he has a great quote about 'compassion':
"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."
"douglas said... @5:10 AM"
In a nutshell.
Post a Comment