Religion and altruism

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

***************

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.

****************

Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.

Cheers.

Sriram

[BashfulAnthony]

Hi everyone,

It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

***************

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.

****************

Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.

Cheers.

Sriram

I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions.  Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.

[Nearly Sane]

Doesn't appear to be a survey but rather a study. Overall I agree with BA though that without some detail on the methodology, it isn't clear what, if any, conclusions can be taken. How BA knows that most of these 'surveys' are worthless though would be interestin to know. What are the other 'surveys' he is loading in with, how he works this out having not read it, and what his evidence for 'surveys' that are like something he hasn't read are worthless is?

[BashfulAnthony]

It could be that children in religious households are more likely to rebel by not sharing.

It's like that old chestnut about only children not learning to share, I'm an only child and I always had to share with my friends or cousins.

Having had lots of friends with brothers and sisters, my observation is that often they had no choice as their brother for example just took things and used it for a purpose it wasn't intended for ( like using Barbie for target practice ).

One of my friends even found her brothers had taken her knickers from her drawer to stuff in a hole in a pane of glass. ( it wouldn't have surprised me if it has been her favourite clothing to use as a flag)

If it wasn't that it was younger sisters playing " grown ups " with their make up, which girls of a certain age like to have.

So I wonder if children from religious homes are reluctant to share because they are expected to share sometimes, rather than them choosing too.

🌹

Perhaps in non religious households it is put differently in some way.

There are many reasons why a child should rebel: why religious influences might be more of an influence is impossible to verify.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

***************

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.

****************

Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.

Cheers.

Sriram

I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions.  Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.

This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.

The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.

Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I'll comment more once I've read the details.

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks for that, Prof D, I can access the report.

[BashfulAnthony]

Hi everyone,

It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

***************

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.

****************

Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.

Cheers.

Sriram

I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions.  Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.

This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.

The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.

Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I'll comment more once I've read the details.

As I understand it, these findings were based on the attitudes of children under the age of 12.  I suggest such conclusions are highly dubious based on children of that age.  I think most children, of any or no religious influence, are guided in their sharing tendencies purely from self-interest; and only as they mature can any other conclusions be of any acceptable veracity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

***************

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.

****************

Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.

Cheers.

Sriram

I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions.  Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.

This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.

The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.

Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I'll comment more once I've read the details.

As I understand it, these findings were based on the attitudes of children under the age of 12.  I suggest such conclusions are highly dubious based on children of that age.  I think most children, of any or no religious influence, are guided in their sharing tendencies purely from self-interest; and only as they mature can any other conclusions be of any acceptable veracity.

The ability to share certainly increases with age, as the research discusses. But these changes largely occur in much younger children - social, altruistic and generous behaviours tend to develop at ages 3-5, so by 12 this will be well embedded.

But nonetheless there are differences, so even were you to conclude that altruistic behaviour is not fully formed, it is developing better within the children from non religious backgrounds.

There is a third element to the research with conclusions that children from religious backgrounds have a greater sensitivity to perceived injustices. Hmm might be manifested in adulthood by trying to 'rubbish' reputable research whose conclusions (about children from religious households) you don't like rather than accept and try to understand the findings. But we'd never see that kind of behaviour amongst our religious friends here, would we

[BashfulAnthony]

Hi everyone,

It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

***************

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.

****************

Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.

Cheers.

Sriram

I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions.  Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.

This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.

The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.

Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I'll comment more once I've read the details.

As I understand it, these findings were based on the attitudes of children under the age of 12.  I suggest such conclusions are highly dubious based on children of that age.  I think most children, of any or no religious influence, are guided in their sharing tendencies purely from self-interest; and only as they mature can any other conclusions be of any acceptable veracity.

The ability to share certainly increases with age, as the research discusses. But these changes largely occur in much younger children - social, altruistic and generous behaviours tend to develop at ages 3-5, so by 12 this will be well embedded.

But nonetheless there are differences, so even were you to conclude that altruistic behaviour is not fully formed, it is developing better within the children from non religious backgrounds.

There is a third element to the research with conclusions that children from religious backgrounds have a greater sensitivity to perceived injustices. Hmm might be manifested in adulthood by trying to 'rubbish' reputable research whose conclusions (about children from religious households) you don't like rather than accept and try to understand the findings. But we'd never see that kind of behaviour amongst our religious friends here, would we

Perhaps it would be more meaningful if the research was conducted on adults, whose altruism, or not, may be significant in our lives.

[Rhiannon]

I think what this research is showing is hiw religion enforces tribal thinking. We're programmed to put our own tribe first and subconsciously or otherwise religion encourages tribalism. It'd be interesting to see if the findings could be replicated with children raised with other strong 'tribal' identities.

[Owlswing]

Hi everyone,

It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

***************

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.

****************

Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.

Cheers.

Sriram

I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions.  Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.

And of course this has nothing to do with the fact that you will do just about anything to deny anything negative attached to your religion!

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi everyone,

It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm

***************

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.

****************

Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.

Cheers.

Sriram

I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions.  Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.

This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.

The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.

Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I'll comment more once I've read the details.

As I understand it, these findings were based on the attitudes of children under the age of 12.  I suggest such conclusions are highly dubious based on children of that age.  I think most children, of any or no religious influence, are guided in their sharing tendencies purely from self-interest; and only as they mature can any other conclusions be of any acceptable veracity.

The ability to share certainly increases with age, as the research discusses. But these changes largely occur in much younger children - social, altruistic and generous behaviours tend to develop at ages 3-5, so by 12 this will be well embedded.

But nonetheless there are differences, so even were you to conclude that altruistic behaviour is not fully formed, it is developing better within the children from non religious backgrounds.

There is a third element to the research with conclusions that children from religious backgrounds have a greater sensitivity to perceived injustices. Hmm might be manifested in adulthood by trying to 'rubbish' reputable research whose conclusions (about children from religious households) you don't like rather than accept and try to understand the findings. But we'd never see that kind of behaviour amongst our religious friends here, would we

Perhaps it would be more meaningful if the research was conducted on adults, whose altruism, or not, may be significant in our lives.

But that would be a different study, and I am aware of a number of studies that have looked into these sorts of things with adults (albeit not from a fundamental psychology research perspective).

Simply because it would be interesting additionally to see research on adults doesn't make this study less interesting in itself or less relevant.

[Rhiannon]

If you have your own kids it is obvious when you have to stop ordering them to share nicely, and it's well before twelve.

[Hope]

Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything.  Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?

I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?

[Shaker]

In restricted circles Shaker's First Law has, I think, gained a very modest degree of currency - now I'm thinking of formulating Shaker's Second Law: The degree of hard critical thinking and scepticism shown by the religious toward any study critical of religious belief is inversely proportional to the degree of critical thinking and scepticism they demonstrate toward the content of their own religion.

It doesn't flow that wonderfully, I admit, so I'll keep working on it to make it a bit more snappy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything.  Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?

I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?

I've linked to the actual paper.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I think this is open access - certainly I can access it, but then I would be able to, but also so can NS.

But frankly I'm not particularly interested in your critique of the methodology Hope, given that you aren't a professional scientific researcher and really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of scientific methodology.

However this was published in one of the leading journals in the field, one that only publishes the highest quality research and uses extensive peer review (the peers of course being experts) to determine which papers get published and which don't. And if there were methodological flaws, it wouldn't have been published.

So rather than try to rubbish the paper (which given your lack of expertise and also inherent bias is rather obvious and pathetic) why not actually try to address the findings and consider why it might be so.

I actually think there is a lot that is rather interesting here and it relates to perception vs reality issues, plus attitudes toward group vs non group and finally to the notion that altruism within a religious context often has a much greater emphasis on being seen to be done (as well as being done) than in the non religious sphere where altruism tends to be a much more private (and therefore 'invisible') activity.

So all of this points to a situation where religious people may be (in reality) no more altruistic, or even less altruistic, than non religious people, but genuinely (I'm being charitable here) perceive that they are more altruistic.

[Owlswing]

Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything.  Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?

I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?

I've linked to the actual paper.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I think this is open access - certainly I can access it, but then I would be able to, but also so can NS.

But frankly I'm not particularly interested in your critique of the methodology Hope, given that you aren't a professional scientific researcher and really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of scientific methodology.

However this was published in one of the leading journals in the field, one that only publishes the highest quality research and uses extensive peer review (the peers of course being experts) to determine which papers get published and which don't. And if there were methodological flaws, it wouldn't have been published.

So rather than try to rubbish the paper (which given your lack of expertise and also inherent bias is rather obvious and pathetic) why not actually try to address the findings and consider why it might be so.

I actually think there is a lot that is rather interesting here and it relates to perception vs reality issues, plus attitudes toward group vs non group and finally to the notion that altruism within a religious context often has a much greater emphasis on being seen to be done (as well as being done) than in the non religious sphere where altruism tends to be a much more private (and therefore 'invisible') activity.

So all of this points to a situation where religious people may be (in reality) no more altruistic, or even less altruistic, than non religious people, but genuinely (I'm being charitable here) perceive that they are more altruistic.

Excellent post! A brilliant explanation that even a senile old fart can understand - thanks Prof!

[ProfessorDavey]

Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything.  Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?

I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?

I've linked to the actual paper.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I think this is open access - certainly I can access it, but then I would be able to, but also so can NS.

But frankly I'm not particularly interested in your critique of the methodology Hope, given that you aren't a professional scientific researcher and really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of scientific methodology.

However this was published in one of the leading journals in the field, one that only publishes the highest quality research and uses extensive peer review (the peers of course being experts) to determine which papers get published and which don't. And if there were methodological flaws, it wouldn't have been published.

So rather than try to rubbish the paper (which given your lack of expertise and also inherent bias is rather obvious and pathetic) why not actually try to address the findings and consider why it might be so.

I actually think there is a lot that is rather interesting here and it relates to perception vs reality issues, plus attitudes toward group vs non group and finally to the notion that altruism within a religious context often has a much greater emphasis on being seen to be done (as well as being done) than in the non religious sphere where altruism tends to be a much more private (and therefore 'invisible') activity.

So all of this points to a situation where religious people may be (in reality) no more altruistic, or even less altruistic, than non religious people, but genuinely (I'm being charitable here) perceive that they are more altruistic.

Excellent post! A brilliant explanation that even a senile old fart can understand - thanks Prof!

You're welcome

[ippy]

Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything.  Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?

I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?

I've linked to the actual paper.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

I think this is open access - certainly I can access it, but then I would be able to, but also so can NS.

But frankly I'm not particularly interested in your critique of the methodology Hope, given that you aren't a professional scientific researcher and really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of scientific methodology.

However this was published in one of the leading journals in the field, one that only publishes the highest quality research and uses extensive peer review (the peers of course being experts) to determine which papers get published and which don't. And if there were methodological flaws, it wouldn't have been published.

So rather than try to rubbish the paper (which given your lack of expertise and also inherent bias is rather obvious and pathetic) why not actually try to address the findings and consider why it might be so.

I actually think there is a lot that is rather interesting here and it relates to perception vs reality issues, plus attitudes toward group vs non group and finally to the notion that altruism within a religious context often has a much greater emphasis on being seen to be done (as well as being done) than in the non religious sphere where altruism tends to be a much more private (and therefore 'invisible') activity.

So all of this points to a situation where religious people may be (in reality) no more altruistic, or even less altruistic, than non religious people, but genuinely (I'm being charitable here) perceive that they are more altruistic.

Excellent post! A brilliant explanation that even a senile old fart can understand - thanks Prof!

You're welcome

I was reading through the previous posts on this thread thinking even if a religious believer did do some or other  altruistic act at the same time as a non-religious person was doing an exactly similar altruistic act, the non-religious person will always be the most altruistic of the two, simply because they are doing this altruistic act without any mind to heavenly brownie points of any kind; game set and match.

Anyway, after reading your post I see that we are more or less singing from the same prayer sheet, very encouraging.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

When it comes to charitable acts I think Christians are onto a but of a lose/lose. If they don't do them then they are criticised as not sufficiently Christian; if they do then the belief a to often us that they either do it for 'brownie points' or to get bums on seats.

They can't really win.

[ProfessorDavey]

When it comes to charitable acts I think Christians are onto a but of a lose/lose. If they don't do them then they are criticised as not sufficiently Christian; if they do then the belief a to often us that they either do it for 'brownie points' or to get bums on seats.

They can't really win.

That may be true but I'm not sure it is key to this discussion.

Actually I don't think the damned if you do, damned if you don't line is the point. I think the problem arises when some christians (and there are rather too many of them) give the impression that christians do more good work, even sometimes that those that aren't religious are somehow incapable (or simply don't) get involved in charitable work, volunteering etc. We've all heard the arguments.

Now where not only is this not true, but also there is evidence that non religious people are just as likely as religious people to get involved in charity/volunteering etc (as is the case certainly in the UK) or even to be more altruistic (as in this study) then the attitudes of the 'look at us we do all this good work and you don't' religious brigade really does grate.

[Rhiannon]

I was responding mostly to Ippy. But whilst the in- your-face altruism of some religious is most definitely annoying, it's not the only kind. And when you have the likes of Floo saying that Christians should demonstrate their faith through good deeds, it's difficult to judge how society thinks Christians should behave when it comes to charity and altruism. At least us non-Christians are free of all that baggage.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was responding mostly to Ippy. But whilst the in- your-face altruism of some religious is most definitely annoying, it's not the only kind. And when you have the likes of Floo saying that Christians should demonstrate their faith through good deeds, it's difficult to judge how society thinks Christians should behave when it comes to charity and altruism. At least us non-Christians are free of all that baggage.

Yes I understand.

But I do think there is a much greater emphasis on altruism being seen, being visible within christianity than in the broader society. Two most obvious examples being that giving, in a very public way, is and always has been part of the mass. So it is integral to worship that people give and are seen to be giving. Another example is the apparent need for christians to badge charities as 'christian', to ensure that it is seen that christianity is involved. I must admit I've never understood this as a concept, considering charity to be much more about what you do and who you help rather than who you are as help-givers.

Now I think this need to be very visible, coupled with the small, but very coherent community associated with many religions leads to what I think may be a kind of delusion. Namely that because their charitable altruistic acts are very visible and often inherently associated with their religion that (in a process of 2+2=5) they must be doing more than non religious people.

Add to that a continual drip feed of view that christianity is about being good and christians should get involved in good deeds and it is perhaps not unsurprising that christians sometimes end up believing their own hype - that they are doing more than others.

But it is hype of course as there is no evidence, certainly in the UK that religious people are more likely to get involved in charitable work, voluntary activities etc than non religious people.

[Rhiannon]

'The plate' is seen as very bad form in churches these days - cash collections are usually for services attended by non- regulars and are often for charity.

Quite why Christian Aid is so called I don't know but so believe they deliver good value. When I was on that side of the fence I remember the feeling that giving was a matter of love and gratitude. There was almost a drive to keep giving secret and unnoticed especially if done in a private capacity. In fact there was a rather damaging sub- context that all bad deeds, thoughts and attitudes come from within us but all the good we did was God working through us and not us at all.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely one of the issues here are those Christians, such as Alan Burns, who claim that Christians are better for being Christian