Athiests/agnostics are supposedly more compassionate than the faithful

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

 Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds.

That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than it other groups.

"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."

Willer's co-author Laura Saslow, now a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, San Francisco, became interested in the question of what motivates charity after a non-religious friend lamented that he donated money to earthquake recovery in Haiti only after seeing a heart-touching video of a woman being pulled from rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed.

"I was interested to find that this experience – an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers – was replicated in three large, systematic studies," Saslow said in a statement.

In the first study, Saslow and her colleagues analyzed data from a national survey of more than 1,300 American adults taken in 2004. They found that compassionate attitudes were linked with how many generous behaviors a person was likely to report. But this link was strongest in people who were atheists or only slightly religious, compared with people who were more strongly religious. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]

In a second experiment, 101 adults were shown either a neutral video or an emotional video about children in poverty. They were then given 10 fake dollars and told they could give as much as they liked to a stranger. Those who were less religious gave more when they saw the emotional video first.

"The compassion-inducing video had a big effect on their generosity," Willer said. "But it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants."

Finally, a sample of more than 200 college students reported their current level of compassion and then played economic games in which they were given money to share or withhold from a stranger. Those who were the least religious but most momentarily compassionate shared the most.

More research will be needed to understand what factors motivate religious people's giving, but the study makes clear that empathy and compassion are not the only factors at play.

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

Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook.

How should this be interpreted? They seem to take two sides.  Is there something to be said about agnostics/atheists being more generous than the faithful? (disclaimer: I'm an atheist) I think the non-faithful have a more sincere reason for their charity... but the faithful contribute a vast amount more BECAUSE their faith promotes charity. Should we, as a society, promote ends or means to an end? 

[useful idiot]

The methodology of the study seems odd, and trying to quantify "compassion" is bizarre. It doesn't appear (just from reading this) that people were asked what primarily motivated them to give (with compassion being a possible answer), but that the party doing the study determined what "compassionate attitudes" were and interpreted the data accordingly.

I personally don't understand how you can say that giving as a result of a manufactured emotional response is more "sincere." Religious people give far more in dollar terms, and it's not even close, so why is giving based on compassion "more generous," as you say? This isn't even a left-right issue, as it has been well documented that the religious left gives more than either secular conservatives or liberals (with self-described religious conservatives giving most).

If I had to give an explanation of the data from the study, I'd say that the findings probably coincide with an assumption of mine that agnostics and atheists tend to be less concerned with things they feel don't have a direct bearing on their lives. They give for the sake of either alleviating some sense of guilt, aroused from being personally confronted with poverty or some kind of tragedy, or to create a feeling of personal accomplishment. I'm not saying that religious people don't give for those reasons, they often do, but when you have a perspective that involves the eternal and a deeper sense of solidarity with people you believe carry the image of God, those factors will come into play in a way they wouldn't for an agnostic or atheist.

You ask whether society should value means or the end when it comes to giving, but that's not the issue. What the study describes is intent, and not means or ends. As a religious person I value both intent and means over ends, because I feel the end isn't particularly within my control.

[afleitch]

If I had to give an explanation of the data from the study, I'd say that the findings probably coincide with an assumption of mine that agnostics and atheists tend to be less concerned with things they feel don't have a direct bearing on their lives. They give for the sake of either alleviating some sense of guilt, aroused from being personally confronted with poverty or some kind of tragedy, or to create a feeling of personal accomplishment. I'm not saying that religious people don't give for those reasons, they often do, but when you have a perspective that involves the eternal and a deeper sense of solidarity with people you believe carry the image of God, those factors will come into play in a way they wouldn't for an agnostic or atheist.

You ask whether society should value means or the end when it comes to giving, but that's not the issue. What the study describes is intent, and not means or ends. As a religious person I value both intent and means over ends, because I feel the end isn't particularly within my control.

You're somewhat blinkered vision of what makes people like myself tick doesn't ring true. Which is a pity because you used to be smarter than that.

[useful idiot]

If I had to give an explanation of the data from the study, I'd say that the findings probably coincide with an assumption of mine that agnostics and atheists tend to be less concerned with things they feel don't have a direct bearing on their lives. They give for the sake of either alleviating some sense of guilt, aroused from being personally confronted with poverty or some kind of tragedy, or to create a feeling of personal accomplishment. I'm not saying that religious people don't give for those reasons, they often do, but when you have a perspective that involves the eternal and a deeper sense of solidarity with people you believe carry the image of God, those factors will come into play in a way they wouldn't for an agnostic or atheist.

You ask whether society should value means or the end when it comes to giving, but that's not the issue. What the study describes is intent, and not means or ends. As a religious person I value both intent and means over ends, because I feel the end isn't particularly within my control.

You're somewhat blinkered vision of what makes people like myself tick doesn't ring true. Which is a pity because you used to be smarter than that.

Do you care to rebut my assertion with one of your own or just say nothing of value at all? The most common arguments levied against belief seem to be fairly consistent with what I said: I can't see or haven't experienced God, I don't feel the need to believe in God, my sense of morality doesn't coincide with that of the Bible, etc etc.

This isn't rocket science. I think almost all people think this way to some extent. There are large numbers of Christians who believe in God either as wish-fulfillment or because they see some kind of evidence in the sheer number of believers around them.

Leaving aside questions of competing religions, it seems to me that people who feel a need to be connected to other humans, both those they know and don't know, on a deeper level than just the material, certainly tend to be religious. Whether it's Islam or Christianity or Hinduism is irrelevant.

[afleitch]

If I had to give an explanation of the data from the study, I'd say that the findings probably coincide with an assumption of mine that agnostics and atheists tend to be less concerned with things they feel don't have a direct bearing on their lives. They give for the sake of either alleviating some sense of guilt, aroused from being personally confronted with poverty or some kind of tragedy, or to create a feeling of personal accomplishment. I'm not saying that religious people don't give for those reasons, they often do, but when you have a perspective that involves the eternal and a deeper sense of solidarity with people you believe carry the image of God, those factors will come into play in a way they wouldn't for an agnostic or atheist.

You ask whether society should value means or the end when it comes to giving, but that's not the issue. What the study describes is intent, and not means or ends. As a religious person I value both intent and means over ends, because I feel the end isn't particularly within my control.

You're somewhat blinkered vision of what makes people like myself tick doesn't ring true. Which is a pity because you used to be smarter than that.

Do you care to rebut my assertion with one of your own or just say nothing of value at all? The most common arguments levied against belief seem to be fairly consistent with what I said: I can't see or haven't experienced God, I don't feel the need to believe in God, my sense of morality doesn't coincide with that of the Bible, etc etc.

This isn't rocket science. I think almost all people think this way to some extent. There are large numbers of Christians who believe in God either as wish-fulfillment or because they see some kind of evidence in the sheer number of believers around them.

Leaving aside questions of competing religions, it seems to me that people who feel a need to be connected to other humans, both those they know and don't know, on a deeper level than just the material, certainly tend to be religious. Whether it's Islam or Christianity or Hinduism is irrelevant.

However your assertion is simply doesn't ring true for me. The idea that atheists/agnostics are superficial, selfish and less 'connected' tends to be a common charge against us however you have given no evidence to suggest that this is the case. It simply seems to be a regurgitation of something you've been told. I'm a humanist; I care deeply about humanity. I see it as inherently good and I am involved in regular charity work and political action to better the lives of others. I'm not alleviating 'guilt' or seeking 'personal accomplishment,' I do it because I believe you have to help people. Simple as that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Perhaps it would be for the best if we avoided the questionable assertion that it is possible to neatly divided humanity into two separate - and apparently entirely different - groups, the religious and the non-religious. Reality doesn't really work that way, and that's before you even consider the problems of definition...

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This study is garbage, pure and simple.

[useful idiot]

However your assertion is simply doesn't ring true for me. The idea that atheists/agnostics are superficial, selfish and less 'connected' tends to be a common charge against us however you have given no evidence to suggest that this is the case. It simply seems to be a regurgitation of something you've been told. I'm a humanist; I care deeply about humanity. I see it as inherently good and I am involved in regular charity work and political action to better the lives of others. I'm not alleviating 'guilt' or seeking 'personal accomplishment,' I do it because I believe you have to help people. Simple as that.

Except that I didn't say atheists were superficial or selfish (they are all these things of course, but often times no more so than believers). I said that people who feel the need to have some kind of cosmic connection with others, aside from biology, are attracted to religion. You're really just looking for things to be offended by.

[useful idiot]

Perhaps it would be for the best if we avoided the questionable assertion that it is possible to neatly divided humanity into two separate - and apparently entirely different - groups, the religious and the non-religious. Reality doesn't really work that way, and that's before you even consider the problems of definition...

Except that the division isn't, in the case of the study, one between the religious and non-religious, but between self-identified Atheists and self-identified believers. Nominal belief, or even some kind of cultural affiliation with a sect, isn't what is in view here. I don't see a problem of definition when those involved are actively defining themselves.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

However your assertion is simply doesn't ring true for me. The idea that atheists/agnostics are superficial, selfish and less 'connected' tends to be a common charge against us however you have given no evidence to suggest that this is the case. It simply seems to be a regurgitation of something you've been told. I'm a humanist; I care deeply about humanity. I see it as inherently good and I am involved in regular charity work and political action to better the lives of others. I'm not alleviating 'guilt' or seeking 'personal accomplishment,' I do it because I believe you have to help people. Simple as that.

Except that I didn't say atheists were superficial or selfish (they are all these things of course, but often times no more so than believers). I said that people who feel the need to have some kind of cosmic connection with others, aside from biology, are attracted to religion. You're really just looking for things to be offended by.

Well, I KNOW (okay... not know... but with a high degree of certainty, considering we are on the philosophy board) that we have a cosmic connection to each other because at one point the energy that comprises all of us was squashed into a point in space that is infinitely small... and that's certainly not biology.  And I'm a fervent atheist.  Why should the believers have a monopoly on the kinship of living beings, which they seemingly love to cling to. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

"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."

Oddly enough, I was listening to a sermon on the radio that related to this specific topic, at least from a Christian perspective.  Basically the point was that the Christian duty of charity should not be based in any expectation of connection to the recipient or even any expectation of gratitude from them.