Study: Atheists more driven by compassion

[dawn9476]

Not that we didn't know it already.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/01/s ... us-people/

[SheWhoIsObeyed]

Newbie here - I was just going to post the same thing as my introduction!

Instead I will just say, happy to be here amongst mostly like-minded humans, and where compassion is not a dirty word.

[ceg045]

It makes sense, doesn't it? Atheists show compassion without any expectation of heavenly reward--they're doing it because it's the decent thing to do.

[Talitha Cumi]

*clinks glasses with SheWhoIsObeyed*

I especially like the part that says religious folk give due to "reputational concerns."

[Coconut Flan]

Just a thought, but I might not be as driven to give because of seeing a disaster on TV because I give to charities regularly already. One of them is there to help with disasters and tragedies that arise. I don't find it less compassionate to give to a food bank quarterly than to give when there is a call for a disaster or for holiday dinners.

[Witsec7]

Newbie here - I was just going to post the same thing as my introduction!

Instead I will just say, happy to be here amongst mostly like-minded humans, and where compassion is not a dirty word.

Compassion needs empathy, the ability to stand in another's shoes. Religionists don't like secular shoes, we're too sinful and dirty :roll: Then there are followers of the Christ, who seem to care more about walking the walk rather than just talking the talk. Like their empathy their compassion can be boundless.

[darareaksmey]

I highly doubt the recipients of largesse care what motivates the giver, be it compassion, concern for reputation, hope of heavenly reward, or whatever. I also would like to know more about how the study concluded that atheists were more "generous." I'm not saying it's not true, but I would like to know the methodology. They cite that nonreligious people are more likely to do a random act of kindness, perhaps buy a homeless person a meal; how does that compare with, say, a churchgoer's weekly stint in her congregation's soup kitchen; or a religious person's nonreligious volunteer work to, say, teach English as a second language? It all seems rather subjective......

[JenniferJuniper]

I highly doubt the recipients of largesse care what motivates the giver, be it compassion, concern for reputation, hope of heavenly reward, or whatever. I also would like to know more about how the study concluded that atheists were more "generous." I'm not saying it's not true, but I would like to know the methodology. They cite that nonreligious people are more likely to do a random act of kindness, perhaps buy a homeless person a meal; how does that compare with, say, a churchgoer's weekly stint in her congregation's soup kitchen; or a religious person's nonreligious volunteer work to, say, teach English as a second language? It all seems rather subjective......

While I too would like to see an indepth study with non-subjective parameters explained, I’ve found that “highly religious people†(apparently those used in the study) are often also highly judgmental people. Having contempt for those who are different or think differently than yourself isn’t likely to lead to true compassion.

Anecdotal case in point. My boss is always doing good deeds through his church. Once a year he goes on a trip somewhere in the country to help re-build homes in disaster struck areas. Which is a wonderful thing to do, and I’m sure the people he’s helping are greatly appreciative. But he is also one of the most judgmental, racist, gay-bashing people I know.

I don’t think what he does is out of any compassion for the victims. I think it’s done for some type of brownie points either from his church (which he’s goes to at least three times a week) or from his great sky friend. And I do think there is a difference between having actual compassion for your fellow man versus doing good deeds just because you think you will get something out of it personally.

[ilovetchotchkes]

It just makes sense- most atheists i know do good things because they are the ethical RIGHT thing to do, not because - to quote from Dogma "some intangible parent figure from thousands of years back says do it! do it or i'll fucking spank you!!!!"

Some religious people myself included do things because they're good to do, but I can't tell you how many times as a child and a teenager i was told to "do the Christian thing"

[BelieveinScience]

It just makes sense- most atheists i know do good things because they are the ethical RIGHT thing to do, not because - to quote from Dogma "some intangible parent figure from thousands of years back says do it! do it or i'll fucking spank you!!!!"

Some religious people myself included do things because they're good to do, but I can't tell you how many times as a child and a teenager i was told to "do the Christian thing"

Ahh the Christian thing to do. I follow some adoption blogs and they go on about how more christians need to adopt kids because its the right thing to do, etc..etc.. and made it sound liek only Christians adopt and it peeves me off!

I also don't like how a lot of people want to announce to the whole freaking world all the good deeds they do.

I do good things because its the right thing to do not because I'm afraid of Jesus punishing me because I wasn't doing the Godly thing to do.

[ilovetchotchkes]

Ahh the Christian thing to do. I follow some adoption blogs and they go on about how more christians need to adopt kids because its the right thing to do, etc..etc.. and made it sound liek only Christians adopt and it peeves me off!

I also don't like how a lot of people want to announce to the whole freaking world all the good deeds they do.

I do good things because its the right thing to do not because I'm afraid of Jesus punishing me because I wasn't doing the Godly thing to do.

Dude, if I were giving a baby up for adoption, if there were an atheist couple, they'd get my first pick for SURE. But then again, I have Christianity hang-ups.

[DistantStar]

There is a difference between being highly religious in a conservative or a liberal sort of church. I wish the Christians would realize that they are doing their own damn faith a disservice. You'd think they might rethink a few things if the Eeeevil Atheists do social justice and compassion better than they do. But they won't, because Gawd is on their side.

I wonder what their definition of "highly religious" was, precisely.

I am so not dissing atheists. Been there, though I'm more of an agnostic these days. And I think it's a much more honest viewpoint than nutty conservative religion. But I do have a huge soft spot for the sorts of folks whose faith impels them to not be an asshole and to help their fellow humans 'cause we're all in this together and I hate to see them lumped in with the asshole sorts that make people dislike all Christians across the board because they use the same name.

[Austin]

Newbie here - I was just going to post the same thing as my introduction!

Instead I will just say, happy to be here amongst mostly like-minded humans, and where compassion is not a dirty word.

[dairyfreelife]

Compassion needs empathy, the ability to stand in another's shoes. Religionists don't like secular shoes, we're too sinful and dirty :roll: Then there are followers of the Christ, who seem to care more about walking the walk rather than just talking the talk. Like their empathy their compassion can be boundless.

True. I know ppl who help because it's what "God wants" and want to show how "Christian" they are.

Matthew 6:1-4 "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

In other words, God rewards those who give without any boast or thought to themselves, but because it's the right thing to do, to care for your fellow human beings.

[darareaksmey]

While I too would like to see an indepth study with non-subjective parameters explained, I’ve found that “highly religious people†(apparently those used in the study) are often also highly judgmental people. Having contempt for those who are different or think differently than yourself isn’t likely to lead to true compassion.

Anecdotal case in point. My boss is always doing good deeds through his church. Once a year he goes on a trip somewhere in the country to help re-build homes in disaster struck areas. Which is a wonderful thing to do, and I’m sure the people he’s helping are greatly appreciative. But he is also one of the most judgmental, racist, gay-bashing people I know.

I don’t think what he does is out of any compassion for the victims. I think it’s done for some type of brownie points either from his church (which he’s goes to at least three times a week) or from his great sky friend. And I do think there is a difference between having actual compassion for your fellow man versus doing good deeds just because you think you will get something out of it personally.

I guess my point is, if I am the person in dire need, I am unlikely to examine the motivation of the gift. Your boss may be an utter asshole, for sure. But if he gives to people in need when they need it, for whatever reason, then in the context of giving, he's the same as an atheist who also gives to those same people in need out of a sense of compassion. The atheist may be an utter asshole, too, in other respect. Regardless, the people in the earthquake zone or wherever are getting help for their needs.

I think in less dire circumstances perhaps people would examine the motivation of the gift. If I'm collecting money to buy, say, a new smart board for my kids' classroom, I might turn my nose up at a donation from the local Holier Than Thou Church but take a donation from my atheist next door neighbor. In that context maybe the motivation makes a difference.

[dawbs]

I'm to lazy to look, but I'd be interested to know the wording of the questions to determine motivation.

ONe of the kindest, most compassionate people I know...if someone asked him, point blank, why he gives, would give a religious answer about how one should do things as a Christian. It's not that he's not compassionate, it's that he believes, rightly or wrongly, that his religion is the source of his compassion.

The way I read the article, that would probably be categorized as 'doctrine' as the motivation--but I"m not at all sure that would be true.

I think motivations are awfully hard to suss out.

[Swamptribe]

Sadly, many more fanatically religious people use their religious beliefs to dehumanize those who don't believe just like them. Atheists, and 'less' religious persons look at another's suffering, and see a fellow human being. The more fanatically religious types see someone to convert, or a way to get 'brownie points', or worse, they see it as an opportunity to convert or to obligate the other person.

[BelieveinScience]

I feel like some of the christians out there do thinks with another motive in mind. Look at all the faith based charities out there that go over to help out in places like Africa with food and medical care but also are ministering to these people. And I can't help feeling that the people in these countries are going along with believing in Jesus because they're afraid if they stick to their religion these organizations will take away the food and medical care they're giving.

[Talitha Cumi]

Regardless, the people in the earthquake zone or wherever are getting help for their needs.

Unless the fundies are going to Haiti post-earthquake and kidnapping their kids so they can be raised in American Christian households...

[darareaksmey]

Though I can't think of any offhand, I'm sure there are many, many, many historical instances of people being denied charity because they wouldn't "play ball" with a religious entity offering the charity. E.g., "You fall on your knees and profess Christ as your Savior right this minute or I'm going to let your child bleed to death rather than provide medical help." Do you know anything similar that happens nowadays? Religious groups who go over and try to save souls at the same time they give food aid are still giving the food aid, are they not, whether they get real converts or not? I'm not trying to be contentious; I am just thinking aloud. Right this minute I can't think of any examples of missionary-type groups who outright deny the aid. Perhaps you have to sit through a sermon to get it. I guess that still happens often in inner-city lunch kitchens, now that I think of it. You listen to the Bible study or whatever, then they give you lunch; and maybe you don't get lunch if you missed the Bible study. Well, I disapprove in any event of preaching to people with imminent physical needs. But if you do it, and you give the aid anyhow, they still get the aid.

[dawbs]

Though I can't think of any offhand, I'm sure there are many, many, many historical instances of people being denied charity because they wouldn't "play ball" with a religious entity offering the charity. E.g., "You fall on your knees and profess Christ as your Savior right this minute or I'm going to let your child bleed to death rather than provide medical help." Do you know anything similar that happens nowadays? Religious groups who go over and try to save souls at the same time they give food aid are still giving the food aid, are they not, whether they get real converts or not? I'm not trying to be contentious; I am just thinking aloud. Right this minute I can't think of any examples of missionary-type groups who outright deny the aid. Perhaps you have to sit through a sermon to get it. I guess that still happens often in inner-city lunch kitchens, now that I think of it. You listen to the Bible study or whatever, then they give you lunch; and maybe you don't get lunch if you missed the Bible study. Well, I disapprove in any event of preaching to people with imminent physical needs. But if you do it, and you give the aid anyhow, they still get the aid.

someone I know recently sent some time in the city shelter and did have to go to 'chapel' to get a place to stay...but I also know that he was allowed to ignore it, as long as he sat quietly.

(I may not agree w/ the rule, but part of it, from what I saw, was a way of 'containing' people while they organized their dinner. That sounds worse than I mean it)

I think the history of the Asian missions and the 'rice Christians' is still what people associate with a lot of mission work--I dont know how much of it still exists though.

I know there were accusations of it after the Tsunami...I don't know how founded they were (and most of the Christian aid groups roundly condemned it, saying it was unchristian to refuse people in need. But that doesn't mean that some of their people on the ground didn't perpetuate it)

[Dinaberries]

I think it makes perfect sense. As others have said, an atheist will do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, without any expectation of reward from a spiritual being. Also, since the world's main religions have moral teachings that are tied to the faith, a religious person would be less likely to help someone who leads a lifestyle that is in conflict with his/her religious teachings. An atheist wouldn't have that kind of hang-up.

[bananacat]

There was a pretty big deal in DC a couple of years ago when Catholic "charities" attempted to manipulate the government into making laws that they preferred. They threatened to stop feeding homeless people if gay marriage became legal. Now try to tell me that they were being charitable out of compassion instead of doing it to gain power and buy the laws that they want. The motivation absolutely does matter. We shouldn't have to choose between letting hungry people starve and denying marriage to couples who are in love. I'm very hesitant to give "credit" to people who help others out of religious obligation. I've done a lot of charity work and by far the explicitly religious groups have been the least pleasant to deal with.

[Elle]

Though I can't think of any offhand, I'm sure there are many, many, many historical instances of people being denied charity because they wouldn't "play ball" with a religious entity offering the charity. E.g., "You fall on your knees and profess Christ as your Savior right this minute or I'm going to let your child bleed to death rather than provide medical help." Do you know anything similar that happens nowadays? Religious groups who go over and try to save souls at the same time they give food aid are still giving the food aid, are they not, whether they get real converts or not? I'm not trying to be contentious; I am just thinking aloud. Right this minute I can't think of any examples of missionary-type groups who outright deny the aid. Perhaps you have to sit through a sermon to get it. I guess that still happens often in inner-city lunch kitchens, now that I think of it. You listen to the Bible study or whatever, then they give you lunch; and maybe you don't get lunch if you missed the Bible study. Well, I disapprove in any event of preaching to people with imminent physical needs. But if you do it, and you give the aid anyhow, they still get the aid.

They don't outright deny aid these days, but they heavily push it onto people, and use converts to make those who haven't converted feel like crap and backed into corners to get the aid. It's not given without the expectation is someone's soul in return.

[darareaksmey]

They don't outright deny aid these days, but they heavily push it onto people, and use converts to make those who haven't converted feel like crap and backed into corners to get the aid. It's not given without the expectation is someone's soul in return.

I'm sure some do, but I doubt strongly that all religious groups, even all Christians, do. In fact, I know they don't; just because many Christians are motivated by something other than compassion doesn't mean they all are. I used to volunteer at a soup kitchen/food pantry run by a specific denomination. Preachers from various churches in that and other denominations were there all the time, as were Christian church members, Jews, Unitarians, at least one Muslim and no doubt some agnostics and atheists. Anyhow, our job was to feed hungry people. There was no preaching or proselytizing. If a client asked to speak to a preacher, he or she was certainly given that opportunity privately, but no one forced it one them. We were too busy handing out groceries and serving meals.