Above in the RGT article thread asdf posted: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers.

This is supposedly an accurate study.

Can a reader of a published study ever be sure a study was methodologically accurate and/or unbiased?

How many studies get refuted or changed on down the line?

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/...andgenerosity/

This is a meditation/discussion question. I don't plan on arguing it. I probably won't do anything but sit back and observe itt.

In brief, it's when multiple studies come to the same conclusion. If it's just one study then it should be treated with skepticism.

Studies remind me of polls. They are like taking a small picture of something at the moment but you never know how they controlled the sampling or what methods they used and they don't give you a complete picture of everything so you can judge if they did things right.

A lot of people know charity has its' roots in religion. Nursing and orphanages came out of religion.

But when you run that study by people most people will just accept it and never bother to double check history.

History can reveal different results at different points in time.

I have a distrust of studies and polls these days. They confirm this suspicion that I have that the world is rigged.

If the world isn't rigged then why does everyone suffer from a bias and spend all their time cherrypicking evidence and arguments to support their biases?

The study is supposed to tell you precisely "how they controlled the sampling" and "what methods they used." So what are you talking about?

You're paranoid. Most of the rest of us live in reality.

Lol...I'm not paranoid.

If God set up the world then He set it up a certain way. Though "rigged" may be a poor word choice and imply more negativity than could be appropriate.

A couple of points:

Firstly you have no trouble finding random studies and linking to them to 'prove' your points. You can't have it both ways and avoid hypocrisy.

Secondly, the problem here is not so much with the scientific method but with the way that scientific studies get reported in the press. It's extremely frustrating for everyone when the media grab onto a study and parade it as 'SCIENTISTS SAY X' before the work has been established to be repeatable. This undermines the public trust of science. This is why the Theory of Evolution is accepted as the truth while, say, M-Theory is not.

Yes, every article posts its methodology. Sometimes you have to search for the actual study and not just a review of it, but the methodology is there.

No, everyone can't be an expert in every field. But you can do 2 things:
1) Learn how to read studies so you can more accurately interpret what's going on.

2) When the study is too technical for 1) to be good enough, see what the real experts say. Instead of just assuming it's 'rigged.'

You say you distrust polls and studies because they show the world to be rigged. That is paranoia.

Wow. Just, wow. You do own a mirror, right?

I do not always agree with Splendour, but there is a fair amount of truth in her point here. Scientific studies should be approached carefully and with skepticism. There are a lot of factors that can cast doubt on the results of studies.

Scientists are humans and as such they can become very attached to their point of view. Often their careers become dependent on certain successes and significant economic benefit can be involved. Large studies can be expensive and time consuming and reporting negative results does not win awards. Biases can be very difficult to detect and the researcher may not even be aware of the bias. All of these things work together to create problems.

As I said before I was a professional scientist for over 25 years and served in the role of chief technology officer in two companies. One of the things I have done several times is participated in the due diligence of acquisition candidates that were being purchased in part for their portfolio of developmental products. In many of those cases the products were supported by scientific studies. Try evaluating those studies and writing an opinion on whether you should buy the company or not a few times and you will learn how hard it can be to determine whether a scientific study is valid and meaningful or not.

Trust me, they all look sound on the surface. You have to dig through the raw data in gory detail to sift out any problems and often in the end the whole thing is arguable at best.

Here is an example from a past life:

http://www.docguide.com/efficacy-glu...arthritis-pain

What do you think about this study? What does it show?

You misunderstood my meaning.

I didn't mean to imply "rigged" is necessarily a bad thing. I think it's the way a higher power set things up and since I think the higher power is benovolent I can't be paranoid about it, now can I?

As for this sentence in the OP: "Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers"

I can see how this is so. I have alot of experience in various christian sects. I can see how, generally speaking, 'highly religious people' are motivated by obligation, duty, obedience to perceived commands of God, obedience to a perceived mission from God, selfishness and fear.

Religious people who have their behaviors molded and formulated by a sense of responsibility have that sense of responsibility to drive their actions even if they don't feel like it. This seems to make perfect sense to me.

It makes me think of the traditional family setting of Asian countries. When your older relatives reach a certain point in their life (when they are not able to take care of themselves), you start to take care of them. You don't necessarily do this because you feel bad for them (because they're old, or whatever), but because you understand that this is the thing you're "supposed to do." This does not negate a sense of "love" within the family (if it's there). But it does cause people to take care of their elders even if they aren't that close to them. You might have a relative that you barely know, but you take care of them anyway. In a setting where emotion is the driver, if you don't have an emotional connection to that relative, you are far less likely to take care of him/her.

I think the misinterpretation of the study is to say "highly religious people are not as compassionate as non-believers" (as some measure of compassionate behavior). I think the wording seems right: "Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers." There are simply other motivations in play besides simply feeling bad for someone, and religious people don't require "feeling bad" before they help someone else.

I'm not sure how your familiarity with a person would necessarily effect the compassion you feel for that person. Seems to me like donating to charity, sponsoring a child etc. can indeed be acts done out of compassion.

I would also say that simply because the irreligious are more swayed by compassion, this doesn't mean that they're aren't other factors in play for them as well.

Seems like a pretty paltry study to make such bold, definitive headline, iyam.

I'm not saying that is necessarily does. There's no "necessity" here in any direction since people act/respond very differently.

But I do think that having a connection to a person will make you more likely to take larger steps to care for them. If a good friend needs to sleep on your couch a couple nights, no problem. If a random person shows up to your door, probably not. You might feel compassion, but it won't necessarily drive action.

Sure. I'm not saying that they can't be done out of compassion.

Sure. Irreligious people may still feel social/moral obligation to act. The statements given are general characterizations, not characterizations intended to fit all people in all circumstances.

But I think that the priorities are viewed differently by religious vs. non-religious people. There is a formal structure of moral obligation that religion brings that is not shared by irreligious people.

From the article:

The general thrust of the article is that non-religious giving is driven much more strongly by emotion.

I do think that the following statement is very questionable:

None of the studies seem to point in this particular direction. I think he's either revealing a desire to prove moral superiority (sort of like zumby's "I want it to be true" -- he's hoping to show himself to be better than religious people), or he's merely being provocative because he's being interviewed and wants to garner publicity (or a combination of the two).

Yea, it doesn't seem to follow from the portion you quoted, at least. I admit I haven't actually read the article or the studies yet but I will do so later.

these studies are hardly conclusive obviously, but if it turned out to be the case that my desire to help others is primarily influenced by emotion, I would drink to that. I think compassion is pretty great. I don't see any reason to turn this into a pissing contest as to who is more moral, as zumby seems to want to, however.

It appears to me as if you want to reserve the right to question any scientific study which concludes things you don't like without having to understand or even read it. Lazy way to think.

Loads. Unlike, say, the bible, we (the scientific community) get to throw out the junk and correct our mistakes over time.

I would have thought that after your bizarre behaviour in that thread you might have laid low and tried to regain some dignity, but hey-ho. This will be my last response to you, so you can have the last word.

Yes I would like positive news about atheists because I live in a world where people who share my beliefs are still beaten and imprisoned for expressing there beliefs, atheist children are banned from joining the Boy Scouts and countless other injustices.

I think it's strange they publicized this study to marginalize Christians.

It should be obvious to anyone that Jesus Christ was the most bleeding heart liberal that ever lived.

He gave up his possessions in heaven to come down and help people.

He gave up his life and his blood to cover everyone.

He gave up every single thing he had and that's who Christians follow.

They even name hospitals things like "Sacred Heart" because he's the biggest heart person that ever lived.

You initially said this:

So if you mean 'rigged' to be 'set up by God,' then you are saying 'I distrust studies because they confirm that God has set up the world.' Is this really what you were saying in the beginning?

I think it's obvious that God set up the world for people to take a stand for or against Him.

He rigged the world.

And what stand you take helps mold you.

Dr. Jones explained how the world is rigged in this article.

If God Could Save Everyone - Would He?
http://gods-kingdom-ministries.org/C...ter.cfm?CID=69

And that's the reason you distrust studies? I'm not seeing the logical connection.

Yes, and how strange none of this shows up in the supposedly Christian Republican party.

You still don't get it. Both sides can point to injustices. You don't think that it's possible to come up with long lists of religious injustices? You don't think history is riddled with religious persecutions in multiple directions?

There is no side of this that is "morally superior." No group is perfectly clean with regards to action. We all have people and events in history that we would like to distance ourselves from. All sides have been victims at some point or another (and will likely continue to be), and all sides have been persecutors at some point or another (and will likely continue to be). Both sides have "good people" trying to do "good things" (and these people will likely continue to show up).

You seem to be stuck in this world where you are compelled to make comparisons (and because of your intellectual ideology, you're leaning on "science" to draw your comparisons, which only adds to your myopia).

If it's factually true that religious people give more, it does not imply "moral superiority." It would show that generosity is more highly valued in religious communities than non-religious communities at this particular point in history. It's a reflection of the culture and the structures that drive the culture. (For example, atheists have no general concept of a place that they gather at least once a week to be given opportunities and reminded and expected to do these types of things. Of course the religious people will have an "advantage" in this area!)

You *want* to believe that religious people are not as compassionate as you, so you *hope* that it will turn out true. You *don't want* to be seen as less generous than the religious, so you take the "well... technically..." position of "it's probably true, but you still haven't shown it" despite the mountain of evidence that's out there (because you want to count exactly certain types of dollars but not other types of dollars in a bizarre accounting shell game).

Get over it.