I’ve been reading a fun book entitled “Super Freakonomics’ and there is a chapter on altruism It appears that ,for a while, researchers thought that humans were super giving, and when push comes to shove, we are quite willing to help each other out,  even if we have nothing to personally gain from it.  The test was called “The Dictator Game”

These studies held true until the experimenters removed one vital ingredient from their studies: an observer.  Apparently the test subjects were motivated to be more altruistic because they were being viewed by a psychologist.  However, when they changed the test, and the subjects didn’t know they were being studied, they acted selfishly.

Most theists believe that they are being watched over by God, who is rooting for them to be good.  Even when they are alone, God is there.  Atheists, on the other hand, are alone when they are alone.  Wouldn’t these studies indicate that atheists would behave less “altruistically” than theists when they aren’t being observed?  Wouldn’t this be detrimental to society? 

Here is a description of the experiments:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game

saralynn - 19 January 2012 05:53 AM

I’ve been reading a fun book entitled “Super Freakonomics’ and there is a chapter on altruism It appears that ,for a while, researchers thought that humans were super giving, and when push comes to shove, we are quite willing to help each other out,  even if we have nothing to personally gain from it.  The test was called “The Dictator Game”

These studies held true until the experimenters removed one vital ingredient from their studies: an observer.  Apparently the test subjects were motivated to be more altruistic because they were being viewed by a psychologist.  However, when they changed the test, and the subjects didn’t know they were being studied, they acted selfishly.

Most theists believe that they are being watched over by God, who is rooting for them to be good.  Even when they are alone, God is there.  Atheists, on the other hand, are alone when they are alone.  Wouldn’t these studies indicate that atheists would behave less “altruistically” than theists when they aren’t being observed?  Wouldn’t this be detrimental to society?

Here is a description of the experiments:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game

It’s more an issue of personal responsibility, and by the nature of most atheist mentalities (or maybe most ... many, anyway), which are all about taking responsibility to think for one’s self, that’s pretty central. Many believers are used to taking a pass on that sort of thing, and in many cases unless they’re directed to behave otherwise by an authority figure they accept as such, they’re more prone to act selfishly. Such believers put more energy into justifying their Dark Side than in trying to overcome it (i.e. they tend to have a significant degree of genuine religious faith).

If theism made people behave more morally or altruistically there would be evidence of it. Our prisons are full of thieves and rapists and murders. And what proportion of the prison population do you think are atheists as opposed to thesits? We are underrepresented in prisons just as we are underrepresented in all of the other negative social indicators. (We’ve all read the stats but if anyone insists I’ll link to them later) So no, there’s no evidence that a belief that one is not being watched by gods leads to poorer behaviour. If anything, the opposite appears to be the case.

I don’t think it’s really fair to look to our criminal population to reflect on the generally law abiding though. A chunk of those people are “religious” solely because of what personal gains it gets them. I’d venture a guess that very, very few law abiding types are so narcissistic.

And the other social indicators? Low education, teenage pregnancy, STDs, abortion, suicide… All, along with imprisonment, higher among the religious. Sure, your psychopath will find god in prison. Psychopathy is a disease due to an abnormal brain.But the non-psychopathic inmates are generally, and I think genuinely, religious.

ROB: And the other social indicators? Low education, teenage pregnancy, STDs, abortion, suicide… All, along with imprisonment, higher among the religious. Sure, your psychopath will find god in prison. Psychopathy is a disease due to an abnormal brain.But the non-psychopathic inmates are generally, and I think genuinely, religious.

Those behaviors ( Low education, teenage pregnancy, STDs, abortion, suicide) are higher among the religious, not because they are religious, but because they grew up in disadvantaged areas.  I don’t have any idea if prison inmates are “genuinely religious”, and I suspect you don’t either.  I tend to think if their faith was of significant relevance to them, they wouldn’t be in prison.

So the Ted Haggards, the Jimmy Bakers and all the other religious frauds didn’t actually believe god was watching them. They weren’t good theists maybe? Is that becasuer they came from disadvantaged backgrounds? C’mon. The point is that religion does not make you good and atheism does not make you bad. That’s the bottom line.

Rob: So the Ted Haggards, the Jimmy Bakers and all the other religious frauds didn’t actually believe god was watching them. They weren’t good theists maybe? Is that becasuer they came from disadvantaged backgrounds? C’mon. The point is that religion does not make you good and atheism does not make you bad. That’s the bottom line.

Good point, except that most of these evangelical preachers who “went wrong” are Southerners who did grow up in the less culturally advanced areas of the country.  However, as I said, your observation is a good one.

The problem with atheism is that it is rather new, so we don’t know for sure what the world would be like if it became the prominent worldview.  The countries that are atheistic are educationally, culturally, and economically more stable than the norm, so it is hard to judge based on their experiences.  We have China, of course, but they are sort of scary with their draconian laws and throwing people in prison for even minor infractions. 

The atheists I personally know are all more highly educated and “comfortable” than the average population.  This is confirmed on this website, isn’t it?  I’m not sure how poorer, less-educated, uncomfortable atheists might behave.

It really is a great unknown.  I think we should admit that is unknown, however, and not make presumptions either way.

The study was throught provoking…don’t you think?

As I’ve said before, when I was a theist, I’m not sure if I behaved differently than I do now, but thinking God was watching me and approving of my good deeds was certainly an incentive.  I did them more joyfully.  And a “daddy” figure was what I DID imagine, though in some kind of vague way…not the guy with the beard. 

In fact, even though my brain can’t accept the God proposition, I still am inclined to behave in ways that might please Papa.  It was such a huge part of my life for so long that it is impossible to escape from all the self-indoctrination I received. I, as we, all know, am not a committed atheist.

I get what Rob’s saying. A person who’s doing prison time has failed in life about as thoroughly as can be done. A prisoner typically comes from a background lacking in certain key ways. The fact that most prisoners see themselves as being Christian reflects on the faith of the rest of society—those of us who are not incarcerated. The prisoner drinks the koolaide just as the free do, but apparently more often than the rest of us.

Can a faultless or at least reliable connection be made between one’s behavior and one’s reliance on being watched by a parent- or God-figure? I don’t know. But it would be interesting to study this pertinent bit of our interiors.

I found these statistics regarding prisoners and religious affiliation.  I’m running short on time and haven’t been able to check the validity of the statistics or site, but it SEEMS legit…...

Conclusions are many, but one is of significance: 

A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services.

Thus, some commentators on one side have claimed that being religious is associated with incarceration. This is based only on religious preference statistics. American sociologists are well aware that nearly all Americans profess a religious preference. But there is a major difference between those who are actually religious affiliated, that is, members of a congregation (approx. 45 to 65% of the population, varying by region), and those who merely profess a preference, likely the name of the denomination that their parents of grandparents were a part of. (One of the best discussions of this phenomenon can be found in The Churching of America, 1776-1990, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992.)

This makes sense to me.  A genuinely, full-believing religious person is LESS likely to be in prison than the norm. 

Full document…..
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

saralynn - 19 January 2012 08:35 AM

This makes sense to me.  A genuinely, full-believing religious person is LESS likely to be in prison than the norm.

... because such a person is participating as part of society rather than living off of it in a parasitic manner ... seems obvious to me too.

It just means that theists shouldn’t be in church after dark.

In Atheists We Distrust

Suggested reading strongly related to this topic:

Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

IMO, and what has affected me, is the concept that nobody is indeed watching, so am totally responsible for my actions, and that has always put more pressure on myself to do the right thing. The mark of character is attempting to be altruistic when one knows he/she does not actually have to.

Besides, the God concept has rarely made anybody be good or happy anyway, on a sustained basis. We are all the same believers or not.

Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. When good people do bad things, we worry why.

saralynn - 19 January 2012 05:53 AM

I’ve been reading a fun book entitled “Super Freakonomics’ and there is a chapter on altruism It appears that ,for a while, researchers thought that humans were super giving, and when push comes to shove, we are quite willing to help each other out,  even if we have nothing to personally gain from it.  The test was called “The Dictator Game”

These studies held true until the experimenters removed one vital ingredient from their studies: an observer.  Apparently the test subjects were motivated to be more altruistic because they were being viewed by a psychologist.  However, when they changed the test, and the subjects didn’t know they were being studied, they acted selfishly.

Most theists believe that they are being watched over by God, who is rooting for them to be good.  Even when they are alone, God is there.  Atheists, on the other hand, are alone when they are alone.  Wouldn’t these studies indicate that atheists would behave less “altruistically” than theists when they aren’t being observed?  Wouldn’t this be detrimental to society? 

Here is a description of the experiments:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game

All else being equal, it’s probably a fair conclusion. People usually act in ways that maximize their own self interest. Even when behavior appears to be “altruistic” from the standpoint of material gain, there’s a psychological component to consider. If, by giving money to charity, I gain a sense of satisfaction greater than the satisfaction I could have gained by using that same money to buy a new toy, am I really behaving altruistically? Any more than the theist whose behavior is motivated by God the Ultimate Observer?

Atheists who believe their own well-being depends on the well-being of others (even if it doesn’t really) will behave “altruistically” out of self interest. Theists who believe God is always watching will also behave “altruistically” out of self interest.

[

quote} M: Suggested reading strongly related to this topic:

Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

I’m familiar with these studies, but, as I said, the populations in most atheistic countries are well educated and financially comfortable.  What if the majority of the general population all around the world turned to atheism?

This study seems to suggest that people would not behave as altruistically as they would if they thought God was watching them.

Many atheists are often extolling scientific research, but when the research confirms what they don’t want to hear, they may not be so eager to give it credence.

Which is to say that atheists are human beings.