Paul Bloom tackles a critical issue in his thought-provoking piece on religion’s contribution to a moral and happy populace. We wish to clarify two issues that directly pertain to the evidence in our Science article that Bloom cited.

First, surveys asking people to report on their own virtuous behavior can be unreliable. Many people tend to inflate reports of their own good deeds, but research shows that this may be especially true for the religious. When we set aside these surveys, and instead consulted experiments of actual behavior, we found that only in contexts where the reputations of participants are at stake—either in the eyes of their community or their deity—do religious folk tend to act more generously than their nonreligious peers. Strip away accountability and religious people are no ‘nicer’ than the non-religious.

Our word jumble experiment is a good example of this. Though participants who played a word game which unconsciously aroused thoughts of religion did indeed become more generous, when you look at the control condition, where participants received a neutral word jumble, believer and non-believers were equally generous. Moreover, religion is not the only motivator of good behavior. A third condition had participants complete a word jumble that primed secular justice, rather than religion. Those receiving this prime became just as generous as those who received the religious one. These studies, and other pertinent evidence, do not support Laura Schlessinger’s claim that morality requires a belief in God. One need not travel to Denmark to see that religion has no monopoly on morality.

Second, we hope to urge a note of caution to Bloom’s endorsement of the ‘community component’ of religion. Bloom argues that the capacity to build social bonds, not belief in a moralizing God, is what accounts for religion’s positive effects on trust and emotional well-being in the United States. This may be so, but let’s not forget that communal solidarity can benefit members while wrecking havoc on those who fall on the wrong side of group boundaries. For example, studies measuring popular support for suicide attacks show that religious attendance contributes to support whereas religious belief does not. In a religiously diverse world, the community component of religion is both the proverbial arsonist and the fire department.

Were American atheists to form moral communities in the way that religious folk do, it might make them happier. But it would also make them likely to adopt many of the unsavory aspects of groupishness that many of their banded religious brothers exhibit. Religion is not the only thing that can poison everything.

Azim Shariff is a PhD student in the Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia

Ara Norenzayan is Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia

I appreciate the thoughtful response by Azim Shariff and Ara Norenzayan, and I recommend their excellent Science article to anyone interested in reading more about these issues.

We agree on some main points. It might make you happier to be part of a community, and you might be generous to the other members, but the downside is that belonging to a group can lead to indifference -- or worse -- toward those outside of that group. And, of course, even people who are thought to be immoral and unpatriotic by most of their fellow citizens can live good and happy lives. As an atheist living in the United States, I certainly hope that this is true.

I'm puzzled, though, as to why Shariff and Norenzayan are so skeptical about the survey results that I mention. After all, they are strong advocates of the view that religion makes people more generous. As they put it in their Science article, they defend "the hypothesis that religions facilitate costly behaviors that benefit other people." Presumably, then, they believe that religion has effects outside of their word jumble laboratory studies. Doesn't their own theory predict that a church-going Christian should be, on average, more generous than a solitary atheist?

Shariff and Norenzayan propose that the effects of religion arise through additional accountability--people want to seen as nice in the eyes of their community and their deity. I agree with them about the importance of community-though, as I discuss in the article, the benefits of religious association are likely more general than they propose. We are better, happier people when we are surrounded by those who care about us.

Our big disagreement is about God. There is no evidence that, when you factor out community, those who believe in a deity are any better than those who don't. The important part of religion is the people who are around you, not the gods above.

I ran a food and clothing bank for just under 12 years and during that time never once received a donation from an atheist. Pardon my skepticism!!!

Nanotech:

I ran a food and clothing bank for just under 12 years and during that time never once received a donation from an atheist. Pardon my skepticism!!!

Nano... you're anything BUT a skeptic. You make assumption that someone is a believer based on activity, not what they say, unless they actively disagree with you and your personal view points. (Then, of course, they cannot be christian in your eyes)

How many of these people donating did you actually have indept discussions of their beliefs with when they were giving you stuff? When I think of the times I've donated clothes and food and things, It was in , then out. If it was Goodwill or the Cancer Society or some such, there was the getting of the receipt as well.

You don't really know. You're assuming religion because it makes you feel happier with your personal viewpoint.

What did you expect? "Hi, I'm an atheist, here's clothinig and food." ??

What you need to think on is how many of the people who donated did NOT talk about their religion to you. I'd lay odds that some percentage of those were non-believers, or believers in non-christian systems.

You don't ever step outside your worldview to see if it even has validity in your assumptions. I, for one, know of a pagan group not far from here who runs an annual food drive before Christmas/beginning of winter. They donate it all to a Christian center. I know of a group of people up in Boston who run the gamut from believers to athiests who 4+ times a year have a clothing swap of things their children grow out of for other families to use, and the pile left over is donated to charity. (JCG, you know about this, I'm certain)

Us vs Them is a judgemental attitude, and assumptions often are wrong. But you won't learn.

..how you KNOW you didn't receive any such donation? And what sort of food and clothing bank it was, that is, who or what organization was operating it?

Thanks.

Nanotech:

I ran a food and clothing bank for just under 12 years and during that time never once received a donation from an atheist. Pardon my skepticism!!!

bull shit !! how would you know that? We all know your lying.

Sam Harris has on different occasions made the point that religion is only the problem in that it often promotes a culture of dogma. In that way the various secular groups can also be a danger due to their susceptibilty to dogmatic thinking.

I am curious to hear the authors (Shariff, Norenzayan, Bloom) discuss the link between dogmatism and society. In the article and the rebuttal they all allude to the topic but, when the discussion is a comparison between religion and atheism, the gist of the discussion tends to focus on the lack of belief vs. the presence.

I think everyone can agree that both groups (theists/atheists) can be somewhat prone to going too far in their beliefs. It seems to me that we should be examining ways to encourage development of critical thinking skills in our society. Not in an effort to eliminate religiosity, but in an effort to eliminate dogmatic thinking.

It seems to me that the tendency of people to believe anecdotal information without any burden of proof is actually one of the more difficult issues our rapidly growing societies face. Nanotech asserts that their experience in charity was that atheists don't donate as often. While that may be absolutely correct within their frame of reference, is it factually correct?

More importantly, if a massive study were conducted that showed conclusively that atheists donate more than theists; would nanotech be willing to believe the study?

Even if they took the time to read the entire study (assuming the study was without flaw etc) and if there was a huge follow up study which also confirmed the findings. Would nanotech be willing to accept those findings and amend their opinion by saying "While atheists are more willing to give, in our organization we didn't see that to be true and we would like to understand why that is".

The answer almost assuredly is 'No'. Not because he/she is a bad or stupid person but because, it seems anecdotally, people just aren't prone to changing their opinion when faced with facts. I would like to know why that is. Is it purely ego? What if the study were conducted by organizations that share nanotech's point of view? Would that make enough of a difference? This isn't limited to the religious, all throughout the history of science we have seen great scientists fall prey to that limitation in thinking.

I am not attacking nanotech or their view, I am just using it as a quick example. There is a reason that people are so unwilling to accept facts which conflict with personal anecdotes/beliefs. I think it would be interesting to understand more about that. And, in the end, I think that has more relevance to how we can live together more peacefully than whether or not God exists.

Note: The people who blithely dismiss/attack nanotech are falling prey to the same limited/anecdotal thinking. It is possible that nanotech is absolutely correct in her/his observation. None of us, including nanotech, can be sure either way since there just arent' enough data. It's important that we all recognize the difference between what we want to believe and what actually is.

jawallaby:

Note: The people who blithely dismiss/attack nanotech are falling prey to the same limited/anecdotal thinking. It is possible that nanotech is absolutely correct in her/his observation. None of us, including nanotech, can be sure either way since there just arent' enough data. It's important that we all recognize the difference between what we want to believe and what actually is.

Ah, jawallaby, dear DriveBy (Nano) is absolutely sure he's correct. Pointing out that he has no real sure knowledge that everyone who donated to the place he 'worked' were of a religious bent won't affect him at all. He's right, we're wrong. (Stick around FB for a bit and you'll see the blinders. )

FB?

I'm actually willing to ignore both nanotech and j.madison.

oops... I posted a bit early on the last one.

What I was going to say: I am willing to ignore nanotech & j.madison because they are both assuming they are correct without anything to support the assumption (though nanotech does have personal anecdote). It is possible that nanotech is absolutely correct. If the charity s/he was named something like "Charitable House of People Who Hate All Atheists Because God Will Smite Them" then I don't have a hard time believing that no Atheists ever donated to them. :)

However, if the charity was named something like "Goodwill" then I would think that nanotech is almost definitely wrong. But that is only because MY anecdotal experience shows that atheists DO donate to Goodwill because I, an atheist, have done so.

It is possible that the Goodwill location in my example never had a single atheist donate. Not likely, but possible. So, it's pointless to argue with nanotech about that, rather I would like to find out what it would take to convince nanotech that atheists do give to charity, and that atheists are just as capable of being caring compassionate people.

I would argue that at least some atheists in the US have a complex, nuanced moral code that might look stingy to someone with a purely local outlook. For instance, I, an atheist, believe that in a very rich democratic country like the US, it is the moral obligation of the people as a whole through its elected government to take care of its own poor. So I don't give very much (but I do give some) to local charities, food banks, etc. But I do give a huge amount to international charities that help people whose lives are so dire that even the poorest American could probably not tolerate the living conditions for a month, let alone a lifetime. I wonder if there are many other atheists in the US with similar global outlooks?

And to relate this to the original scholarly discussion, I wonder if having a global moral outlook is psychologically a response to the local community rejection - it probably is, but the starving women and children in India, Nepal, and Africa are the beneficiaries, so I don't think it's a problem.

As a former atheist (and former agnostic as well), but someone who has since found faith, I can assure you that not all atheists are uncharitable, nor mean, etc. I was raised Lutheran (Protestant). As a child, I attended Sunday School, read Bible stories, gave at church, and took it for granted that there was a God, and his son Jesus who died for my sins - the standard Christian line. In my tween and early teen years, we became more of "C&E Christians," meaning that we attended church on Christmas and Easter, and not much otherwise, but still considered ourselves a family of Christians.

Losing my faith was a process, not a 'Eureka' moment. My faith slid as a tween and teen as I found more important things to worry about (money, girls, social life), but I would pinpoint the actual loss of my faith around the age of 15-16 (about the time I was confirmed, oddly enough). I had taken a class (in public school!) on religions of the world, in which we studied various Christian denominations (from Evangelical to Orthodox (Russian or Greek, I don't recall) and Christian Scientist too), Judaism, Atheism, Buddhism, Humanism and there may have been others too. Atheism is the one that made sense to me. Somewhere around this time, I don't know if it was before or after the class, I was seriously turned off by the local Lutheran church I attended in preparation for my confirmation in the church. First, attendance was a pain and I had better things to do. Second, the main pastor was strongly against such things as Dungeons & Dragons, Dr. Who, science fiction in general, and other pasttimes I enjoyed, and which made up a strong part of my social circle. At my confirmation, I actually questioned a friend about what I should do if I wasn't sure I believed in God. (Who knows - maybe that pastor was right and it was my pasttimes and social circle that made me doubt... Something for me to ponder now that I have a son.) He was shocked, and I went through with the confirmation that day, but I continued to slide towards atheism. Other than studying atheism, and doubting/not believing in God, I don't think I considered my self a strong atheist until I was probably 17-18. I kept my atheism mostly on the down-low with respect to my family though, to minimize the ostracism from that most-important group. My mother knew I was an atheist but I think she was in serious denial; my father knew but wasn't as spiritual or religious as my mother, and my brother was closest to a nihilist or just apathetic on religion generally. By the time I started college, I was an outspoken atheist, joining the college atheist group, railing back at a radical Christian group that would proselytize on the public Mall (are the "Destroyers" still around, Brother Jed, Brother Max, etc.?).

During this time, I was still charitable (though young) - I worked with groups on charitable activities (including at food banks), and gave small amounts on occasion (I was a broke high school and college student during this period). Looking back in light of the main article and the posts since, I guess most of these activities were social in nature - I was part of a group that was performing charitable activities, or was donating to a cause because a friend asked me to. None of it had a particular international or worldly bent to it - it was generally whatever activities were around me. And, I still had the moral code I was raised with - turning away from religion didn't make me want to rape and steal, or even do drugs or take advantage of people. I still tried to follow the 10 Commandments - just as moral principles/guideposts, not Commandments from God.

By the time I finished college, though, I had become an agnostic, not an atheist. Philosophy I saw atheism as a belief system just as strong as the Christian faiths I knew. My standard line became "I am a firm believer in human ignorance." Still true today, sadly, but I digress. Part of that thought process got me to realize that there is no way to disprove God's existence, just as there is no way to prove God's existence. This change in belief made life with my folks a lot simpler - I didn't deny their beliefs anymore, but simply questioned them - looking for something I could believe or use as evidence one way or the other. I was terribly disappointed by all the televangelist scandals, and saw many prominent Christians as hypocrites. I was still turned off by the Church, but just didn't know (and didn't care *too* much) about God (other than as an interesting debate topic). I did consider, and reject, going for the "Why not pretend to believe, just in case the Christians are right?" period, but a healthy agnostic skepticism said believing in the wrong God/church wouldn't help, and that God, if there was one, would see through a false faith, so I may as well just live in doubt. This period lasted through law school and a couple of years afterward. (For anyone who's curious, there ARE Christian lawyers, though they are generally quiet about religion, and agnosticism serves one well in law school - it works great with the Socratic method!)

Again, during these years I was involved in charitable activities and donated things when I could, but again, it was generally as a social activity, not a duty or tithe, or even just an innate charitable impulse. And, based on what all the women I liked said, I was still a 'nice' guy. (Lol) And, the moral code didn't change.

As I was going through my nasty, bitter divorce, I looked for something to fill the hole and take away the darkness I felt I was lost in. I tried weed, I tried gambling, I tried socializing and dating, but none of those were sufficient. It took time, but I began to feel God was there waiting if I would look to Him. I was reluctant, but started reading the Bible (highlighting things that would be immoral by today's standards, or places where it seemed contradictory to other places or to the church's dogma) and eventually I turned to praying. God (and strong anti-depressants) got me through that rough patch, and my faith began to develop and grow. I talked with other Christians, to learn, to seek affirmation, and to learn their stories, but for me, belief in God was NOT a social thing, and still isn't today.

Today, I consider myself a devout Christian, but you wouldn't know it to look at me. I don't attend church, and am still fairly turned off by a lot of (Christian) church doctrine that I don't think follows what the Bible and my belief in (and/or conversations with?) God tells me. I believe we are supposed to tithe 10% of what God gives us, but that is hard in Los Angeles, especially after taxes, so I give as much as I feel I can - to both religious and non-religious groups - but I haven't volunteered for a while (I tell myself I'm too busy) and I don't publicize donations, other than to the IRS for the tax deduction. I still live by the same moral code - but now I believe that there are consequences for violating it. I still drink, I still gamble, I still lie, and I still look at pretty women. I just feel guilty about my actions and choices that violate God's Law (as I know it) and have to repent. Often. Anyway, I am still a social animal, but I am friends with many people - Christian, Jewish, Scientologists and non-believers (presumably atheists and agnostics both) (and maybe some Muslims and/or Buddhists, though I can't think of any). I proselytize if someone seems open to it, or if I think they might really need God in their lives at that moment, but I don't try to convert those who have strong belief in something other than what I believe in.

I guess the point of all this is that anyone, regardless of their faith, or lack thereof, can be a moral person, a good person, a 'nice' person, strongly pro-America, or can be the opposite of any of those. A lot of it has to do with how you're raised, and some of it has to do with what you open yourself to and when. People are individuals, with their own beliefs. Not every Christian believes the Bible is the *literal* Word of God. Not every Muslim believes that blowing up non-Muslims is part of their religion, and not every Muslim believes that blowing up non-Muslims IS part of their religion. Not every Jew eats kosher. Etc., etc., etc. Yet any or all of these individuals can have a moral code that the majority of Americans (and probably other people) would call "good".

Below, I'll run through some of my beliefs that really aren't relevant to this topic, but show the range of things a self-professed 'Christian' can believe in. For those who are only interested in the original topic, move on! :)

I consider the Bible the Word of God, and Jesus as His Son. I believe Christ died to redeem all of us. I don't believe God opposes science fiction or D&D (though I think both of them underplay religion, and can undermine faith). I believe in free will, given by God, and that people make choices. I don't believe all wrong in the world is from God (though a lot of it is from Lucifer), just as not all good comes from Him. This Earth is ours to do with what we will ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's") - God is concerned with our eternal souls. He is neither a puppet master - we are not predestined to whatever path God selected for us before our birth - nor is He an absent Creator - creating Earth then ignoring his Creation. He is a wise and loving Father, who will guide us if we seek Him, help us if we ask Him, and feeling our sadness and pain when bad things happen or we choose to go down the wrong path.

I still have doubts occasionally - I am too cyncial and skeptical not to. That shapes some of my beliefs, I am sure. I support gay marriage, and believe that God will bless that union if the couple seeks His blessing. I believe that we need to protect the environment. I believe that we need to care for and help the poor, in the US and abroad. I support lower taxes, smaller government and more individual giving. I support the right of others to believe in what they will. I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in animal rights, but subject to human rights and needs. I believe I can learn a lot - from Christians and non-Christians - about just about everything. I believe I can learn a lot from God, and that I will likely spend the rest of my life trying to do so. But above all, I have the simple faith that God is God, and gave his Son to redeem all of us, if only we let Him.

If you made it this far... Wow. Congratulations and thank you. God Bless you.

- Brian

You never received a donation from anyone who told you he or she was an atheist. This is an important distinction.

I just don't buy any of it. A few people doing a word jumble is supposed to show any sort of significance whatsoever? Give me a break.

Does religion make people nicer? Well, let's look over human history, shall we? After all, doing so gives a LOT more evidence.

RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE

Murder. Torture. Genocide. Hate. Control. Manipulation. Xenophobia. Misogyny. Brutality. Force. Mutilation. Ignorance. Inhumanity. Unforgiveness. Judgement. Punishment.

THAN THE NON-RELIGIOUS.

There are thousands and thousands of examples of this. All committed by the religious and in the name of god. From before the birth of Christ, but more so since his birth. One cannot compare the Crusades to the rule of Stalin. Stalin and Hitler were heinous megaoimaniacs, but in some ways they were isolated. They did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism, and they came and they went. Religious hate, intolerance, murder and brutality continues into every aspect of our daily lives.

My god is the only god. My god is the all powerful god. If you don't believe in my god you will face judgement and burn in hell. I will exact god's judgement on you. I will kill you in name of god. I will torture you until you believe as I do. I will scorn you in the name of god. I will eradicate you from the face of the earth in the name of god. God loves you.

I am not an atheist, btw. Nor am I agnostic. But I was raised in the Unitarian church and I have certainly been both of those things. And I was judge and hated for it. I was told that I would burn in hell. But god loves me.

In my lifetime, I have found that those who tout their religion are the very least trust worthy and yes, unkind. They have an excuse because there is always an agenda. The ends is worth the means. Gays shouldn't be foster parents because being gay is a sin (according to THEM and THEIR GOD). They will fight this and rally this and scream this from the rooftops. Meanwhile the 12-year old who has been in and out of the system just waiting with all hopes for a family - any type of family - goes without. Those doing the screaming won't take them in, after all, they are black or poor or drug addicted or lonely or sick. No in MY back yard. But they won't let others do it either. Judgment. Punishment. Righteousness.

Religion certainly doesn't make people kinder. No word jumble needed to figure that one out.

Doesn't their own theory predict that a church-going Christian should be, on average, more generous than a solitary atheist?

Yes and no. Yes it does predict that church-going Christians will be more likely to BUY SOCIAL STATUS than a solitary atheist. But for that to extend to the studies you cite you have to presume that atheists are more likely to be solitary than Christians. Absent normalizing for such you can't draw such conclusions.

Secondly, I would pick a nit with the term "generous". Someone who is buying social status through community approved behaviour, is not being generous or nice. They are being self-serving and mendacious. They are every bit as engaged in a transaction of buying social status as are The Joneses when they buy a new car, or T. Boone Pickens when his publicist books him onto the Daily Show.

Generosity is giving when there is no transaction involved. And the work of Shariff and Norenzayan indicates that Christians are no more likely to give in the absence of the Social Status Transaction, than any other group.

You also assume that a community oriented around deity worship will be one in which the members care about other members. That's a bit of a stretch - in particular in communities where love of the deity is the paramount objective. In point of fact, an intentional atheistic community, formed for the purpose of having a community is an environment where you are more likely to be surrounded by individuals who care for you, than in the Mass at Lourdes.

So the people around you ARE the differentiating factor. But the key here is that structure of community affects who participates. And a community that is focussed on a deity as opposed to other human beings will have a different structure and will attract different kinds of people than a communtiy that has a focus on other human beings