Skip to comments.Study Claims People of Faith Are Stingy
Posted on 05/02/2012 2:04:15 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Hardly a week passes, it seems, without yet another scientific study disparaging people of faith.
This weeks study, ginned up by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, dubiously concludes that the highly religious are less compassionate toward the needful than non-believers.
Published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, the study defines compassion as an emotion felt when people see the sufferings of others which then motivates them to help, often at personal risk or cost.
The studys lead author, Laura Saslow, says she was inspired by an atheist friend who told her he donated to earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti after watching a video of a woman being rescued from the rubble.
I was interested to find, she said, that this experience an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers was replicated in three large, systematic studies.
Well, I have no doubt there are some non-believers, like Saslows atheist boy pal, who are so moved with compassion after watching videos of victims of earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural disasters, that they donate to recovery efforts.
But it is absurd for Saslow to suggest that people of faith, particularly the highly religious, are not similarly moved, if not more so.
To make such a claim, the Cal Berkeley researchers relied on three highly-questionable analyses.
In the first, they looked at data from a 2004 national survey of roughly 1,300 adults. They determined that those who agreed with such statements as when I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective of them were more inclined to show generosity.
And extrapolating from the survey results, they figured that non-believers were likelier to be charitable in such ways as giving money or food to a homeless person than people of faith.
In the second analysis, 101 adults watched one of two videos. One was neutral. The other was heartrending, showing portraits of impoverished children. Next, the participants were each given a hypothetical $10 and directed to give any of it to a stranger.
Wouldnt you know it? The least religious gave the most of their money.
The third of the systematic analyses on which Saslows based her putative scientific findings involved more than 200 college students who were asked to report how compassionate they felt at the moment. Then they played a game in which they were given hypothetical money to share or not with a stranger.
In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, which had since doubled in amount. They were free to reward them by giving back some of the money.
Once again, those who were deemed least-religious proved most generous.
Of course, there is a much better way than abstract surveys or videos or games to get a true-to-life measure of how compassionate the faith community is toward the needful just examine the list of Americas largest charities.
Indeed, of the ten largest charities serving the least among us the poor, the hungry, the sick, the homeless nine of those were founded by people of faith. That includes such well-known charities as United Way, the American Red Cross, Goodwill Industries and Habitat for Humanity.
As to Haiti relief, which prompted Saslow to concoct her highly suspect study, faith-based charities made up three-quarters of the list of those receiving top ratings by CharityWatch, the respected watchdog organization, for their work on the ground in the earthquake-ravaged island nation to ease the suffering of its people.
This idiot conflates gullibleness and hand-outs t- which often cause more harm than good - o charity, while real charity involves giving to reputable organizations who provide actual goods and services.
In other words, she’s a clueless leftdolt...
TOTAL GARBAGE. Having lived through the tornadoes here in Alabama last April, I can tell you 100% that one of the very first groups to respond and the last to leave were the local churches. Hundreds of people from our area churches worked thousands of hours aiding people, feeding people, assisting in rebuilding homes, providing the needs for people. Total garbage. People of faith around here know that we ain’t stingy! Stupid liberals. They are only NOT stingy with other people’s money!
I think people see through these contrived agenda driven “studies” that have been coming out over the past year that slam people of faith and conservatives.
You may be sure that this is NOT science and the the DemonRATS and the MainSCREAM media are behind it.
In the studies they gave them hypothetical money to give away. That is what libtards do, give away other people’s money.
Do the real live money test from the tax returns and you will see the difference. What an idiotic study method!
I must confess, I am more stingy than the godless freaks I run into; I have children to feed, while they have birthday parties for their pets...
Complete and utter bull shit! No, I won’t edit!
What you said!
Well, just look at the charity the liberals give and decide for yourself. Liberals are the worst when it comes to help. They support a plantation to keep everyone.
People of faith are a large majority of Americans.
Thus it is entirely expected that the majority of charity in America would be from (and often to) the religious.
The scientific community is inherently biased towards meaningful PROPORTIONAL analysis rather than a simple minded statement that most charitable giving in a nation that is majority Christian is from Christian people and to Christian founded organizations.
Do you understand proportionality?
If most people incarcerated are white - in a nation that is majority white - is that noteworthy?
Or is it more noteworthy that a population group that is some 12% of the population makes up over 30% of those that are incarcerated?
Stupid liberals. They are only NOT stingy with other peoples money!
In the second analysis, 101 adults watched one of two videos. One was neutral. The other was heartrending, showing portraits of impoverished children. Next, the participants were each given a hypothetical $10 and directed to give any of it to a stranger.So I guess the atheists were only hypothetically charitable.
Please note they were being charitable because they were asked how they would give away other people’s money, not their own.
This is on the same level as the “studies” that show that all conservatives are less intelligent than liberals. It’s an agenda driven study to show what great people the people that did the study are and what rotten people those that they don’t like are. Kind of an expensive way to justify their “feelings” about us and nothing more. Our world is filled with nothing but junk science now days, global warming, save the whales, there are no differences between men and women, etc. It’s made the term “scientist” a joke.
First: don't think this has anything to do with the "scientific community." The article called it a scientific survey, but it's nothing more than sociology hogwash. The only thing remotely resembling science was that the silly questions and biased premises were tabulated on a "scientific" calculator.
What you end up with is statistically-accurate meaninglessness.
P.S. Sociologists like to flatter themselves that their “discipline” is a science. It’s neither.
Every study of IRS data shows that Christians are MUCH more generous than the secular population. Liberals are screwing around here.
Any real person knows people are only charitable with there own money is really involved not something given to be given any way.
So what was the sample? Who were these two groups, and what other factors came into play?
One of the reasons I no longer subscribe to many “science” publications is that the studies are often very poorly done.
When I see someone "being taken advantage of," I think, "Why didn't his parents teach him any common sense?" and then I donate to The Salvation Army or Baptist Relief, so as to do some real good for people genuinely in need.
People have posted studies here that show religious people give far more than non religious people.
Okay. People of faith are a large majority and, therefore, should be expected for much of the nation’s charitable giving.
So name me just one atheist-based charity that provides material suppprt to the poor, the hungry, the sick, the homeless.
Yeah, that I don’t give money to some bum who insists on holding the Post Office door for me as opposed to a quadriplegic who works for herself.
Leftists charity (recalling that charity means love) is the Federal Government. And giving to that charity by leftists consists of advocating government taking property in the form of taxation, paying its debts in watered down money, or regulatory subverting of the value of property ownership.Not in their own voluntary giving, and not even in paying taxes themselves. They are not even scandalized by tax cheats, as long as they are leftist tax cheats.
that would be about as equal a study as this jack asses...
I have no doubt that people like this woman have no idea of the vast numbers and varieties of charitable giving people do everyday.
IMHO, just paying the cost of sending your child to a private school is a form of charity (or at least “other-centered” giving). Any mothers who homeschool are also included in this (plus the dads who allow their wives to stay at home to home school).
Food shelves, free lunches, worn-a—bit-stores like St. Vincent de Paul’s, Women’s Guilds, and Salvation Army come to mind.
Giving to support a church is also a form of charitable givng - but athiests will not understand this either.
The argument is as silly as the other liberal claim that Tea Party members are racists.