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 week’s 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 study’s 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 Saslow’s 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.
Wouldn’t you know it? The least religious gave the most of their money.
The third of the “systematic” analyses on which Saslow’s 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 America’s 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.
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.
Oh, brilliant!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.