0:00:02.189,0:00:06.070
Welcome to Reasonable Doubts,

0:00:06.070,0:00:11.379
your skeptical guide to religion.

0:00:11.380,0:00:27.030
(Music)

0:00:27.079,0:00:30.709
You're listening to Reasonable Doubts,[br]the radio show and podcast for those who

0:00:30.710,0:00:32.118
won't just take things on faith.

0:00:32.118,0:00:35.119
I'm Jamie Beahan [br]and for this special episode

0:00:35.119,0:00:38.539
of Reasonable Doubts, we're featuring a[br]lecture I gave in February

0:00:38.539,0:00:41.979
to the Grand Traverse humanists in[br]Traverse City, Michigan.

0:00:41.979,0:00:45.479
The lecture was entitled; [br]“Does religion make us better?",

0:00:45.479,0:00:49.558
a critical review of the religious [br]pro-sociality hypothesis.

0:00:49.558,0:00:52.981
Longtime listeners will no doubt[br]recognize many of the studies

0:00:52.981,0:00:54.640
talked about in this lecture.

0:00:54.640,0:00:59.938
A previous RD-extra and our episode “The Skeptics Toolkit to Psychology of Religion”

0:00:59.938,0:01:01.808
discussed these findings.

0:01:01.808,0:01:05.259
But this lecture is a bit different,[br]mostly in the trivial

0:01:05.259,0:01:09.439
and, I'm sure, disappointing fact that I[br]am presenting the findings rather than

0:01:09.439,0:01:11.759
our resident doctor professor Luke Galen.

0:01:11.759,0:01:16.319
But I think this lecture has some merit[br]in that it finally collects a wide range

0:01:16.319,0:01:20.758
of studies, discussed over several years[br]on the show, into one convenient place

0:01:20.759,0:01:24.959
hopefully making it easier for fans of[br]the show to review the information

0:01:24.959,0:01:29.868
or share with a friend and please do[br]share. This is important research and I

0:01:29.868,0:01:33.569
know doctor Galen would agree with me[br]in thinking that it hasn't gotten as

0:01:33.569,0:01:36.919
much attention as it deserves.[br]So you'd be doing us

0:01:36.919,0:01:41.110
and the cause of skepticism [br]a great favor by sharing this lecture

0:01:41.110,0:01:45.689
on whatever blogs or social media you[br]frequent and never underestimate

0:01:45.688,0:01:48.209
the power of good old [br]word-of-mouth sharing either.

0:01:48.209,0:01:52.889
And please visit doubtcast.org to share [br]any comments or questions or feedback

0:01:52.890,0:01:54.968
you may have about the episode.

0:01:54.968,0:01:58.849
So be sure to tune in next week for[br]the Doubtcasters review

0:01:58.849,0:02:02.739
of the New Christian propaganda film[br]“God's not dead”.

0:02:02.739,0:02:07.054
Should be a good one. Until then, take[br]care and keep doubting.

0:02:07.054,0:02:16.519
(Music)

0:02:16.519,0:02:19.075
(Applause)

0:02:19.105,0:02:21.489
Thank you for coming and thank[br]you for the privilege of

0:02:21.520,0:02:24.870
allowing me to speak to your group. My[br]name is Jeremy Beahan.

0:02:24.870,0:02:29.539
I teach World Religions and Introduction[br]to Philosophy along with a handful of

0:02:29.539,0:02:32.169
other subjects [br]at Kendall College of Art and Design.

0:02:32.169,0:02:35.299
I'm also the producer and cohost

0:02:35.300,0:02:38.380
of the Reasonable Doubt Podcast which

0:02:38.379,0:02:43.189
at its peak was the top atheist podcast[br]on iTunes for several years,

0:02:43.189,0:02:46.740
won the People's Choice [br]podcasting award

0:02:46.740,0:02:51.689
for best religious inspirational podcast[br]which was - (Laughing) - different.

0:02:51.689,0:02:54.829
People look at me funny [br]when I mention that.

0:02:54.830,0:03:00.070
I'm speaking tonight on the issue of[br]“Does religion make people better?”

0:03:00.070,0:03:02.210
and we're approaching[br]this not so much from a philosophical

0:03:02.210,0:03:05.120
perspective, as you usually [br]hear this question grapple with,

0:03:05.120,0:03:08.653
but we're approaching this[br]from an empirical standpoint. [br]

0:03:08.653,0:03:11.146
What can science actually tell us

0:03:11.146,0:03:15.719
about how religion affects morality. [br]The subtitle here's a skeptical review

0:03:15.719,0:03:17.930
of the religious pro-sociality hypothesis.

0:03:17.930,0:03:21.159
So, that might take some explanation.

0:03:21.159,0:03:24.169
You might guess from that subtitle that[br]this is going to be a bit have been

0:03:24.169,0:03:26.919
informationally dense talk tonight.

0:03:26.919,0:03:29.479
But I don't have to tell you [br]that in our culture[br]

0:03:29.479,0:03:32.740
there's an overwhelming assumption [br]among the general public

0:03:32.740,0:03:36.759
that being religious is necessary [br]to be a happy and ethical person.

0:03:36.759,0:03:40.069
We have plenty of preachers[br]and pundits and ordinary people

0:03:40.069,0:03:44.489
reminding us daily that without God[br]society will quickly de-evolve

0:03:44.489,0:03:49.239
into wickedness and anarchy. [br]What you may not be familiar with

0:03:49.239,0:03:53.239
as much however is the growing body [br]of social psychology research

0:03:53.239,0:03:56.830
that at first glance actually [br]seems to support this notion.

0:03:56.830,0:04:01.520
The more technical term for the[br]hypothesis that religion makes us good

0:04:01.520,0:04:05.320
is known as the religious [br]pro-sociality hypothesis.

0:04:05.319,0:04:09.259
My task tonight is to present you with[br]an overview of this research

0:04:09.259,0:04:13.699
and to acquit you with the tools[br]necessary to think critically about it.

0:04:13.699,0:04:18.009
Because as we're about to see the[br]religious pro-sociality hypothesis

0:04:18.009,0:04:19.620
really does indeed [br]have some support.

0:04:19.620,0:04:24.030
But when we look at the evidence[br]more closely, we're going to

0:04:24.029,0:04:26.919
discover little devils[br]within the details.

0:04:26.919,0:04:30.219
But first I have to[br]give you a quick disclaimer:

0:04:30.219,0:04:32.639
I don't get any credit or blame

0:04:32.639,0:04:36.659
for what I'm about to say this evening.[br]This is not my research

0:04:36.660,0:04:39.930
that I'm reporting on, this is actually[br]doctor Luke Galen's research.

0:04:39.930,0:04:44.039
He is a professor of psychology of religion

0:04:44.039,0:04:46.339
at Grand Valley State University and

0:04:46.339,0:04:51.359
almost all what I'm going to be drawing [br]from tonight comes from his paper

0:04:51.360,0:04:55.830
in the Psychological Bulletin of[br]the American Psychological Association

0:04:55.829,0:05:01.279
called: <i>“Does religious belief promote [br]pro-sociality, a critical examination”</i>.

0:05:01.279,0:05:04.309
How did I get involved in this topic?

0:05:04.309,0:05:06.550
He put me in charge of

0:05:06.550,0:05:09.618
writing up a summary of his research,

0:05:09.618,0:05:13.859
kind of distilling pages [br]upon pages and pages of review

0:05:13.860,0:05:17.639
into something coherent [br]that the average consumer

0:05:17.639,0:05:22.019
could actually understand. [br]So that was my task writing up

0:05:22.019,0:05:25.469
his review and free inquiry,[br]since Luke Galen

0:05:25.470,0:05:28.608
doesn't like their leave the house [br]too often or interact

0:05:28.608,0:05:32.129
with ordinary human beings.[br](Laughing)

0:05:32.129,0:05:34.239
He kind of appointed me [br]to be his spokesman.

0:05:34.239,0:05:37.159
He jokingly refers to me [br]as Galen's Bulldog.

0:05:37.160,0:05:40.750
I guess I'm Thomas Henry Huxley[br]to his Darwin.

0:05:40.750,0:05:45.100
So I've been glad to have [br]the opportunity to do interviews

0:05:45.100,0:05:49.390
and talk to groups like this[br]about this research because I think it

0:05:49.389,0:05:50.979
needs to get out there.

0:05:50.979,0:05:53.619
All right, [br]before we go any further

0:05:53.620,0:05:56.689
let us define [br]what we mean by pro-sociality.

0:05:56.689,0:06:01.500
I hate that word already. [br]I am barely into this lecture

0:06:01.500,0:06:05.240
and tired of saying it,

0:06:05.240,0:06:09.920
but the term pro-social refers [br]to any kind of positive social behavior

0:06:09.920,0:06:15.129
and this runs the gamut from generosity[br]in the form a charitable giving

0:06:15.129,0:06:19.509
or time spent volunteering to personal[br]qualities perhaps

0:06:19.509,0:06:21.879
such as positive personality traits:

0:06:21.879,0:06:26.550
being helpful, being honest and there's[br]actually an impressive array of

0:06:26.550,0:06:30.680
scientific studies that support this[br]hypothesis, that try to show

0:06:30.680,0:06:35.930
that the religious exhibit greater [br]pro-sociality than the non-religious.

0:06:35.930,0:06:39.919
In effect this has even become the subject[br]of a number a popular books.

0:06:39.919,0:06:42.120
One you may have heard of

0:06:42.120,0:06:45.890
is <i>“A Friendly Letter to Skeptics [br]and Atheists”</i> by David Myers

0:06:45.890,0:06:50.689
or more recently <i>“American Grace, How[br]Religion Divides and Unites Us”</i>.

0:06:50.689,0:06:54.459
So the general public is being told [br]that the data are in

0:06:54.459,0:06:59.359
and religion makes you happy, happier, [br]healthier and more helpful.

0:06:59.359,0:07:05.089
That this is a conclusion that is not [br]just philosophy or religion. It's science.

0:07:05.089,0:07:07.539
In fact even some atheists [br]are getting in on this.

0:07:07.540,0:07:10.980
A seemingly overwhelming case [br]for the pro-social effects

0:07:10.980,0:07:15.480
of religion has been enough to[br]convince people here like Jessie Bering,

0:07:15.480,0:07:19.640
an atheist psychologist and actually a[br]pretty good author.

0:07:19.639,0:07:24.729
Enough to convince him that religion[br]is beneficial, at least for others.

0:07:24.729,0:07:28.939
In a recent Slate article [br]entitled *“Don't trust the godless”(,

0:07:28.939,0:07:33.430
Jesse Bering confessed; "Even as an[br]atheist, I have more confidence

0:07:33.430,0:07:37.079
in religious people [br]and now science is backing me up.”

0:07:37.079,0:07:40.720
A fuller quote is up here; "This is a[br]difficult confession to make

0:07:40.720,0:07:45.879
because on the surface I'm sure [br]it sounds wildly, wildly hypocritical.

0:07:45.879,0:07:50.850
Still here it goes; "I trust religious people [br]more than I trust atheists."

0:07:50.850,0:07:53.306
Trustworthiness is a different thing[br]altogether from intellect

0:07:53.306,0:07:56.682
and I suppose[br]I'm the ever so social pragmatist

0:07:56.682,0:07:58.220
in my dealings with other people."

0:07:58.220,0:08:02.710
So pretty serious claim, [br]if you get even atheist psychologists

0:08:02.709,0:08:04.932
saying; "Don't trust the godless".

0:08:04.932,0:08:07.115
Before we go any further though

0:08:07.115,0:08:09.379
we're going to have to look at [br]what are the kind of methods

0:08:09.379,0:08:12.532
that are used in pro-sociality research.

0:08:12.532,0:08:15.685
We're going to see a variety of different

0:08:15.685,0:08:19.240
experimental setups and methods [br]for conducting this kind of research.

0:08:19.240,0:08:23.240
This would include self-reports,[br]what people say about themselves and

0:08:23.240,0:08:28.330
third-party ratings of individuals, [br]laboratory tests of behavior,

0:08:28.329,0:08:32.240
lab studies of economic games [br]– we’ll talk about those more later -

0:08:32.240,0:08:34.300
priming studies, where people are presented

0:08:34.300,0:08:37.039
with the religious concept subconsciously

0:08:37.039,0:08:40.889
- usually where they will not realize[br]they've been primed by the concept

0:08:40.889,0:08:44.819
and then we'll see what happens - [br]and also spirituality scales.

0:08:44.820,0:08:49.419
Scales are meant to design, to detect[br]the level of one's spirituality

0:08:49.419,0:08:51.799
and then we compare their behaviors on that.

0:08:51.799,0:08:53.939
What I'm going to try to highlight

0:08:53.939,0:08:56.560
is some other pitfalls [br]that researchers face

0:08:56.559,0:08:59.859
in each of these types [br]of research methods.

0:09:00.359,0:09:03.239
Let's start with the top report data;

0:09:03.240,0:09:05.529
"Will being religious [br]make you a better person?"

0:09:05.529,0:09:08.379
Well, the fateful [br]certainly seem to think so.

0:09:08.379,0:09:11.759
When asked to give an assessment of[br]their own character and values,

0:09:11.759,0:09:13.990
religious individuals [br]tend to report being...

0:09:13.990,0:09:18.370
having a more grateful disposition;[br]they rate themselves as more helpful;

0:09:18.370,0:09:22.139
they claim to value forgiveness [br]more highly than the non-religious;

0:09:22.139,0:09:26.419
And many studies actually take [br]these self-reports at face value.

0:09:26.419,0:09:29.279
The fact that believers[br]think they're more moral

0:09:29.279,0:09:32.699
is actually taken as evidence [br]that they do exhibit

0:09:32.700,0:09:38.390
these pro-social traits. Big question is:[br]"Should we take believers at their word?

0:09:38.389,0:09:42.230
No. Not if their evaluations [br]are based on a self-serving bias

0:09:42.230,0:09:46.360
rather than a realistic assessment[br]of their own character.

0:09:46.360,0:09:51.400
Self-report data tend to be[br]unreliable by its very nature.

0:09:51.399,0:09:56.289
People are prone to forming positive[br]illusions about themselves. We all do it.

0:09:56.289,0:10:00.305
We tend to inflate our responses on[br]questionnaires as a result [br][br]

0:10:00.305,0:10:02.701
to make ourselves look better.

0:10:02.701,0:10:06.179
Sometimes this is just concern [br]over our own personal self-image.

0:10:06.179,0:10:08.896
Social psychologists call this [br]self-enhancement.

0:10:08.896,0:10:12.043
Or sometimes we want to make [br]a good impression with others

0:10:12.043,0:10:15.230
or good impression for our group in particular.

0:10:15.230,0:10:18.190
This is sometimes referred[br]to as impression management.

0:10:18.190,0:10:21.070
While this is a widespread tendency[br]

0:10:21.070,0:10:24.580
and it's by no means restricted [br]just to the religious.

0:10:24.580,0:10:27.950
What's interesting is, this tendency[br]might be more pronounced

0:10:27.950,0:10:31.230
in those who have [br]a strong level of religious belief.

0:10:31.230,0:10:35.710
Highly religious people tend to view[br]themselves as better than others, generally.

0:10:35.710,0:10:39.430
Even better than [br]other religious individuals.

0:10:39.429,0:10:43.599
And they also evaluate themselves more[br]highly than non-religious individuals

0:10:43.599,0:10:46.510
on attributes that have absolutely [br]nothing to do with religion.

0:10:46.510,0:10:49.870
So for example they might [br]score themselves higher

0:10:49.870,0:10:53.609
on measures of intelligence [br]or being a good worker.

0:10:53.609,0:10:59.090
Things that do not seem immediately[br]related to their religious morality.

0:10:59.090,0:11:02.649
Those high in intrinsic religiosity[br]actually have been shown to have

0:11:02.649,0:11:05.919
a higher degree of self-enhancement[br]and impression management.

0:11:05.919,0:11:11.589
Just one example: if you prime a[br]Christian with self-esteem primes,

0:11:11.590,0:11:16.750
you'll see them actually rating themselves [br]as living up to Christian principles

0:11:16.769,0:11:21.259
more often than their fellow believers.[br]If however you do the reverse

0:11:21.259,0:11:25.409
and you offer up an assessment that[br]questions their high self-esteem

0:11:25.409,0:11:29.230
or make them write about something [br]that they don't like about themselves,

0:11:29.230,0:11:31.569
those who are high [br]in intrinsic religiosity

0:11:31.569,0:11:36.328
- that means the level of belief -[br]they are more likely

0:11:36.328,0:11:39.879
to resort to self-deception [br]as a compensating strategy.

0:11:39.879,0:11:42.919
Also highly religious people [br]are particularly

0:11:42.919,0:11:47.209
concerned with presenting themselves [br]as moral persons

0:11:47.210,0:11:50.060
and particularly threatened [br]when that self-image is challenged.

0:11:50.060,0:11:53.510
So, I guess the big question is;[br]"Why do researchers even rely

0:11:53.510,0:11:58.240
on these self-reports some of the time?" [br]Well, because at least in some cases

0:11:58.240,0:12:01.736
these positive self-assessments are actually corroborated by others: [br]

0:12:01.736,0:12:05.032
their family, their colleagues, their peers.

0:12:05.032,0:12:08.430
So, third-party evaluators[br]rate religious individuals

0:12:08.429,0:12:10.829
as being nicer, more cooperative [br]and highly altruistic

0:12:10.830,0:12:15.300
and empathetic as well. [br]To some this is proof

0:12:15.299,0:12:20.029
that the self-reports are not[br]self-delusion, they're not moral hypocrisy.

0:12:20.029,0:12:23.209
They are correct assessments [br]of their character.

0:12:23.210,0:12:26.810
But I think we can still [br]be a little skeptical here.

0:12:26.809,0:12:29.700
When we're talking [br]about a predominantly religious society,

0:12:29.700,0:12:32.500
where about 80 to 95%[br]of people are religious

0:12:32.500,0:12:35.980
and around 75% are at least[br]nominally Christian,

0:12:35.980,0:12:39.600
it's a good bet that a significant[br]proportion of those subjects, families

0:12:39.600,0:12:41.629
and peers are also religious,

0:12:41.629,0:12:44.660
meaning there's a possibility [br]of in-group bias at work here.

0:12:44.660,0:12:48.360
And actually there is some evidence [br]to support that.

0:12:48.360,0:12:52.529
In-group favoritism is a well-studied[br]phenomenon in social psychology.

0:12:52.529,0:12:56.539
Again, this is not just religious[br]people here, this is all of us.

0:12:56.539,0:13:00.329
It is natural for individuals to[br]derive self-esteem from the groups

0:13:00.329,0:13:01.838
they’re associated with.

0:13:01.839,0:13:05.070
It's natural to provide [br]a positive image to the public

0:13:05.070,0:13:08.920
for those who share their identity. [br]So, consistent with the predictions

0:13:08.919,0:13:10.770
of social identity theory,

0:13:10.770,0:13:15.200
we see believers tend to show more[br]favoritism towards other individuals

0:13:15.200,0:13:17.360
and speak more poorly of non-religious

0:13:17.360,0:13:21.279
and this even includes[br]those from different religious groups.

0:13:21.279,0:13:24.870
Often the favoritism [br]- and here's the key point here -

0:13:24.870,0:13:28.320
often the favoritism is extended [br]to other religious individuals,

0:13:28.320,0:13:30.990
regardless of whether or not [br]they behaved well or poorly,

0:13:30.990,0:13:34.700
are still be reviewed more favorably,

0:13:34.700,0:13:38.220
even when they've been up to no good.[br]I'll give you an example here

0:13:38.220,0:13:43.170
of when sometimes believers will rate[br]religious individuals more highly

0:13:43.169,0:13:47.699
than non-religious individuals, even when[br]they exhibit the exact same behaviors.

0:13:47.700,0:13:52.089
I was a part of this study [br]which was published in 2011.

0:13:52.089,0:13:56.160
I was a participant and so in front of a[br]camera I wore two different T-shirts,

0:13:56.159,0:13:59.409
I wore three actually: [br]just a plain white T-shirt

0:13:59.409,0:14:03.250
then in the other condition [br]I wore a Jesus fish T-shirt

0:14:03.250,0:14:06.708
and then third condition [br]I wore a Darwin fish T-shirt.

0:14:06.708,0:14:10.659
And then I read [br]the exact same script each time

0:14:10.659,0:14:14.139
which was I was presenting myself [br]as a college student

0:14:14.139,0:14:18.819
who was using my spring break to help [br]in disaster relief organization

0:14:18.820,0:14:20.770
and talking[br]about my positive experiences.

0:14:20.769,0:14:24.439
No mention of religion or anything else.[br]What we found in this study

0:14:24.440,0:14:28.240
was that people rated me[br]as more likable,

0:14:28.240,0:14:31.750
more intelligent, more trustworthy [br]and more kind,

0:14:31.750,0:14:34.750
and more moral overall

0:14:34.750,0:14:39.480
when I was wearing the Jesus fish. [br]So exact same behaviors but a subtle cue

0:14:39.480,0:14:44.160
that I might be religious makes [br]people evaluate my behavior better.

0:14:44.160,0:14:47.419
Most studies that rely on peer-rated[br]ratings do not adequately control

0:14:47.419,0:14:52.819
for this tendency for in-group bias [br]and that's the problem.

0:14:52.820,0:14:56.780
Ideally researchers would ensure [br]that participants are completely unaware

0:14:56.779,0:14:59.289
of the religious identity [br]of those they're rating.

0:14:59.289,0:15:02.969
Then we have more reason to trust[br]their evaluations as accurate,

0:15:02.970,0:15:06.720
but this sadly is rarely the case.[br]However in studies

0:15:06.720,0:15:09.870
that do, and most studies[br]where the raters

0:15:09.870,0:15:13.509
are actually aware of their targets[br]religious identities

0:15:13.509,0:15:15.869
a clear bias emerges [br]and that suggests

0:15:15.869,0:15:18.970
an in-group bias [br]when the people know they're religious,

0:15:18.970,0:15:23.360
they rate them more positively. [br]There is an interesting twist to all of this:

0:15:23.360,0:15:27.909
non-religious individuals do not appear[br]to rate their fellow non-believers

0:15:27.909,0:15:31.919
as any more pro-social than they do the[br]religious. For some reason this

0:15:31.919,0:15:37.049
in-group bias doesn't seem to be affecting [br]the non-religious to the same degree.

0:15:37.049,0:15:40.809
Now should the fact [br]that non-religious people also rate

0:15:40.809,0:15:45.139
the religious highly, indicate that[br]these judgments are based on a clear

0:15:45.139,0:15:48.659
added assessment of their character? [br]Are atheists really going to have

0:15:48.659,0:15:53.049
a pro-religious bias? Actually it's quite[br]possible that they would

0:15:53.049,0:15:56.929
if their judgments have been swayed [br]by a strong religious,

0:15:56.929,0:15:58.458
pro-religious cultural stereotype.

0:15:58.458,0:16:01.948
And again, there is evidence to suggest[br]that's the case.

0:16:01.948,0:16:05.029
Here's more evidence [br]for a pro-religious stereotype,

0:16:05.029,0:16:08.559
that we can find by looking at[br]similar studies that are conducted

0:16:08.559,0:16:10.849
in different cultures than our own.

0:16:10.850,0:16:15.199
For example some report that happiness,[br]life satisfaction

0:16:15.198,0:16:17.019
and personality measures [br]like agreeableness

0:16:17.019,0:16:20.539
are more closely associated [br]with religion in the United States

0:16:20.539,0:16:25.068
than in the United Kingdom or Northern[br]Europe where religion is less dominant.

0:16:25.068,0:16:28.750
To give you one specific example: [br]this particular study here

0:16:28.750,0:16:34.789
asks people to rate their impressions [br]of people just from looking at photographs

0:16:34.789,0:16:36.726
of faces and smiling faces were judged [br]

0:16:36.726,0:16:40.633
to be more religious [br]than non smiling faces.

0:16:40.633,0:16:44.350
That was in the United States. [br]In the United Kingdom

0:16:44.350,0:16:47.068
the exact opposite was true and

0:16:47.068,0:16:50.889
tends to be a general relationship

0:16:50.889,0:16:54.039
between religion and self-control, [br]mental well-being,

0:16:54.039,0:16:57.099
psychological adjustment, [br]social support.

0:16:57.100,0:17:00.870
In general in societies where the[br]non-religious are the majority

0:17:00.870,0:17:04.588
the non-religious are rated more favorably

0:17:04.588,0:17:08.848
on all those particular measures. [br]So, again evidence that there

0:17:08.848,0:17:10.809
is a cultural bias at work here.

0:17:10.809,0:17:13.598
I think by now it should be clear that[br]self-report data doesn't provide

0:17:13.598,0:17:17.969
reliable evidence for the religious[br]pro-social reality hypothesis.

0:17:17.970,0:17:21.920
Self-evaluations on religious subjects[br]are vulnerable to self-enhancement,

0:17:21.920,0:17:26.348
impression management, distortions and[br]others and they are contaminated

0:17:26.348,0:17:30.639
quite possibly by a widely-held[br]pro-religious cultural stereotype.

0:17:30.640,0:17:34.890
It might be better [br]instead of trusting self-reports

0:17:34.890,0:17:38.720
to look at experimentally [br]controlled measures of behavior

0:17:38.720,0:17:43.199
or, if you prefer the way Jesus might say[br]it, we should judge believers

0:17:43.199,0:17:46.809
by their fruit not by their words. [br]Let's look at

0:17:46.809,0:17:50.329
what their actual deeds tell us. [br]Well, for one religious individuals

0:17:50.329,0:17:53.649
claim to value forgiveness [br]more than others

0:17:53.650,0:17:57.430
but actually any effect of their religiosity[br]on actual forgiveness

0:17:57.430,0:18:01.600
has been found to be negligible.[br]This is just one study

0:18:01.599,0:18:06.049
that shows that the comparison [br]of self-reports with controlled experiments

0:18:06.049,0:18:09.269
on behavior reveal how often believers

0:18:09.269,0:18:11.916
fail to live up to their high opinion [br]of themselves. [br]

0:18:11.916,0:18:17.023
Those in high in intrinsic religiosity again[br]- this is a measure of belief -[br]

0:18:17.023,0:18:19.710
reported a more grateful disposition [br]but don't do not perform

0:18:19.710,0:18:21.920
better than anyone else in studies

0:18:21.920,0:18:25.380
measuring reciprocal behavioral[br]gratitude: "Will they give back?"

0:18:25.380,0:18:29.460
High intrinsic religiosity doesn't seem[br]to reduce aggression

0:18:29.460,0:18:32.700
here is the scary detail: [br]it tends to make people think

0:18:32.700,0:18:34.869
they're less aggressive [br]than they really are.[br]

0:18:34.869,0:18:38.238
Fundamentalists in particular report

0:18:38.238,0:18:41.009
higher levels of altruism [br]towards everybody

0:18:41.009,0:18:44.599
but in reality they are [br]more willing to help friends

0:18:44.599,0:18:48.279
or like-minded individuals. [br]They're not as likely to help strangers

0:18:48.279,0:18:51.519
or what is sometimes called [br]'value violators',

0:18:51.519,0:18:54.710
perhaps like a homosexual or[br]something like that,

0:18:54.710,0:18:59.000
that is clearly on the wrong side [br]of the divide on some culture war issue.

0:18:59.000,0:19:02.369
We have to remember again [br]that everyone tends

0:19:02.369,0:19:05.389
to overestimate [br]how moral they actually are.

0:19:05.390,0:19:09.560
So, this is really common to find a gap[br]between how individuals predict

0:19:09.559,0:19:11.720
they'll behave [br]and how they actually behave.

0:19:11.720,0:19:14.500
If we were to take everybody in this[br]room we would probably

0:19:14.500,0:19:16.509
see the exact same phenomena.

0:19:16.509,0:19:20.190
We are no different. [br]It's just that the fact

0:19:20.190,0:19:23.370
seems to be more pronounced [br]in religious populations.

0:19:23.369,0:19:28.260
As we said before, highly religious do[br]show a greater tendency

0:19:28.280,0:19:32.020
towards self-enhancement [br]on questionnaires and this disjunction

0:19:32.020,0:19:34.200
between self-reported measured behavior

0:19:34.200,0:19:38.019
is actually wider in the religious [br]than in the rest of the population.

0:19:38.019,0:19:40.750
In fact the greatest gap [br]we can see

0:19:40.750,0:19:44.650
between altruistic beliefs and[br]altruistic behaviors

0:19:44.650,0:19:47.629
is actually found [br]in those who rate religion

0:19:47.629,0:19:49.799
as more important to them personally.

0:19:49.799,0:19:53.779
What's funny is that sometimes [br]the experimental evidence

0:19:53.779,0:19:57.730
is so contrary [br]to our stereotypes about religion

0:19:57.730,0:20:01.400
that some researchers [br]put a spin on this conclusion.

0:20:01.400,0:20:05.950
What they're publishing[br]is showing no positive effect for religion

0:20:05.950,0:20:09.169
but their abstracts or the way [br]they interpret the data

0:20:09.169,0:20:13.230
speaks in glowing terms. For example[br]this particular study here.

0:20:13.230,0:20:16.920
McCullough & Worthington in 1999 said that

0:20:16.920,0:20:20.830
"Even if religious people [br]are no more facile

0:20:20.829,0:20:24.869
at forgiving in real life situations[br]than are less religious people,

0:20:24.869,0:20:29.699
they do you desire to be forgiving and[br]go on about how great it is that they

0:20:29.700,0:20:32.370
want to be good forgiving people."

0:20:32.369,0:20:36.219
I'd like to argue to you that praising[br]the leaders for their moral intentions

0:20:36.220,0:20:37.950
kind of misses the point.

0:20:37.950,0:20:41.390
It's not that we just desire to be[br]better - and that's good -

0:20:41.390,0:20:44.690
in some cases they already [br]think they're superior.

0:20:44.690,0:20:49.360
And there are major dangers in having an unrealistic assessment

0:20:49.359,0:20:51.049
of one's own character and limits

0:20:51.049,0:20:54.409
Let's move on to a different type of study:

0:20:54.410,0:20:58.340
religious priming studies. [br]Although religious individuals do not seem

0:20:58.339,0:21:00.359
to behave as morally as they report,

0:21:00.359,0:21:03.599
it would still be very odd. [br]I personally would find it strange

0:21:03.599,0:21:07.089
if religion didn't have some impact [br]on moral behavior.

0:21:07.089,0:21:11.439
After all, scriptures and sermons abound[br]with exhortations to love thy neighbor,

0:21:11.440,0:21:14.820
to do unto others [br]as you would have them do onto you

0:21:14.819,0:21:17.830
and I think frequent exposure [br]to these messages

0:21:17.830,0:21:20.120
would result in pro-social behaviors.

0:21:20.119,0:21:24.239
So priming studies are a useful way [br]of seeving this out.

0:21:24.240,0:21:28.420
Again participants are primed somehow.[br]Maybe they have to unscramble

0:21:28.420,0:21:30.359
a word bank [br]and it has religious words in it.

0:21:30.359,0:21:32.208
Or perhaps they have to read

0:21:32.208,0:21:35.259
a portion of Scripture [br]and write a response to it.

0:21:35.259,0:21:38.410
Sometimes it can be really subtle:[br]symbols in the room,

0:21:38.410,0:21:40.039
a crucifix in the room,

0:21:40.039,0:21:44.279
jewelry or clothing. [br]Sometimes it's just the context.

0:21:44.279,0:21:48.250
Conducting the experiment in a[br]church instead of,

0:21:48.250,0:21:51.440
say, a high school gymnasium [br]or something like that.

0:21:51.440,0:21:55.210
Well the good news of priming studies [br]is that this is the best evidence

0:21:55.210,0:21:58.539
we can find for the religious [br]pro-sociality hypothesis.

0:21:58.539,0:22:00.612
There's a lot of data supporting it.[br]

0:22:00.612,0:22:01.955
There are good studies

0:22:01.955,0:22:04.759
showing greater honesty and generosity

0:22:04.759,0:22:07.819
amongst the religious, [br]increased sharing,

0:22:07.819,0:22:11.000
increased cooperation, [br]better self-control in distressing situations

0:22:11.000,0:22:15.670
and greater resistance to temptation.

0:22:15.670,0:22:20.100
So why are religious concepts so good at[br]priming these kinds of behavior?

0:22:20.099,0:22:22.719
Several studies cited a possible[br]mechanism here.

0:22:22.719,0:22:25.279
'Supernatural surveillance' they called it.

0:22:25.279,0:22:29.250
The belief that one's actions [br]are constantly and inescapably

0:22:29.250,0:22:31.549
being observed by a divine being.

0:22:31.549,0:22:34.559
Thinking that this is a strong[br]reminder to us

0:22:34.559,0:22:37.829
to be aware of our actions [br]and perhaps that's why

0:22:37.829,0:22:41.729
religious concepts prime [br]these pro-social behaviors.

0:22:41.729,0:22:44.995
God might be watching after all.

0:22:44.995,0:22:46.861
But I wont to share [br]some curious details

0:22:46.861,0:22:50.849
that aren't as often shared [br]in these priming studies.

0:22:50.849,0:22:54.139
Neutral religious works [br]like Bible, the Cycle ????

0:22:54.140,0:22:58.049
or Chapel don't seem to promote [br]any helping behavior.

0:22:58.048,0:23:01.259
It seems to be only positive words [br]like heaven, miracle or bless

0:23:01.259,0:23:05.019
that have that effect on people.[br]Even more interesting

0:23:05.019,0:23:08.019
the positive effects [br]don't seem to be dependent

0:23:08.019,0:23:12.139
on the participants level of religiosity.[br]You can be just kind of religious

0:23:12.140,0:23:14.050
or you could be a hardcore fundamentalist[br]

0:23:14.050,0:23:17.280
and the priming affects you the same way.

0:23:17.280,0:23:21.750
Also, non-religious people respond[br]positively to religious primes

0:23:21.750,0:23:24.760
and to the exact same degree [br]as their religious counterparts.

0:23:24.760,0:23:30.839
If you were to look at all those symbols, [br]you would act more morally too.

0:23:30.839,0:23:34.369
Even more interesting: [br]priming secular concepts, like civil

0:23:34.369,0:23:37.699
or court, seem to have [br]the same power to promote

0:23:37.700,0:23:41.600
honesty or lower hypocrisy [br]as religious primes do.

0:23:41.599,0:23:44.849
And religious destructive atheists:

0:23:44.849,0:23:48.469
the distrust they have for us [br]goes down

0:23:48.470,0:23:52.179
when the religious are primed [br]with concepts of secular authority.

0:23:52.179,0:23:55.409
That's really interesting. [br]Why would that possibly be?

0:23:55.409,0:24:00.010
Well, one idea, not exactly sure, [br]but one idea is that the leaders know

0:24:00.009,0:24:03.679
that atheists do not live their lives [br]as if God is watching them.

0:24:03.679,0:24:06.240
So without the supernatural monitoring[br]they may wonder

0:24:06.240,0:24:09.579
what reason we have [br]for behaving well.

0:24:09.579,0:24:14.198
But this distrust can be ameliorated[br]when we are reminded

0:24:14.198,0:24:16.869
that morality can be[br]monitored in different ways.

0:24:16.869,0:24:18.928
So these kind of pacific primes[br]remind everybody;

0:24:18.928,0:24:22.650
"Oh wait, there is a social order,[br]there is something keeping these

0:24:22.650,0:24:27.059
evil atheists in check." And so their negative impressions go down.

0:24:27.058,0:24:30.658
Amazingly even the presence of a mirror

0:24:30.659,0:24:36.130
or just pictures of eyes in the laboratory [br]will actually have these same effects

0:24:36.130,0:24:41.109
which actually really boost [br]that notion of supernatural surveillance.

0:24:41.109,0:24:46.110
Obviously this has implications [br]for the religious pro-sociality hypothesis.

0:24:46.109,0:24:49.479
Religious concepts do not seem

0:24:49.479,0:24:54.309
to prime pro-social behavior like honesty[br]because they're religious.

0:24:54.309,0:24:58.888
It may be that any concepts that are[br]associated with morality in a particular

0:24:58.888,0:25:03.269
culture trigger greater concern [br]for protecting your reputation.

0:25:03.269,0:25:05.899
Again since there's a widespread[br]cultural stereotype

0:25:05.899,0:25:08.389
that religion is linked to morality here,

0:25:08.390,0:25:12.250
religious concepts will activate moral[br]behavior, but as we pointed out

0:25:12.250,0:25:14.596
secular primes do just as well. [br]

0:25:14.596,0:25:17.002
While the positive effects [br]of religious priming

0:25:17.002,0:25:21.058
are the stuff of headlines, what you don't[br]usually hear about is the dark side

0:25:21.058,0:25:22.545
of religious primes. [br]

0:25:22.545,0:25:24.592
Numerous studies demonstrate

0:25:24.592,0:25:26.359
that socially undesirable behaviors

0:25:26.359,0:25:30.689
also manifest when subjects [br]are exposed to religious messages.

0:25:30.689,0:25:34.679
So for example, participants [br]who read passages from the Bible

0:25:34.679,0:25:38.990
depicting God sanctioned violence,[br]administer more electrical shocks

0:25:38.990,0:25:40.558
than the control group[br]in studies of aggression.

0:25:40.558,0:25:45.329
We should note this works [br]on non-believers as well.

0:25:45.329,0:25:49.308
Even a non-believer reading [br]those passages from the Bible

0:25:49.308,0:25:53.678
will also become more vicious [br]in their behaviors toward somebody.

0:25:53.679,0:25:57.929
It's just that the effect seems to[br]be more pronounced for believers.

0:25:57.929,0:26:01.159
Especially disturbing is this subgroup

0:26:01.159,0:26:05.099
of religious believers [br]high in intrinsic religiosity

0:26:05.099,0:26:07.759
and also high in levels of submissiveness. [br]

0:26:07.759,0:26:12.149
This group was very disturbing[br]because they became the most vengeful

0:26:12.149,0:26:16.178
after being primed with religious words.[br]They really seemed to go off the rails.

0:26:16.178,0:26:19.489
So I guess what I'm saying is: [br]it doesn't affect all people equally.

0:26:19.489,0:26:23.528
Certain personality characteristics [br]come into play here too

0:26:23.528,0:26:26.950
to either aggravate [br]or kind of mute these responses.

0:26:26.950,0:26:31.330
I'd like to share this study real quick. [br]Experiments where people were assigned

0:26:31.330,0:26:34.320
to read the biblical version [br]of the golden rule

0:26:34.319,0:26:38.070
actually had no effect on diminishing[br]Christians’ homophobia.

0:26:38.070,0:26:40.342
So, negative attitudes [br]towards homosexuals [br]

0:26:40.342,0:26:41.714
were not at all diminished

0:26:41.714,0:26:45.308
by reading what we think [br]is a very positive prime,

0:26:45.308,0:26:49.558
right, the golden rule. Strangely enough[br]reading the Buddhist version

0:26:49.558,0:26:53.980
of the golden rule actually increased[br]their homophobic responses.

0:26:53.980,0:26:57.750
If they read another religious text[br]telling them to be merciful

0:26:57.750,0:27:01.429
and do onto others as you would have[br]them to do want to them,

0:27:01.429,0:27:05.415
they wanted to do that even less. [br]This is perhaps

0:27:05.415,0:27:08.241
because the moral imperative

0:27:08.241,0:27:11.649
was coming from this [br]distrusted out-group source.

0:27:11.720,0:27:15.870
Likewise unscrambling words associated[br]with Christianity increased

0:27:15.869,0:27:17.779
racial prejudice [br]towards african-americans

0:27:17.779,0:27:21.949
that was found by Johnson, [br]lead author Johnson in 2010.

0:27:21.949,0:27:26.250
And attitudes toward all out-group[br]members became more negative

0:27:26.250,0:27:29.278
when experiments were conducted [br]in a church setting rather than

0:27:29.278,0:27:32.359
than in a civic context.

0:27:32.359,0:27:34.999
This is a strange paradox [br]we're looking at here.

0:27:34.999,0:27:37.109
Religious priming seems to increase

0:27:37.109,0:27:42.158
both pro-social behaviors like honesty and[br]sharing, and non pro-social behaviors

0:27:42.159,0:27:47.270
like aggression and prejudice. This will[br]make more sense I think to us when we

0:27:47.269,0:27:49.079
consider another curious,

0:27:49.079,0:27:52.528
but consistent finding in this literature

0:27:52.528,0:27:55.740
that the kindness of religious individuals[br]is typically not

0:27:55.740,0:27:58.769
extended universally to everyone.

0:27:58.769,0:28:02.849
Instead the primary beneficiaries [br]of a religious pro-sociality

0:28:02.849,0:28:09.110
are usually other believers. This can be [br]most clearly seen in economic games.

0:28:09.110,0:28:12.359
So, to save a little bit of time[br]I'm not going to go into how all of

0:28:12.359,0:28:17.658
these games work, but they basically[br]start with people trading or exchanging money.

0:28:17.679,0:28:22.218
Those games are designed [br]to encourage cooperation and trust.

0:28:22.218,0:28:26.349
So basically [br]if the players work together,

0:28:26.349,0:28:29.869
they will both get further along, [br]but one player

0:28:29.869,0:28:34.918
might have the opportunity to make off[br]with more money if they deceive or lie

0:28:34.919,0:28:37.628
or cheat the other players. [br]So this is all trying

0:28:37.628,0:28:39.829
to assess cooperation, trust,

0:28:39.829,0:28:43.678
giving, that sort of thing. [br]The economic games shown

0:28:43.679,0:28:48.769
in behavioral economic studies where[br]the religiosity of the participants is none.

0:28:48.769,0:28:52.220
- so we actually know what they are - [br]a general trend emerges:

0:28:52.220,0:28:55.950
religious individuals cooperate more [br]and give more money

0:28:55.950,0:28:59.149
than non-religious participants. [br]So they do that overall.

0:28:59.148,0:29:02.808
They give more and they trust more[br]than the non-religious.

0:29:02.808,0:29:06.139
The pro-sociality hypothesis is true.

0:29:06.140,0:29:09.196
It's just has that twist: [br]they only give it to those

0:29:09.196,0:29:10.972
who share their religious identity.

0:29:10.972,0:29:15.308
For example this study, Ahmed, 2009[br]found the clergy students

0:29:15.308,0:29:19.339
exchanged greater money offers [br]than non clergy students,

0:29:19.339,0:29:23.928
but only to those from their own[br]religious group.

0:29:23.929,0:29:25.788
These findings are almost,[br]well, they are most likely due

0:29:25.788,0:29:29.679
to that previous phenomenon [br]we mentioned of in-group favoritism.

0:29:29.679,0:29:33.659
But there also might be something else[br]going on here. This might be that

0:29:33.659,0:29:35.600
pro-religious cultural stereotype

0:29:35.599,0:29:39.449
happening again, because notice:[br]non-religious participants

0:29:39.450,0:29:42.610
did not show the same in-group favoritism

0:29:42.609,0:29:46.098
in those economic games. [br]They also trusted

0:29:46.098,0:29:50.778
religious participants more [br]than their non-religious peers

0:29:50.778,0:29:54.609
and allocated more money to them overall,[br]even though that money

0:29:54.609,0:29:56.889
would not be reciprocated. [br]

0:29:56.889,0:30:01.509
Yeah, it's amazing[br]how ingrained that stereotype is.

0:30:01.509,0:30:03.408
This pattern of preferential treatment [br]

0:30:03.408,0:30:06.027
is not limited [br]to behavioral economic studies.

0:30:06.027,0:30:10.268
It constitutes a general trend [br]across the entire literature.

0:30:10.269,0:30:13.620
In fact a new word had to be coined [br]just to explain it.

0:30:13.619,0:30:17.908
One researcher who is very popular in[br]this by the name of Saroglou

0:30:17.909,0:30:21.580
coined the term "minimal prosociality",

0:30:21.579,0:30:25.089
meaning the greater helping on the part of[br]the religious that extended to friends

0:30:25.089,0:30:27.849
an in-group members [br]but not too out-group members

0:30:27.849,0:30:30.879
who threatened religious values.

0:30:30.880,0:30:35.179
So, I guess the correct way to say it [br]or was consistent with most of the evidence

0:30:35.179,0:30:36.330
in these economic games

0:30:36.329,0:30:39.558
are that religious people [br]are ‘minimally pro-social’.

0:30:39.558,0:30:43.629
And actually if we take this idea[br]of limited pro-sociality seriously

0:30:43.630,0:30:46.760
it explains a lot of other trends [br]that we see in the data.

0:30:46.759,0:30:50.119
For example across different cultures [br]we see that religiosity

0:30:50.119,0:30:56.119
is weakly but still positively correlated [br]with the value of benevolence,

0:30:56.119,0:31:01.009
charity, helping people out[br]and yet at the same time is negatively

0:31:01.009,0:31:03.398
related with the value of universalism,

0:31:03.398,0:31:06.449
helping out, you know, your neighbor,[br]your stranger,

0:31:06.450,0:31:10.600
the Good Samaritan, that type of thing.[br]Again it seems like a contradiction,

0:31:10.599,0:31:13.600
but when you take the idea of limited

0:31:13.600,0:31:15.860
or minimal pro-sociality seriously,

0:31:15.859,0:31:19.509
it tends to make more sense. [br]It's that in-group favoritism again.

0:31:19.509,0:31:23.129
Also it might explain things [br]like why religious primes

0:31:23.129,0:31:24.308
increase ethnic prejudice

0:31:24.308,0:31:27.308
and derogation of out-group members,

0:31:27.308,0:31:31.500
because religious concepts activated[br]in-group bias in people's minds.

0:31:31.500,0:31:34.548
This also plays through[br]religious research on giving.

0:31:34.548,0:31:37.710
This one conclusion [br]I'm not as sure about,

0:31:37.710,0:31:42.470
but it is very clear that religious[br]organizations themselves

0:31:42.470,0:31:46.589
are the largest source of charitable giving. [br]Religious people give way more to charity

0:31:46.589,0:31:51.418
than the non-religious and that finding[br]has held up across the board.

0:31:51.419,0:31:54.960
But as other studies note, [br]many of the recipients of these,

0:31:54.960,0:31:58.340
even ones that are labeled secular,

0:31:58.339,0:32:02.589
tend to be religious [br]or some religious organization.

0:32:02.589,0:32:05.230
So all this money is exchanging hands [br]within the in-group.

0:32:05.230,0:32:07.379
This would be really [br]interesting one to test

0:32:07.379,0:32:09.408
if we can tease out that in-group favoritism

0:32:09.409,0:32:12.880
would we still see a charity gap [br]between the non-religious

0:32:12.880,0:32:17.090
and the religious? We might, actually I[br]suspect, we probably would

0:32:17.089,0:32:21.418
and for this reason [br]there's another aspect

0:32:21.419,0:32:25.210
to religious charitable giving, [br]and that is generosity

0:32:25.210,0:32:29.048
measured as a function [br]of religious importance

0:32:29.048,0:32:33.139
was smaller than those measured as a[br]variation in religious attendance.

0:32:33.140,0:32:37.390
That is church attendance [br]seems to be the key factor

0:32:37.390,0:32:40.690
in how much a religious person will give.

0:32:40.690,0:32:44.869
If you actually [br]measure religiosity by belief,

0:32:44.869,0:32:48.889
how much conviction do you have [br]that God exists

0:32:48.890,0:32:52.049
we'll see that [br]that predicts giving to a lesser degree

0:32:52.048,0:32:55.048
then church attendance. [br]I think what's going on here is

0:32:55.048,0:32:58.519
when you're actually in the building,[br]you're given an opportunity

0:32:58.519,0:33:01.919
to give, right?[br]The plate is passed around

0:33:01.919,0:33:05.820
and there's social pressure for you [br]to put something in that plate.

0:33:05.819,0:33:09.480
I still think the religious should get[br]credit for this, but they get credit for

0:33:09.480,0:33:12.528
building institutions [br]that support charitable giving.

0:33:12.528,0:33:14.950
It may not be the belief, [br]the religious belief,

0:33:14.950,0:33:17.130
that's really motivating this behavior.

0:33:17.130,0:33:19.470
So I guess that kind of brings up [br]an interesting question here.

0:33:19.470,0:33:22.839
How actually are we measuring religiosity

0:33:22.839,0:33:25.878
because, as we just saw, [br]depending on how we measured it,

0:33:25.878,0:33:28.259
we might get different effects.

0:33:28.259,0:33:32.470
Typically the methodology [br]that's employed here is to compare

0:33:32.470,0:33:35.980
a general population of people [br]to highly religious people

0:33:35.980,0:33:39.950
and weekly religious people. [br]And then the atheists agnostics

0:33:39.950,0:33:43.588
or all the nones, we call them, [br]those who declare no religious affiliation,

0:33:43.588,0:33:45.648
are mixed into that sample as well.

0:33:45.648,0:33:48.970
There are different ways[br]again of measuring

0:33:48.970,0:33:51.370
intrinsically religiosity as I[br]mentioned is a measure

0:33:51.370,0:33:54.190
of metaphysical belief or commitment.

0:33:54.190,0:33:58.538
Extrinsic religiosity, as I call it, [br]is often a measure of behavior,

0:33:58.538,0:34:01.638
how often do you pray, [br]engage in rituals.

0:34:01.638,0:34:04.959
That sometimes includes another way [br]that is measured

0:34:04.960,0:34:08.990
is measuring religiosity purely[br]through church attendance alone.

0:34:08.990,0:34:13.179
So whenever you see a study [br]that says religious people are better

0:34:13.179,0:34:16.570
at XYZ, the next question you should ask is;

0:34:16.570,0:34:19.809
"Better compared to whom?" [br]And the reason is:

0:34:19.809,0:34:24.139
how one measures religiosity [br]has a major impact on your findings.

0:34:24.139,0:34:27.199
For example, frequent church attendance[br]has been linked

0:34:27.199,0:34:31.340
to modestly lower rates of mental[br]illness such as depression,

0:34:31.340,0:34:34.519
but the effect is negligible [br]when you measure

0:34:34.519,0:34:37.098
religiosity as strength of belief.

0:34:37.098,0:34:40.268
Again, people have better mental health[br]because they're

0:34:40.268,0:34:44.079
in a congregation of people, they have a[br]support social support network,

0:34:44.079,0:34:49.359
like-minded people to talk to. The belief [br]doesn't seem to be as important.

0:34:49.359,0:34:51.900
Studies that control [br]for purely social factors

0:34:51.900,0:34:54.440
find a greatly diminished [br]or non-existent effect

0:34:54.440,0:34:57.493
of religious beliefs [br]on pro-social measures. [br]

0:34:57.493,0:34:59.336
So you can see how we measure religion

0:34:59.336,0:35:03.599
and who we compare our groups to[br]is very important in this debate.

0:35:03.599,0:35:06.069
Most frequently [br]the strongest pro-social effects

0:35:06.069,0:35:08.369
are associated with church attendance

0:35:08.369,0:35:12.170
and social contacts [br]rather than just metaphysical belief.

0:35:12.170,0:35:15.930
So it appears that group affiliation[br]drives many of these behaviors.

0:35:15.929,0:35:19.949
Could a committed secular group [br]- like this one right here -

0:35:19.949,0:35:23.569
have effect on its membership[br]similar to that of a church?

0:35:23.570,0:35:27.920
In this book that I mentioned earlier -[br]unfortunately it's buried on page 472 -

0:35:27.920,0:35:32.769
you have to get [br]through all the good stuff

0:35:32.769,0:35:36.060
to finally see this qualification,

0:35:36.060,0:35:40.220
but Robert Putnam mentions [br]"even an atheist

0:35:40.219,0:35:43.269
who happens to become [br]involved in the social life

0:35:43.269,0:35:47.710
of a congregation is much more likely [br]to volunteer at a soup kitchen

0:35:47.710,0:35:50.356
then the most fervent believer who prays alone."

0:35:50.356,0:35:54.242
And then it goes on to say [br]- or slightly before that on page 465 -

0:35:54.242,0:35:59.450
he says: "Religious belief turns out to be [br]utterly irrelevant to explaining the religious

0:35:59.450,0:36:04.080
as in good neighbourliness." [br]That should've been on page 1.

0:36:04.079,0:36:09.590
But both reviewers in that book[br]didn't get that far.

0:36:09.590,0:36:14.160
You can guess how it was depicted [br]in the popular press.

0:36:14.159,0:36:18.129
In fact that's a major problem. [br]The problem with most studies is

0:36:18.130,0:36:22.119
that they are lumping all nonbelievers[br]together, without considering how

0:36:22.119,0:36:24.130
confident they are in their non-belief,

0:36:24.130,0:36:27.110
whether or not they attend groups [br]like you do right here,

0:36:27.110,0:36:29.300
how involved they are [br]with the community overall.

0:36:29.300,0:36:32.890
They're just all dumped [br]into one pool: <i>the non-religious</i>.

0:36:32.889,0:36:36.789
And then they're compared with weekly[br]religious and highly religious,

0:36:36.789,0:36:40.610
typically highly religious people [br]who are in a church context.

0:36:40.610,0:36:44.900
When you do that, you do get [br]what's called a linear effect.

0:36:44.900,0:36:49.539
If pro-social, being happy, healthy [br]and more helpful is all on this axis,

0:36:49.539,0:36:54.210
and religiosity on this one,[br]we would see as religiosity rises

0:36:54.210,0:36:57.339
the more religious you get, [br]the more happy, helpful

0:36:57.339,0:37:00.070
and honest you are as an individual.

0:37:00.070,0:37:03.380
But what we're kind of doing is [br]we're cutting off half of our sample.

0:37:03.380,0:37:06.559
The few studies that compare [br]highly religious people

0:37:06.559,0:37:09.570
with the confidently non-religious[br]actually show

0:37:09.570,0:37:11.880
what's called a curvilinear effect

0:37:11.880,0:37:14.949
between religiosity and pro-sociality. [br]

0:37:14.949,0:37:19.459
To explain what's going on [br]with this curvilinear effect,

0:37:19.460,0:37:23.690
- I should have had noticed, but I didn't -

0:37:23.690,0:37:26.900
Essentially what we do, what we've [br]done is we've expanded our sample.

0:37:26.900,0:37:32.340
So before the atheists and agnostics and[br]humanists were getting lost in this side of

0:37:32.340,0:37:34.560
the curve now we brought it out

0:37:34.559,0:37:38.690
and we actually see that it's the[br]less confident, the weekly religious,

0:37:38.690,0:37:40.449
the weekly secular in the middle

0:37:40.449,0:37:44.539
that tend to have poor[br]ratings on pro-social measures.

0:37:44.539,0:37:48.289
Oh, here's what I was looking for. [br]Nominal believers,

0:37:48.289,0:37:51.529
not atheists, show the highest levels [br]of depression actually,

0:37:51.530,0:37:53.180
the poorest mental health

0:37:53.180,0:37:56.309
and they generally report [br]less satisfaction with life.

0:37:56.309,0:38:00.650
And fact is, this is true of the[br]cross-cultural data on this too.

0:38:00.670,0:38:04.659
The world value survey found that both [br]those who claim religion is very important

0:38:04.659,0:38:06.910
and those who claim [br]that it wasn't important at all,

0:38:06.910,0:38:08.720
tended to be the happiest.

0:38:08.719,0:38:13.509
So curvilinear effects [br]are also found in the moral realm,

0:38:13.510,0:38:18.620
for example physicians, Doctors[br]Without Borders and that sort of thing

0:38:18.619,0:38:23.309
highest membership is going to be[br]highly religious and totally atheist.

0:38:23.309,0:38:24.880
[br]This is true when

0:38:24.880,0:38:29.099
Milgrams famous obedience trials [br]- if you're familiar with those studies -

0:38:29.099,0:38:31.779
where we get to see [br]just how much will somebody

0:38:31.780,0:38:34.546
obey the experimenter. [br]When those were replicated,

0:38:34.546,0:38:37.730
it was the extreme believers [br]and the extreme non-believers

0:38:37.730,0:38:42.170
that were most likely to disobey the[br]researchers unethical orders.

0:38:42.170,0:38:46.779
So actually being highly[br]religious or highly non-religious

0:38:46.779,0:38:50.309
seems to give you a little[br]bit more moral integrity.

0:38:50.309,0:38:54.039
Part of the hypothesis [br]why this might be is because

0:38:54.039,0:38:58.350
these pools of individuals, they're so[br]certain of their world view

0:38:58.350,0:39:03.729
that they're not as kicked around [br]by the pressure of social conformity as others.

0:39:03.729,0:39:06.460
So it appears that confidence in one's worldview

0:39:06.460,0:39:09.129
and regular affiliation with like minded people

0:39:09.129,0:39:12.630
are far more important to well-being [br]and moral integrity

0:39:12.630,0:39:17.190
than your particular beliefs [br]about metaphysics. Sorry guys,

0:39:17.190,0:39:22.050
even some non-believers are sad to hear[br]that sometimes, they want to believe that

0:39:22.050,0:39:24.990
believing the right thing, having the[br]right grasp on reality

0:39:24.990,0:39:27.420
will make you a better person

0:39:27.420,0:39:31.960
and it doesn't seem that metaphysical[br]beliefs are all that important.

0:39:31.960,0:39:37.290
But sadly studies are not designed to[br]notice curvilinear effects a lot of times

0:39:37.290,0:39:41.889
And when they aren't, they can give [br]the impression that atheists are in danger

0:39:41.889,0:39:44.375
of poor physical or mental health

0:39:44.375,0:39:50.170
and this is exactly what we see with the military's spiritual fitness scale, that they have.

0:39:50.170,0:39:52.750
I don't know if anybody has [br]ever heard of that?

0:39:52.750,0:39:56.540
The US military has a spiritual fitness [br]dimension in their instrument

0:39:56.540,0:40:00.100
that they use to assess [br]a soldier's wellness and mental health.

0:40:00.100,0:40:03.890
And they conclude that soldiers [br]have the greatest resiliency

0:40:03.890,0:40:06.348
when they are spiritual, [br]when they are religious

0:40:06.349,0:40:11.070
and this has prompted [br]some superior officers

0:40:11.070,0:40:14.170
to go find their underlings [br]who are non-religious

0:40:14.170,0:40:18.559
and to pressure them into prayer meetings[br]and other religious services, right,

0:40:18.559,0:40:22.060
because it's bad for their health. [br]They might be in a suicide risk.

0:40:22.060,0:40:29.110
However though an examination of the [br]actual question items on the spirituality scale

0:40:29.110,0:40:31.948
shows a major flaw in the way [br]these concepts are measured.

0:40:31.948,0:40:36.699
And it's going to be my last major point [br]about how this research is conducted.

0:40:36.699,0:40:39.173
"Criterion contamination"

0:40:39.173,0:40:42.180
this is where the pro-sociality literature

0:40:42.180,0:40:46.119
defines spirituality in a way [br]that kind of begs the question.

0:40:46.119,0:40:50.650
So for example, usually when we[br]make a prediction

0:40:50.650,0:40:55.309
of some sort of criterion, you want the[br]items used in the prediction

0:40:55.309,0:40:58.650
to not contain elements [br]of what is being predicted.

0:40:58.650,0:41:03.278
If you flip the conclusion [br]and you put it in your premise,

0:41:03.278,0:41:05.690
you're arguing in a circle, right?

0:41:05.690,0:41:08.439
But yet we see [br]this happen all the time,

0:41:08.439,0:41:10.629
we see the reverse [br]happening all the time.

0:41:10.630,0:41:14.970
For example this right here.[br]Religiously engaged individuals

0:41:14.969,0:41:19.009
have greater social networks, [br]but religious engagement

0:41:19.010,0:41:23.000
was defined by having church social contacts.

0:41:23.000,0:41:26.760
So really all this is saying [br]- I mean it sounds really good, right? -

0:41:26.760,0:41:31.130
Doesn't it? Wow? Religious[br]engagement really benefits us.

0:41:31.130,0:41:34.340
All this is saying, is; [br]"Socially engaged religious people

0:41:34.340,0:41:36.318
are socially engaged religious people."

0:41:36.318,0:41:41.349
That is all that is said . [br]Many spirituality scales measure concepts

0:41:41.349,0:41:45.649
that do not necessarily refer [br]to supernatural believes either.

0:41:45.650,0:41:49.800
For example, these are all the things[br]that will get you a high rating as a

0:41:49.800,0:41:52.750
spiritual person on these fitness scales.

0:41:52.750,0:41:55.960
"I believe there is [br]a larger meaning to life.

0:41:55.960,0:41:59.559
It's important for me [br]to give something back to my community."

0:41:59.559,0:42:03.378
If you answer yes to that, [br]you're labeled as religious on this scale.

0:42:03.378,0:42:06.958
"I believe that humanity [br]as a whole is basically good."

0:42:06.958,0:42:09.629
If you have a positive humanistic outlook,

0:42:09.640,0:42:13.920
you might say you're going to score[br]on that spirituality scale too.

0:42:13.940,0:42:18.809
"I'm concerned about those [br]who will come after me in life."

0:42:18.809,0:42:22.929
So numerous studies including this[br]military spiritual fitness assessment

0:42:22.929,0:42:27.318
claims to demonstrate that religiosity is[br]related to pro-social outcomes,

0:42:27.318,0:42:30.780
but they are really [br]just criterion contamination effects.

0:42:30.780,0:42:33.069
Having pro-social traits here

0:42:33.069,0:42:35.650
is what defines being religious.

0:42:35.650,0:42:38.930
Just begging the question.[br]And as we know many atheists

0:42:38.929,0:42:42.789
with a broader sense of meaning [br]would score ‘spiritual’ on these same scales.

0:42:42.789,0:42:47.440
This artificially inflates the apparent[br]relationship between religiosity

0:42:47.440,0:42:51.019
or spirituality and these positive[br]pro-social outcomes.

0:42:51.019,0:42:54.710
All right. [br]So, tying it all together.

0:42:54.710,0:42:58.849
The question; “Does religion make us[br]better?” actually doesn't admit

0:42:58.849,0:43:02.579
of a simple answer. You've already seen[br]evidence showing: "yes and no"

0:43:02.579,0:43:07.189
or "yes in particular ways and no and other[br]particular ways".

0:43:07.190,0:43:10.470
Unfortunately this stuff just doesn't[br]work in a sound bite

0:43:10.469,0:43:12.489
and we live in a sound-bite culture.

0:43:12.489,0:43:14.929
The conclusion one reaches depends

0:43:14.929,0:43:19.799
on the measure of religiosity being used; [br]the way pro-sociality is defined.

0:43:19.800,0:43:23.043
We have to be cognizant of a host of [br]

0:43:23.043,0:43:25.746
complicating factors if we're going to be accurate.

0:43:25.746,0:43:30.509
Really this is like a minefield for a critical thinker. [br]

0:43:30.509,0:43:35.529
Even the most experienced critical thinker [br]is going to run into problems

0:43:35.530,0:43:37.870
with how complex this data is.

0:43:37.870,0:43:43.329
So we came up with 10 questions for [br]thinking critically about religious pro-sociality

0:43:43.329,0:43:48.698
that will help people in the future[br]to think more carefully about these studies.

0:43:48.698,0:43:53.030
Number 1: has the research controlled [br]for the possibility that stereotypes

0:43:53.030,0:43:58.040
- such as the expectation that[br]religious individuals will be more pro-social -

0:43:58.040,0:44:01.250
have those stereotypes affected [br]self-reports and ratings?

0:44:01.250,0:44:04.699
2: Are the results based on evidence [br]that have been compromised

0:44:04.699,0:44:07.139
by in-group favoritism or bias?

0:44:07.139,0:44:10.909
3: When pro-social effects follow [br]the priming of religious concepts,

0:44:10.909,0:44:13.540
[br]will those same effects follow secular prime?

0:44:13.540,0:44:16.010
That's a great one [br]for the priming study.

0:44:16.010,0:44:20.460
Number 4: is the study also able [br]to detect potential negative

0:44:20.460,0:44:23.490
as well as positive effects [br]for religious primes?

0:44:23.489,0:44:29.228
5: Is the research based on self-reports[br]or does it also measures actual behaviors?

0:44:29.228,0:44:33.559
If it doesn't measure actual behaviors, [br]it's worthless.

0:44:33.579,0:44:38.339
6: could the context of this study have[br]an impact on the results? For example,

0:44:38.338,0:44:42.670
would this study get the same results in[br]the United States as opposed to

0:44:42.670,0:44:47.990
other nations in Northern Europe that[br]are predominately non-religious?

0:44:47.989,0:44:52.169
7: are the results solely attributable to[br]religious belief itself

0:44:52.170,0:44:54.419
or is there a group affiliation effect [br]going on?

0:44:54.419,0:44:58.410
If church attending believers are compared to non church attenders,

0:44:58.410,0:45:01.699
the sources of any differences [br]might be unclear.

0:45:01.699,0:45:05.868
Number 8: does the study conflate non-believe with low religiosity

0:45:05.869,0:45:09.480
or do we have a clear measure [br]of the non-believers?

0:45:09.480,0:45:14.029
By the way, for we gonna fulfill number 8 [br]we need more research on secularists.

0:45:14.039,0:45:17.818
So we need more researchers willing [br]to study communities like this

0:45:17.818,0:45:20.061
and answer surveys and that sort of things.

0:45:20.061,0:45:22.284
If you ever see those things pop up in your inbox.

0:45:22.284,0:45:25.509
Please take'm. [br]You will help us all.

0:45:25.510,0:45:28.399
Number 9: do the religious groups[br]under comparison allow

0:45:28.399,0:45:31.039
for an examination of curvilinear effects?

0:45:31.039,0:45:33.630
That is, if you're comparing a church group,

0:45:33.630,0:45:39.159
you got to compare it with an equal group like this.

0:45:39.159,0:45:42.120
Number 10: has religion or spirituality

0:45:42.120,0:45:45.818
been defined in a way that[br]would also include

0:45:45.818,0:45:48.949
pro-social behavior [br]just from the definition?

0:45:48.949,0:45:52.849
I think if you watch for those things[br]you're going to have a leg up

0:45:52.849,0:45:58.060
on most other people who are paying attention [br]to this particular research.

0:45:58.060,0:46:01.960
I hope you got something out of that. [br]I hope that brings a little more clarity

0:46:01.960,0:46:04.400
to this often confusing debate

0:46:04.400,0:46:09.459
and a last thing I just wont to put [br]in another plug for my podcast:

0:46:09.459,0:46:16.010
if you happen to enjoy what you heart tonight, [br]found it enlightening at all,

0:46:16.010,0:46:19.499
both I and the author of the [br]the Psych Review, Luke Galen,

0:46:19.499,0:46:22.285
we both work[br]on this podcast "Reasonable Doubts",

0:46:22.285,0:46:25.929
you can find it at doubtcast.org.

0:46:25.929,0:46:28.362
It is one of the most informationally dense [br]podcasts you'll find

0:46:28.362,0:46:31.425
that still manages to be funny from time to time.

0:46:31.425,0:46:33.000
I thank you very much.

0:46:33.000,0:46:40.840
(Applause)

0:46:41.560,0:46:44.709
To catch up on past Reasonable Doubts episodes

0:46:44.709,0:46:46.358
or to email your questions or comments,

0:46:46.358,0:46:50.190
check out www.doubtcast.org

0:46:50.190,0:46:53.712
Reasonable Doubt is a production [br]of WPRR Reality Radio.

0:46:53.712,0:46:59.029
You can find out more about Reality[br]Radio at publicrealityradio.org

0:46:59.029,0:47:04.008
Reasonable Doubt's theme music is performed [br]by Love Fossil and used with permission

0:47:04.334,0:47:17.961
Subtitled by www.kritischdenken.info