1
00:00:02,189 --> 00:00:06,070
Welcome to Reasonable Doubts,
2
00:00:06,070 --> 00:00:11,379
your skeptical guide to religion.
3
00:00:11,380 --> 00:00:27,030
(Music)
4
00:00:27,079 --> 00:00:30,709
You're listening to Reasonable Doubts,
the radio show and podcast for those who
5
00:00:30,710 --> 00:00:32,118
won't just take things on faith.
6
00:00:32,118 --> 00:00:35,119
I'm Jamie Beahan
and for this special episode
7
00:00:35,119 --> 00:00:38,539
of Reasonable Doubts, we're featuring a
lecture I gave in February
8
00:00:38,539 --> 00:00:41,979
to the Grand Traverse humanists in
Traverse City, Michigan.
9
00:00:41,979 --> 00:00:45,479
The lecture was entitled;
“Does religion make us better?",
10
00:00:45,479 --> 00:00:49,558
a critical review of the religious
pro-sociality hypothesis.
11
00:00:49,558 --> 00:00:52,981
Longtime listeners will no doubt
recognize many of the studies
12
00:00:52,981 --> 00:00:54,640
talked about in this lecture.
13
00:00:54,640 --> 00:00:59,938
A previous RD-extra and our episode “The Skeptics Toolkit to Psychology of Religion”
14
00:00:59,938 --> 00:01:01,808
discussed these findings.
15
00:01:01,808 --> 00:01:05,259
But this lecture is a bit different,
mostly in the trivial
16
00:01:05,259 --> 00:01:09,439
and, I'm sure, disappointing fact that I
am presenting the findings rather than
17
00:01:09,439 --> 00:01:11,759
our resident doctor professor Luke Galen.
18
00:01:11,759 --> 00:01:16,319
But I think this lecture has some merit
in that it finally collects a wide range
19
00:01:16,319 --> 00:01:20,758
of studies, discussed over several years
on the show, into one convenient place
20
00:01:20,759 --> 00:01:24,959
hopefully making it easier for fans of
the show to review the information
21
00:01:24,959 --> 00:01:29,868
or share with a friend and please do
share. This is important research and I
22
00:01:29,868 --> 00:01:33,569
know doctor Galen would agree with me
in thinking that it hasn't gotten as
23
00:01:33,569 --> 00:01:36,919
much attention as it deserves.
So you'd be doing us
24
00:01:36,919 --> 00:01:41,110
and the cause of skepticism
a great favor by sharing this lecture
25
00:01:41,110 --> 00:01:45,689
on whatever blogs or social media you
frequent and never underestimate
26
00:01:45,688 --> 00:01:48,209
the power of good old
word-of-mouth sharing either.
27
00:01:48,209 --> 00:01:52,889
And please visit doubtcast.org to share
any comments or questions or feedback
28
00:01:52,890 --> 00:01:54,968
you may have about the episode.
29
00:01:54,968 --> 00:01:58,849
So be sure to tune in next week for
the Doubtcasters review
30
00:01:58,849 --> 00:02:02,739
of the New Christian propaganda film
“God's not dead”.
31
00:02:02,739 --> 00:02:07,054
Should be a good one. Until then, take
care and keep doubting.
32
00:02:07,054 --> 00:02:16,519
(Music)
33
00:02:16,519 --> 00:02:19,075
(Applause)
34
00:02:19,105 --> 00:02:21,489
Thank you for coming and thank
you for the privilege of
35
00:02:21,520 --> 00:02:24,870
allowing me to speak to your group. My
name is Jeremy Beahan.
36
00:02:24,870 --> 00:02:29,539
I teach World Religions and Introduction
to Philosophy along with a handful of
37
00:02:29,539 --> 00:02:32,169
other subjects
at Kendall College of Art and Design.
38
00:02:32,169 --> 00:02:35,299
I'm also the producer and cohost
39
00:02:35,300 --> 00:02:38,380
of the Reasonable Doubt Podcast which
40
00:02:38,379 --> 00:02:43,189
at its peak was the top atheist podcast
on iTunes for several years,
41
00:02:43,189 --> 00:02:46,740
won the People's Choice
podcasting award
42
00:02:46,740 --> 00:02:51,689
for best religious inspirational podcast
which was - (Laughing) - different.
43
00:02:51,689 --> 00:02:54,829
People look at me funny
when I mention that.
44
00:02:54,830 --> 00:03:00,070
I'm speaking tonight on the issue of
“Does religion make people better?”
45
00:03:00,070 --> 00:03:02,210
and we're approaching
this not so much from a philosophical
46
00:03:02,210 --> 00:03:05,120
perspective, as you usually
hear this question grapple with,
47
00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:08,653
but we're approaching this
from an empirical standpoint.
48
00:03:08,653 --> 00:03:11,146
What can science actually tell us
49
00:03:11,146 --> 00:03:15,719
about how religion affects morality.
The subtitle here's a skeptical review
50
00:03:15,719 --> 00:03:17,930
of the religious pro-sociality hypothesis.
51
00:03:17,930 --> 00:03:21,159
So, that might take some explanation.
52
00:03:21,159 --> 00:03:24,169
You might guess from that subtitle that
this is going to be a bit have been
53
00:03:24,169 --> 00:03:26,919
informationally dense talk tonight.
54
00:03:26,919 --> 00:03:29,479
But I don't have to tell you
that in our culture
55
00:03:29,479 --> 00:03:32,740
there's an overwhelming assumption
among the general public
56
00:03:32,740 --> 00:03:36,759
that being religious is necessary
to be a happy and ethical person.
57
00:03:36,759 --> 00:03:40,069
We have plenty of preachers
and pundits and ordinary people
58
00:03:40,069 --> 00:03:44,489
reminding us daily that without God
society will quickly de-evolve
59
00:03:44,489 --> 00:03:49,239
into wickedness and anarchy.
What you may not be familiar with
60
00:03:49,239 --> 00:03:53,239
as much however is the growing body
of social psychology research
61
00:03:53,239 --> 00:03:56,830
that at first glance actually
seems to support this notion.
62
00:03:56,830 --> 00:04:01,520
The more technical term for the
hypothesis that religion makes us good
63
00:04:01,520 --> 00:04:05,320
is known as the religious
pro-sociality hypothesis.
64
00:04:05,319 --> 00:04:09,259
My task tonight is to present you with
an overview of this research
65
00:04:09,259 --> 00:04:13,699
and to acquit you with the tools
necessary to think critically about it.
66
00:04:13,699 --> 00:04:18,009
Because as we're about to see the
religious pro-sociality hypothesis
67
00:04:18,009 --> 00:04:19,620
really does indeed
have some support.
68
00:04:19,620 --> 00:04:24,030
But when we look at the evidence
more closely, we're going to
69
00:04:24,029 --> 00:04:26,919
discover little devils
within the details.
70
00:04:26,919 --> 00:04:30,219
But first I have to
give you a quick disclaimer:
71
00:04:30,219 --> 00:04:32,639
I don't get any credit or blame
72
00:04:32,639 --> 00:04:36,659
for what I'm about to say this evening.
This is not my research
73
00:04:36,660 --> 00:04:39,930
that I'm reporting on, this is actually
doctor Luke Galen's research.
74
00:04:39,930 --> 00:04:44,039
He is a professor of psychology of religion
75
00:04:44,039 --> 00:04:46,339
at Grand Valley State University and
76
00:04:46,339 --> 00:04:51,359
almost all what I'm going to be drawing
from tonight comes from his paper
77
00:04:51,360 --> 00:04:55,830
in the Psychological Bulletin of
the American Psychological Association
78
00:04:55,829 --> 00:05:01,279
called: “Does religious belief promote
pro-sociality, a critical examination”.
79
00:05:01,279 --> 00:05:04,309
How did I get involved in this topic?
80
00:05:04,309 --> 00:05:06,550
He put me in charge of
81
00:05:06,550 --> 00:05:09,618
writing up a summary of his research,
82
00:05:09,618 --> 00:05:13,859
kind of distilling pages
upon pages and pages of review
83
00:05:13,860 --> 00:05:17,639
into something coherent
that the average consumer
84
00:05:17,639 --> 00:05:22,019
could actually understand.
So that was my task writing up
85
00:05:22,019 --> 00:05:25,469
his review and free inquiry,
since Luke Galen
86
00:05:25,470 --> 00:05:28,608
doesn't like their leave the house
too often or interact
87
00:05:28,608 --> 00:05:32,129
with ordinary human beings.
(Laughing)
88
00:05:32,129 --> 00:05:34,239
He kind of appointed me
to be his spokesman.
89
00:05:34,239 --> 00:05:37,159
He jokingly refers to me
as Galen's Bulldog.
90
00:05:37,160 --> 00:05:40,750
I guess I'm Thomas Henry Huxley
to his Darwin.
91
00:05:40,750 --> 00:05:45,100
So I've been glad to have
the opportunity to do interviews
92
00:05:45,100 --> 00:05:49,390
and talk to groups like this
about this research because I think it
93
00:05:49,389 --> 00:05:50,979
needs to get out there.
94
00:05:50,979 --> 00:05:53,619
All right,
before we go any further
95
00:05:53,620 --> 00:05:56,689
let us define
what we mean by pro-sociality.
96
00:05:56,689 --> 00:06:01,500
I hate that word already.
I am barely into this lecture
97
00:06:01,500 --> 00:06:05,240
and tired of saying it,
98
00:06:05,240 --> 00:06:09,920
but the term pro-social refers
to any kind of positive social behavior
99
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:15,129
and this runs the gamut from generosity
in the form a charitable giving
100
00:06:15,129 --> 00:06:19,509
or time spent volunteering to personal
qualities perhaps
101
00:06:19,509 --> 00:06:21,879
such as positive personality traits:
102
00:06:21,879 --> 00:06:26,550
being helpful, being honest and there's
actually an impressive array of
103
00:06:26,550 --> 00:06:30,680
scientific studies that support this
hypothesis, that try to show
104
00:06:30,680 --> 00:06:35,930
that the religious exhibit greater
pro-sociality than the non-religious.
105
00:06:35,930 --> 00:06:39,919
In effect this has even become the subject
of a number a popular books.
106
00:06:39,919 --> 00:06:42,120
One you may have heard of
107
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:45,890
is “A Friendly Letter to Skeptics
and Atheists” by David Myers
108
00:06:45,890 --> 00:06:50,689
or more recently “American Grace, How
Religion Divides and Unites Us”.
109
00:06:50,689 --> 00:06:54,459
So the general public is being told
that the data are in
110
00:06:54,459 --> 00:06:59,359
and religion makes you happy, happier,
healthier and more helpful.
111
00:06:59,359 --> 00:07:05,089
That this is a conclusion that is not
just philosophy or religion. It's science.
112
00:07:05,089 --> 00:07:07,539
In fact even some atheists
are getting in on this.
113
00:07:07,540 --> 00:07:10,980
A seemingly overwhelming case
for the pro-social effects
114
00:07:10,980 --> 00:07:15,480
of religion has been enough to
convince people here like Jessie Bering,
115
00:07:15,480 --> 00:07:19,640
an atheist psychologist and actually a
pretty good author.
116
00:07:19,639 --> 00:07:24,729
Enough to convince him that religion
is beneficial, at least for others.
117
00:07:24,729 --> 00:07:28,939
In a recent Slate article
entitled *“Don't trust the godless”(,
118
00:07:28,939 --> 00:07:33,430
Jesse Bering confessed; "Even as an
atheist, I have more confidence
119
00:07:33,430 --> 00:07:37,079
in religious people
and now science is backing me up.”
120
00:07:37,079 --> 00:07:40,720
A fuller quote is up here; "This is a
difficult confession to make
121
00:07:40,720 --> 00:07:45,879
because on the surface I'm sure
it sounds wildly, wildly hypocritical.
122
00:07:45,879 --> 00:07:50,850
Still here it goes; "I trust religious people
more than I trust atheists."
123
00:07:50,850 --> 00:07:53,306
Trustworthiness is a different thing
altogether from intellect
124
00:07:53,306 --> 00:07:56,682
and I suppose
I'm the ever so social pragmatist
125
00:07:56,682 --> 00:07:58,220
in my dealings with other people."
126
00:07:58,220 --> 00:08:02,710
So pretty serious claim,
if you get even atheist psychologists
127
00:08:02,709 --> 00:08:04,932
saying; "Don't trust the godless".
128
00:08:04,932 --> 00:08:07,115
Before we go any further though
129
00:08:07,115 --> 00:08:09,379
we're going to have to look at
what are the kind of methods
130
00:08:09,379 --> 00:08:12,532
that are used in pro-sociality research.
131
00:08:12,532 --> 00:08:15,685
We're going to see a variety of different
132
00:08:15,685 --> 00:08:19,240
experimental setups and methods
for conducting this kind of research.
133
00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:23,240
This would include self-reports,
what people say about themselves and
134
00:08:23,240 --> 00:08:28,330
third-party ratings of individuals,
laboratory tests of behavior,
135
00:08:28,329 --> 00:08:32,240
lab studies of economic games
– we’ll talk about those more later -
136
00:08:32,240 --> 00:08:34,300
priming studies, where people are presented
137
00:08:34,300 --> 00:08:37,039
with the religious concept subconsciously
138
00:08:37,039 --> 00:08:40,889
- usually where they will not realize
they've been primed by the concept
139
00:08:40,889 --> 00:08:44,819
and then we'll see what happens -
and also spirituality scales.
140
00:08:44,820 --> 00:08:49,419
Scales are meant to design, to detect
the level of one's spirituality
141
00:08:49,419 --> 00:08:51,799
and then we compare their behaviors on that.
142
00:08:51,799 --> 00:08:53,939
What I'm going to try to highlight
143
00:08:53,939 --> 00:08:56,560
is some other pitfalls
that researchers face
144
00:08:56,559 --> 00:08:59,859
in each of these types
of research methods.
145
00:09:00,359 --> 00:09:03,239
Let's start with the top report data;
146
00:09:03,240 --> 00:09:05,529
"Will being religious
make you a better person?"
147
00:09:05,529 --> 00:09:08,379
Well, the fateful
certainly seem to think so.
148
00:09:08,379 --> 00:09:11,759
When asked to give an assessment of
their own character and values,
149
00:09:11,759 --> 00:09:13,990
religious individuals
tend to report being...
150
00:09:13,990 --> 00:09:18,370
having a more grateful disposition;
they rate themselves as more helpful;
151
00:09:18,370 --> 00:09:22,139
they claim to value forgiveness
more highly than the non-religious;
152
00:09:22,139 --> 00:09:26,419
And many studies actually take
these self-reports at face value.
153
00:09:26,419 --> 00:09:29,279
The fact that believers
think they're more moral
154
00:09:29,279 --> 00:09:32,699
is actually taken as evidence
that they do exhibit
155
00:09:32,700 --> 00:09:38,390
these pro-social traits. Big question is:
"Should we take believers at their word?
156
00:09:38,389 --> 00:09:42,230
No. Not if their evaluations
are based on a self-serving bias
157
00:09:42,230 --> 00:09:46,360
rather than a realistic assessment
of their own character.
158
00:09:46,360 --> 00:09:51,400
Self-report data tend to be
unreliable by its very nature.
159
00:09:51,399 --> 00:09:56,289
People are prone to forming positive
illusions about themselves. We all do it.
160
00:09:56,289 --> 00:10:00,305
We tend to inflate our responses on
questionnaires as a result
161
00:10:00,305 --> 00:10:02,701
to make ourselves look better.
162
00:10:02,701 --> 00:10:06,179
Sometimes this is just concern
over our own personal self-image.
163
00:10:06,179 --> 00:10:08,896
Social psychologists call this
self-enhancement.
164
00:10:08,896 --> 00:10:12,043
Or sometimes we want to make
a good impression with others
165
00:10:12,043 --> 00:10:15,230
or good impression for our group in particular.
166
00:10:15,230 --> 00:10:18,190
This is sometimes referred
to as impression management.
167
00:10:18,190 --> 00:10:21,070
While this is a widespread tendency
168
00:10:21,070 --> 00:10:24,580
and it's by no means restricted
just to the religious.
169
00:10:24,580 --> 00:10:27,950
What's interesting is, this tendency
might be more pronounced
170
00:10:27,950 --> 00:10:31,230
in those who have
a strong level of religious belief.
171
00:10:31,230 --> 00:10:35,710
Highly religious people tend to view
themselves as better than others, generally.
172
00:10:35,710 --> 00:10:39,430
Even better than
other religious individuals.
173
00:10:39,429 --> 00:10:43,599
And they also evaluate themselves more
highly than non-religious individuals
174
00:10:43,599 --> 00:10:46,510
on attributes that have absolutely
nothing to do with religion.
175
00:10:46,510 --> 00:10:49,870
So for example they might
score themselves higher
176
00:10:49,870 --> 00:10:53,609
on measures of intelligence
or being a good worker.
177
00:10:53,609 --> 00:10:59,090
Things that do not seem immediately
related to their religious morality.
178
00:10:59,090 --> 00:11:02,649
Those high in intrinsic religiosity
actually have been shown to have
179
00:11:02,649 --> 00:11:05,919
a higher degree of self-enhancement
and impression management.
180
00:11:05,919 --> 00:11:11,589
Just one example: if you prime a
Christian with self-esteem primes,
181
00:11:11,590 --> 00:11:16,750
you'll see them actually rating themselves
as living up to Christian principles
182
00:11:16,769 --> 00:11:21,259
more often than their fellow believers.
If however you do the reverse
183
00:11:21,259 --> 00:11:25,409
and you offer up an assessment that
questions their high self-esteem
184
00:11:25,409 --> 00:11:29,230
or make them write about something
that they don't like about themselves,
185
00:11:29,230 --> 00:11:31,569
those who are high
in intrinsic religiosity
186
00:11:31,569 --> 00:11:36,328
- that means the level of belief -
they are more likely
187
00:11:36,328 --> 00:11:39,879
to resort to self-deception
as a compensating strategy.
188
00:11:39,879 --> 00:11:42,919
Also highly religious people
are particularly
189
00:11:42,919 --> 00:11:47,209
concerned with presenting themselves
as moral persons
190
00:11:47,210 --> 00:11:50,060
and particularly threatened
when that self-image is challenged.
191
00:11:50,060 --> 00:11:53,510
So, I guess the big question is;
"Why do researchers even rely
192
00:11:53,510 --> 00:11:58,240
on these self-reports some of the time?"
Well, because at least in some cases
193
00:11:58,240 --> 00:12:01,736
these positive self-assessments are actually corroborated by others:
194
00:12:01,736 --> 00:12:05,032
their family, their colleagues, their peers.
195
00:12:05,032 --> 00:12:08,430
So, third-party evaluators
rate religious individuals
196
00:12:08,429 --> 00:12:10,829
as being nicer, more cooperative
and highly altruistic
197
00:12:10,830 --> 00:12:15,300
and empathetic as well.
To some this is proof
198
00:12:15,299 --> 00:12:20,029
that the self-reports are not
self-delusion, they're not moral hypocrisy.
199
00:12:20,029 --> 00:12:23,209
They are correct assessments
of their character.
200
00:12:23,210 --> 00:12:26,810
But I think we can still
be a little skeptical here.
201
00:12:26,809 --> 00:12:29,700
When we're talking
about a predominantly religious society,
202
00:12:29,700 --> 00:12:32,500
where about 80 to 95%
of people are religious
203
00:12:32,500 --> 00:12:35,980
and around 75% are at least
nominally Christian,
204
00:12:35,980 --> 00:12:39,600
it's a good bet that a significant
proportion of those subjects, families
205
00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:41,629
and peers are also religious,
206
00:12:41,629 --> 00:12:44,660
meaning there's a possibility
of in-group bias at work here.
207
00:12:44,660 --> 00:12:48,360
And actually there is some evidence
to support that.
208
00:12:48,360 --> 00:12:52,529
In-group favoritism is a well-studied
phenomenon in social psychology.
209
00:12:52,529 --> 00:12:56,539
Again, this is not just religious
people here, this is all of us.
210
00:12:56,539 --> 00:13:00,329
It is natural for individuals to
derive self-esteem from the groups
211
00:13:00,329 --> 00:13:01,838
they’re associated with.
212
00:13:01,839 --> 00:13:05,070
It's natural to provide
a positive image to the public
213
00:13:05,070 --> 00:13:08,920
for those who share their identity.
So, consistent with the predictions
214
00:13:08,919 --> 00:13:10,770
of social identity theory,
215
00:13:10,770 --> 00:13:15,200
we see believers tend to show more
favoritism towards other individuals
216
00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:17,360
and speak more poorly of non-religious
217
00:13:17,360 --> 00:13:21,279
and this even includes
those from different religious groups.
218
00:13:21,279 --> 00:13:24,870
Often the favoritism
- and here's the key point here -
219
00:13:24,870 --> 00:13:28,320
often the favoritism is extended
to other religious individuals,
220
00:13:28,320 --> 00:13:30,990
regardless of whether or not
they behaved well or poorly,
221
00:13:30,990 --> 00:13:34,700
are still be reviewed more favorably,
222
00:13:34,700 --> 00:13:38,220
even when they've been up to no good.
I'll give you an example here
223
00:13:38,220 --> 00:13:43,170
of when sometimes believers will rate
religious individuals more highly
224
00:13:43,169 --> 00:13:47,699
than non-religious individuals, even when
they exhibit the exact same behaviors.
225
00:13:47,700 --> 00:13:52,089
I was a part of this study
which was published in 2011.
226
00:13:52,089 --> 00:13:56,160
I was a participant and so in front of a
camera I wore two different T-shirts,
227
00:13:56,159 --> 00:13:59,409
I wore three actually:
just a plain white T-shirt
228
00:13:59,409 --> 00:14:03,250
then in the other condition
I wore a Jesus fish T-shirt
229
00:14:03,250 --> 00:14:06,708
and then third condition
I wore a Darwin fish T-shirt.
230
00:14:06,708 --> 00:14:10,659
And then I read
the exact same script each time
231
00:14:10,659 --> 00:14:14,139
which was I was presenting myself
as a college student
232
00:14:14,139 --> 00:14:18,819
who was using my spring break to help
in disaster relief organization
233
00:14:18,820 --> 00:14:20,770
and talking
about my positive experiences.
234
00:14:20,769 --> 00:14:24,439
No mention of religion or anything else.
What we found in this study
235
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:28,240
was that people rated me
as more likable,
236
00:14:28,240 --> 00:14:31,750
more intelligent, more trustworthy
and more kind,
237
00:14:31,750 --> 00:14:34,750
and more moral overall
238
00:14:34,750 --> 00:14:39,480
when I was wearing the Jesus fish.
So exact same behaviors but a subtle cue
239
00:14:39,480 --> 00:14:44,160
that I might be religious makes
people evaluate my behavior better.
240
00:14:44,160 --> 00:14:47,419
Most studies that rely on peer-rated
ratings do not adequately control
241
00:14:47,419 --> 00:14:52,819
for this tendency for in-group bias
and that's the problem.
242
00:14:52,820 --> 00:14:56,780
Ideally researchers would ensure
that participants are completely unaware
243
00:14:56,779 --> 00:14:59,289
of the religious identity
of those they're rating.
244
00:14:59,289 --> 00:15:02,969
Then we have more reason to trust
their evaluations as accurate,
245
00:15:02,970 --> 00:15:06,720
but this sadly is rarely the case.
However in studies
246
00:15:06,720 --> 00:15:09,870
that do, and most studies
where the raters
247
00:15:09,870 --> 00:15:13,509
are actually aware of their targets
religious identities
248
00:15:13,509 --> 00:15:15,869
a clear bias emerges
and that suggests
249
00:15:15,869 --> 00:15:18,970
an in-group bias
when the people know they're religious,
250
00:15:18,970 --> 00:15:23,360
they rate them more positively.
There is an interesting twist to all of this:
251
00:15:23,360 --> 00:15:27,909
non-religious individuals do not appear
to rate their fellow non-believers
252
00:15:27,909 --> 00:15:31,919
as any more pro-social than they do the
religious. For some reason this
253
00:15:31,919 --> 00:15:37,049
in-group bias doesn't seem to be affecting
the non-religious to the same degree.
254
00:15:37,049 --> 00:15:40,809
Now should the fact
that non-religious people also rate
255
00:15:40,809 --> 00:15:45,139
the religious highly, indicate that
these judgments are based on a clear
256
00:15:45,139 --> 00:15:48,659
added assessment of their character?
Are atheists really going to have
257
00:15:48,659 --> 00:15:53,049
a pro-religious bias? Actually it's quite
possible that they would
258
00:15:53,049 --> 00:15:56,929
if their judgments have been swayed
by a strong religious,
259
00:15:56,929 --> 00:15:58,458
pro-religious cultural stereotype.
260
00:15:58,458 --> 00:16:01,948
And again, there is evidence to suggest
that's the case.
261
00:16:01,948 --> 00:16:05,029
Here's more evidence
for a pro-religious stereotype,
262
00:16:05,029 --> 00:16:08,559
that we can find by looking at
similar studies that are conducted
263
00:16:08,559 --> 00:16:10,849
in different cultures than our own.
264
00:16:10,850 --> 00:16:15,199
For example some report that happiness,
life satisfaction
265
00:16:15,198 --> 00:16:17,019
and personality measures
like agreeableness
266
00:16:17,019 --> 00:16:20,539
are more closely associated
with religion in the United States
267
00:16:20,539 --> 00:16:25,068
than in the United Kingdom or Northern
Europe where religion is less dominant.
268
00:16:25,068 --> 00:16:28,750
To give you one specific example:
this particular study here
269
00:16:28,750 --> 00:16:34,789
asks people to rate their impressions
of people just from looking at photographs
270
00:16:34,789 --> 00:16:36,726
of faces and smiling faces were judged
271
00:16:36,726 --> 00:16:40,633
to be more religious
than non smiling faces.
272
00:16:40,633 --> 00:16:44,350
That was in the United States.
In the United Kingdom
273
00:16:44,350 --> 00:16:47,068
the exact opposite was true and
274
00:16:47,068 --> 00:16:50,889
tends to be a general relationship
275
00:16:50,889 --> 00:16:54,039
between religion and self-control,
mental well-being,
276
00:16:54,039 --> 00:16:57,099
psychological adjustment,
social support.
277
00:16:57,100 --> 00:17:00,870
In general in societies where the
non-religious are the majority
278
00:17:00,870 --> 00:17:04,588
the non-religious are rated more favorably
279
00:17:04,588 --> 00:17:08,848
on all those particular measures.
So, again evidence that there
280
00:17:08,848 --> 00:17:10,809
is a cultural bias at work here.
281
00:17:10,809 --> 00:17:13,598
I think by now it should be clear that
self-report data doesn't provide
282
00:17:13,598 --> 00:17:17,969
reliable evidence for the religious
pro-social reality hypothesis.
283
00:17:17,970 --> 00:17:21,920
Self-evaluations on religious subjects
are vulnerable to self-enhancement,
284
00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:26,348
impression management, distortions and
others and they are contaminated
285
00:17:26,348 --> 00:17:30,639
quite possibly by a widely-held
pro-religious cultural stereotype.
286
00:17:30,640 --> 00:17:34,890
It might be better
instead of trusting self-reports
287
00:17:34,890 --> 00:17:38,720
to look at experimentally
controlled measures of behavior
288
00:17:38,720 --> 00:17:43,199
or, if you prefer the way Jesus might say
it, we should judge believers
289
00:17:43,199 --> 00:17:46,809
by their fruit not by their words.
Let's look at
290
00:17:46,809 --> 00:17:50,329
what their actual deeds tell us.
Well, for one religious individuals
291
00:17:50,329 --> 00:17:53,649
claim to value forgiveness
more than others
292
00:17:53,650 --> 00:17:57,430
but actually any effect of their religiosity
on actual forgiveness
293
00:17:57,430 --> 00:18:01,600
has been found to be negligible.
This is just one study
294
00:18:01,599 --> 00:18:06,049
that shows that the comparison
of self-reports with controlled experiments
295
00:18:06,049 --> 00:18:09,269
on behavior reveal how often believers
296
00:18:09,269 --> 00:18:11,916
fail to live up to their high opinion
of themselves.
297
00:18:11,916 --> 00:18:17,023
Those in high in intrinsic religiosity again
- this is a measure of belief -
298
00:18:17,023 --> 00:18:19,710
reported a more grateful disposition
but don't do not perform
299
00:18:19,710 --> 00:18:21,920
better than anyone else in studies
300
00:18:21,920 --> 00:18:25,380
measuring reciprocal behavioral
gratitude: "Will they give back?"
301
00:18:25,380 --> 00:18:29,460
High intrinsic religiosity doesn't seem
to reduce aggression
302
00:18:29,460 --> 00:18:32,700
here is the scary detail:
it tends to make people think
303
00:18:32,700 --> 00:18:34,869
they're less aggressive
than they really are.
304
00:18:34,869 --> 00:18:38,238
Fundamentalists in particular report
305
00:18:38,238 --> 00:18:41,009
higher levels of altruism
towards everybody
306
00:18:41,009 --> 00:18:44,599
but in reality they are
more willing to help friends
307
00:18:44,599 --> 00:18:48,279
or like-minded individuals.
They're not as likely to help strangers
308
00:18:48,279 --> 00:18:51,519
or what is sometimes called
'value violators',
309
00:18:51,519 --> 00:18:54,710
perhaps like a homosexual or
something like that,
310
00:18:54,710 --> 00:18:59,000
that is clearly on the wrong side
of the divide on some culture war issue.
311
00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:02,369
We have to remember again
that everyone tends
312
00:19:02,369 --> 00:19:05,389
to overestimate
how moral they actually are.
313
00:19:05,390 --> 00:19:09,560
So, this is really common to find a gap
between how individuals predict
314
00:19:09,559 --> 00:19:11,720
they'll behave
and how they actually behave.
315
00:19:11,720 --> 00:19:14,500
If we were to take everybody in this
room we would probably
316
00:19:14,500 --> 00:19:16,509
see the exact same phenomena.
317
00:19:16,509 --> 00:19:20,190
We are no different.
It's just that the fact
318
00:19:20,190 --> 00:19:23,370
seems to be more pronounced
in religious populations.
319
00:19:23,369 --> 00:19:28,260
As we said before, highly religious do
show a greater tendency
320
00:19:28,280 --> 00:19:32,020
towards self-enhancement
on questionnaires and this disjunction
321
00:19:32,020 --> 00:19:34,200
between self-reported measured behavior
322
00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:38,019
is actually wider in the religious
than in the rest of the population.
323
00:19:38,019 --> 00:19:40,750
In fact the greatest gap
we can see
324
00:19:40,750 --> 00:19:44,650
between altruistic beliefs and
altruistic behaviors
325
00:19:44,650 --> 00:19:47,629
is actually found
in those who rate religion
326
00:19:47,629 --> 00:19:49,799
as more important to them personally.
327
00:19:49,799 --> 00:19:53,779
What's funny is that sometimes
the experimental evidence
328
00:19:53,779 --> 00:19:57,730
is so contrary
to our stereotypes about religion
329
00:19:57,730 --> 00:20:01,400
that some researchers
put a spin on this conclusion.
330
00:20:01,400 --> 00:20:05,950
What they're publishing
is showing no positive effect for religion
331
00:20:05,950 --> 00:20:09,169
but their abstracts or the way
they interpret the data
332
00:20:09,169 --> 00:20:13,230
speaks in glowing terms. For example
this particular study here.
333
00:20:13,230 --> 00:20:16,920
McCullough & Worthington in 1999 said that
334
00:20:16,920 --> 00:20:20,830
"Even if religious people
are no more facile
335
00:20:20,829 --> 00:20:24,869
at forgiving in real life situations
than are less religious people,
336
00:20:24,869 --> 00:20:29,699
they do you desire to be forgiving and
go on about how great it is that they
337
00:20:29,700 --> 00:20:32,370
want to be good forgiving people."
338
00:20:32,369 --> 00:20:36,219
I'd like to argue to you that praising
the leaders for their moral intentions
339
00:20:36,220 --> 00:20:37,950
kind of misses the point.
340
00:20:37,950 --> 00:20:41,390
It's not that we just desire to be
better - and that's good -
341
00:20:41,390 --> 00:20:44,690
in some cases they already
think they're superior.
342
00:20:44,690 --> 00:20:49,360
And there are major dangers in having an unrealistic assessment
343
00:20:49,359 --> 00:20:51,049
of one's own character and limits
344
00:20:51,049 --> 00:20:54,409
Let's move on to a different type of study:
345
00:20:54,410 --> 00:20:58,340
religious priming studies.
Although religious individuals do not seem
346
00:20:58,339 --> 00:21:00,359
to behave as morally as they report,
347
00:21:00,359 --> 00:21:03,599
it would still be very odd.
I personally would find it strange
348
00:21:03,599 --> 00:21:07,089
if religion didn't have some impact
on moral behavior.
349
00:21:07,089 --> 00:21:11,439
After all, scriptures and sermons abound
with exhortations to love thy neighbor,
350
00:21:11,440 --> 00:21:14,820
to do unto others
as you would have them do onto you
351
00:21:14,819 --> 00:21:17,830
and I think frequent exposure
to these messages
352
00:21:17,830 --> 00:21:20,120
would result in pro-social behaviors.
353
00:21:20,119 --> 00:21:24,239
So priming studies are a useful way
of seeving this out.
354
00:21:24,240 --> 00:21:28,420
Again participants are primed somehow.
Maybe they have to unscramble
355
00:21:28,420 --> 00:21:30,359
a word bank
and it has religious words in it.
356
00:21:30,359 --> 00:21:32,208
Or perhaps they have to read
357
00:21:32,208 --> 00:21:35,259
a portion of Scripture
and write a response to it.
358
00:21:35,259 --> 00:21:38,410
Sometimes it can be really subtle:
symbols in the room,
359
00:21:38,410 --> 00:21:40,039
a crucifix in the room,
360
00:21:40,039 --> 00:21:44,279
jewelry or clothing.
Sometimes it's just the context.
361
00:21:44,279 --> 00:21:48,250
Conducting the experiment in a
church instead of,
362
00:21:48,250 --> 00:21:51,440
say, a high school gymnasium
or something like that.
363
00:21:51,440 --> 00:21:55,210
Well the good news of priming studies
is that this is the best evidence
364
00:21:55,210 --> 00:21:58,539
we can find for the religious
pro-sociality hypothesis.
365
00:21:58,539 --> 00:22:00,612
There's a lot of data supporting it.
366
00:22:00,612 --> 00:22:01,955
There are good studies
367
00:22:01,955 --> 00:22:04,759
showing greater honesty and generosity
368
00:22:04,759 --> 00:22:07,819
amongst the religious,
increased sharing,
369
00:22:07,819 --> 00:22:11,000
increased cooperation,
better self-control in distressing situations
370
00:22:11,000 --> 00:22:15,670
and greater resistance to temptation.
371
00:22:15,670 --> 00:22:20,100
So why are religious concepts so good at
priming these kinds of behavior?
372
00:22:20,099 --> 00:22:22,719
Several studies cited a possible
mechanism here.
373
00:22:22,719 --> 00:22:25,279
'Supernatural surveillance' they called it.
374
00:22:25,279 --> 00:22:29,250
The belief that one's actions
are constantly and inescapably
375
00:22:29,250 --> 00:22:31,549
being observed by a divine being.
376
00:22:31,549 --> 00:22:34,559
Thinking that this is a strong
reminder to us
377
00:22:34,559 --> 00:22:37,829
to be aware of our actions
and perhaps that's why
378
00:22:37,829 --> 00:22:41,729
religious concepts prime
these pro-social behaviors.
379
00:22:41,729 --> 00:22:44,995
God might be watching after all.
380
00:22:44,995 --> 00:22:46,861
But I wont to share
some curious details
381
00:22:46,861 --> 00:22:50,849
that aren't as often shared
in these priming studies.
382
00:22:50,849 --> 00:22:54,139
Neutral religious works
like Bible, the Cycle ????
383
00:22:54,140 --> 00:22:58,049
or Chapel don't seem to promote
any helping behavior.
384
00:22:58,048 --> 00:23:01,259
It seems to be only positive words
like heaven, miracle or bless
385
00:23:01,259 --> 00:23:05,019
that have that effect on people.
Even more interesting
386
00:23:05,019 --> 00:23:08,019
the positive effects
don't seem to be dependent
387
00:23:08,019 --> 00:23:12,139
on the participants level of religiosity.
You can be just kind of religious
388
00:23:12,140 --> 00:23:14,050
or you could be a hardcore fundamentalist
389
00:23:14,050 --> 00:23:17,280
and the priming affects you the same way.
390
00:23:17,280 --> 00:23:21,750
Also, non-religious people respond
positively to religious primes
391
00:23:21,750 --> 00:23:24,760
and to the exact same degree
as their religious counterparts.
392
00:23:24,760 --> 00:23:30,839
If you were to look at all those symbols,
you would act more morally too.
393
00:23:30,839 --> 00:23:34,369
Even more interesting:
priming secular concepts, like civil
394
00:23:34,369 --> 00:23:37,699
or court, seem to have
the same power to promote
395
00:23:37,700 --> 00:23:41,600
honesty or lower hypocrisy
as religious primes do.
396
00:23:41,599 --> 00:23:44,849
And religious destructive atheists:
397
00:23:44,849 --> 00:23:48,469
the distrust they have for us
goes down
398
00:23:48,470 --> 00:23:52,179
when the religious are primed
with concepts of secular authority.
399
00:23:52,179 --> 00:23:55,409
That's really interesting.
Why would that possibly be?
400
00:23:55,409 --> 00:24:00,010
Well, one idea, not exactly sure,
but one idea is that the leaders know
401
00:24:00,009 --> 00:24:03,679
that atheists do not live their lives
as if God is watching them.
402
00:24:03,679 --> 00:24:06,240
So without the supernatural monitoring
they may wonder
403
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:09,579
what reason we have
for behaving well.
404
00:24:09,579 --> 00:24:14,198
But this distrust can be ameliorated
when we are reminded
405
00:24:14,198 --> 00:24:16,869
that morality can be
monitored in different ways.
406
00:24:16,869 --> 00:24:18,928
So these kind of pacific primes
remind everybody;
407
00:24:18,928 --> 00:24:22,650
"Oh wait, there is a social order,
there is something keeping these
408
00:24:22,650 --> 00:24:27,059
evil atheists in check." And so their negative impressions go down.
409
00:24:27,058 --> 00:24:30,658
Amazingly even the presence of a mirror
410
00:24:30,659 --> 00:24:36,130
or just pictures of eyes in the laboratory
will actually have these same effects
411
00:24:36,130 --> 00:24:41,109
which actually really boost
that notion of supernatural surveillance.
412
00:24:41,109 --> 00:24:46,110
Obviously this has implications
for the religious pro-sociality hypothesis.
413
00:24:46,109 --> 00:24:49,479
Religious concepts do not seem
414
00:24:49,479 --> 00:24:54,309
to prime pro-social behavior like honesty
because they're religious.
415
00:24:54,309 --> 00:24:58,888
It may be that any concepts that are
associated with morality in a particular
416
00:24:58,888 --> 00:25:03,269
culture trigger greater concern
for protecting your reputation.
417
00:25:03,269 --> 00:25:05,899
Again since there's a widespread
cultural stereotype
418
00:25:05,899 --> 00:25:08,389
that religion is linked to morality here,
419
00:25:08,390 --> 00:25:12,250
religious concepts will activate moral
behavior, but as we pointed out
420
00:25:12,250 --> 00:25:14,596
secular primes do just as well.
421
00:25:14,596 --> 00:25:17,002
While the positive effects
of religious priming
422
00:25:17,002 --> 00:25:21,058
are the stuff of headlines, what you don't
usually hear about is the dark side
423
00:25:21,058 --> 00:25:22,545
of religious primes.
424
00:25:22,545 --> 00:25:24,592
Numerous studies demonstrate
425
00:25:24,592 --> 00:25:26,359
that socially undesirable behaviors
426
00:25:26,359 --> 00:25:30,689
also manifest when subjects
are exposed to religious messages.
427
00:25:30,689 --> 00:25:34,679
So for example, participants
who read passages from the Bible
428
00:25:34,679 --> 00:25:38,990
depicting God sanctioned violence,
administer more electrical shocks
429
00:25:38,990 --> 00:25:40,558
than the control group
in studies of aggression.
430
00:25:40,558 --> 00:25:45,329
We should note this works
on non-believers as well.
431
00:25:45,329 --> 00:25:49,308
Even a non-believer reading
those passages from the Bible
432
00:25:49,308 --> 00:25:53,678
will also become more vicious
in their behaviors toward somebody.
433
00:25:53,679 --> 00:25:57,929
It's just that the effect seems to
be more pronounced for believers.
434
00:25:57,929 --> 00:26:01,159
Especially disturbing is this subgroup
435
00:26:01,159 --> 00:26:05,099
of religious believers
high in intrinsic religiosity
436
00:26:05,099 --> 00:26:07,759
and also high in levels of submissiveness.
437
00:26:07,759 --> 00:26:12,149
This group was very disturbing
because they became the most vengeful
438
00:26:12,149 --> 00:26:16,178
after being primed with religious words.
They really seemed to go off the rails.
439
00:26:16,178 --> 00:26:19,489
So I guess what I'm saying is:
it doesn't affect all people equally.
440
00:26:19,489 --> 00:26:23,528
Certain personality characteristics
come into play here too
441
00:26:23,528 --> 00:26:26,950
to either aggravate
or kind of mute these responses.
442
00:26:26,950 --> 00:26:31,330
I'd like to share this study real quick.
Experiments where people were assigned
443
00:26:31,330 --> 00:26:34,320
to read the biblical version
of the golden rule
444
00:26:34,319 --> 00:26:38,070
actually had no effect on diminishing
Christians’ homophobia.
445
00:26:38,070 --> 00:26:40,342
So, negative attitudes
towards homosexuals
446
00:26:40,342 --> 00:26:41,714
were not at all diminished
447
00:26:41,714 --> 00:26:45,308
by reading what we think
is a very positive prime,
448
00:26:45,308 --> 00:26:49,558
right, the golden rule. Strangely enough
reading the Buddhist version
449
00:26:49,558 --> 00:26:53,980
of the golden rule actually increased
their homophobic responses.
450
00:26:53,980 --> 00:26:57,750
If they read another religious text
telling them to be merciful
451
00:26:57,750 --> 00:27:01,429
and do onto others as you would have
them to do want to them,
452
00:27:01,429 --> 00:27:05,415
they wanted to do that even less.
This is perhaps
453
00:27:05,415 --> 00:27:08,241
because the moral imperative
454
00:27:08,241 --> 00:27:11,649
was coming from this
distrusted out-group source.
455
00:27:11,720 --> 00:27:15,870
Likewise unscrambling words associated
with Christianity increased
456
00:27:15,869 --> 00:27:17,779
racial prejudice
towards african-americans
457
00:27:17,779 --> 00:27:21,949
that was found by Johnson,
lead author Johnson in 2010.
458
00:27:21,949 --> 00:27:26,250
And attitudes toward all out-group
members became more negative
459
00:27:26,250 --> 00:27:29,278
when experiments were conducted
in a church setting rather than
460
00:27:29,278 --> 00:27:32,359
than in a civic context.
461
00:27:32,359 --> 00:27:34,999
This is a strange paradox
we're looking at here.
462
00:27:34,999 --> 00:27:37,109
Religious priming seems to increase
463
00:27:37,109 --> 00:27:42,158
both pro-social behaviors like honesty and
sharing, and non pro-social behaviors
464
00:27:42,159 --> 00:27:47,270
like aggression and prejudice. This will
make more sense I think to us when we
465
00:27:47,269 --> 00:27:49,079
consider another curious,
466
00:27:49,079 --> 00:27:52,528
but consistent finding in this literature
467
00:27:52,528 --> 00:27:55,740
that the kindness of religious individuals
is typically not
468
00:27:55,740 --> 00:27:58,769
extended universally to everyone.
469
00:27:58,769 --> 00:28:02,849
Instead the primary beneficiaries
of a religious pro-sociality
470
00:28:02,849 --> 00:28:09,110
are usually other believers. This can be
most clearly seen in economic games.
471
00:28:09,110 --> 00:28:12,359
So, to save a little bit of time
I'm not going to go into how all of
472
00:28:12,359 --> 00:28:17,658
these games work, but they basically
start with people trading or exchanging money.
473
00:28:17,679 --> 00:28:22,218
Those games are designed
to encourage cooperation and trust.
474
00:28:22,218 --> 00:28:26,349
So basically
if the players work together,
475
00:28:26,349 --> 00:28:29,869
they will both get further along,
but one player
476
00:28:29,869 --> 00:28:34,918
might have the opportunity to make off
with more money if they deceive or lie
477
00:28:34,919 --> 00:28:37,628
or cheat the other players.
So this is all trying
478
00:28:37,628 --> 00:28:39,829
to assess cooperation, trust,
479
00:28:39,829 --> 00:28:43,678
giving, that sort of thing.
The economic games shown
480
00:28:43,679 --> 00:28:48,769
in behavioral economic studies where
the religiosity of the participants is none.
481
00:28:48,769 --> 00:28:52,220
- so we actually know what they are -
a general trend emerges:
482
00:28:52,220 --> 00:28:55,950
religious individuals cooperate more
and give more money
483
00:28:55,950 --> 00:28:59,149
than non-religious participants.
So they do that overall.
484
00:28:59,148 --> 00:29:02,808
They give more and they trust more
than the non-religious.
485
00:29:02,808 --> 00:29:06,139
The pro-sociality hypothesis is true.
486
00:29:06,140 --> 00:29:09,196
It's just has that twist:
they only give it to those
487
00:29:09,196 --> 00:29:10,972
who share their religious identity.
488
00:29:10,972 --> 00:29:15,308
For example this study, Ahmed, 2009
found the clergy students
489
00:29:15,308 --> 00:29:19,339
exchanged greater money offers
than non clergy students,
490
00:29:19,339 --> 00:29:23,928
but only to those from their own
religious group.
491
00:29:23,929 --> 00:29:25,788
These findings are almost,
well, they are most likely due
492
00:29:25,788 --> 00:29:29,679
to that previous phenomenon
we mentioned of in-group favoritism.
493
00:29:29,679 --> 00:29:33,659
But there also might be something else
going on here. This might be that
494
00:29:33,659 --> 00:29:35,600
pro-religious cultural stereotype
495
00:29:35,599 --> 00:29:39,449
happening again, because notice:
non-religious participants
496
00:29:39,450 --> 00:29:42,610
did not show the same in-group favoritism
497
00:29:42,609 --> 00:29:46,098
in those economic games.
They also trusted
498
00:29:46,098 --> 00:29:50,778
religious participants more
than their non-religious peers
499
00:29:50,778 --> 00:29:54,609
and allocated more money to them overall,
even though that money
500
00:29:54,609 --> 00:29:56,889
would not be reciprocated.
501
00:29:56,889 --> 00:30:01,509
Yeah, it's amazing
how ingrained that stereotype is.
502
00:30:01,509 --> 00:30:03,408
This pattern of preferential treatment
503
00:30:03,408 --> 00:30:06,027
is not limited
to behavioral economic studies.
504
00:30:06,027 --> 00:30:10,268
It constitutes a general trend
across the entire literature.
505
00:30:10,269 --> 00:30:13,620
In fact a new word had to be coined
just to explain it.
506
00:30:13,619 --> 00:30:17,908
One researcher who is very popular in
this by the name of Saroglou
507
00:30:17,909 --> 00:30:21,580
coined the term "minimal prosociality",
508
00:30:21,579 --> 00:30:25,089
meaning the greater helping on the part of
the religious that extended to friends
509
00:30:25,089 --> 00:30:27,849
an in-group members
but not too out-group members
510
00:30:27,849 --> 00:30:30,879
who threatened religious values.
511
00:30:30,880 --> 00:30:35,179
So, I guess the correct way to say it
or was consistent with most of the evidence
512
00:30:35,179 --> 00:30:36,330
in these economic games
513
00:30:36,329 --> 00:30:39,558
are that religious people
are ‘minimally pro-social’.
514
00:30:39,558 --> 00:30:43,629
And actually if we take this idea
of limited pro-sociality seriously
515
00:30:43,630 --> 00:30:46,760
it explains a lot of other trends
that we see in the data.
516
00:30:46,759 --> 00:30:50,119
For example across different cultures
we see that religiosity
517
00:30:50,119 --> 00:30:56,119
is weakly but still positively correlated
with the value of benevolence,
518
00:30:56,119 --> 00:31:01,009
charity, helping people out
and yet at the same time is negatively
519
00:31:01,009 --> 00:31:03,398
related with the value of universalism,
520
00:31:03,398 --> 00:31:06,449
helping out, you know, your neighbor,
your stranger,
521
00:31:06,450 --> 00:31:10,600
the Good Samaritan, that type of thing.
Again it seems like a contradiction,
522
00:31:10,599 --> 00:31:13,600
but when you take the idea of limited
523
00:31:13,600 --> 00:31:15,860
or minimal pro-sociality seriously,
524
00:31:15,859 --> 00:31:19,509
it tends to make more sense.
It's that in-group favoritism again.
525
00:31:19,509 --> 00:31:23,129
Also it might explain things
like why religious primes
526
00:31:23,129 --> 00:31:24,308
increase ethnic prejudice
527
00:31:24,308 --> 00:31:27,308
and derogation of out-group members,
528
00:31:27,308 --> 00:31:31,500
because religious concepts activated
in-group bias in people's minds.
529
00:31:31,500 --> 00:31:34,548
This also plays through
religious research on giving.
530
00:31:34,548 --> 00:31:37,710
This one conclusion
I'm not as sure about,
531
00:31:37,710 --> 00:31:42,470
but it is very clear that religious
organizations themselves
532
00:31:42,470 --> 00:31:46,589
are the largest source of charitable giving.
Religious people give way more to charity
533
00:31:46,589 --> 00:31:51,418
than the non-religious and that finding
has held up across the board.
534
00:31:51,419 --> 00:31:54,960
But as other studies note,
many of the recipients of these,
535
00:31:54,960 --> 00:31:58,340
even ones that are labeled secular,
536
00:31:58,339 --> 00:32:02,589
tend to be religious
or some religious organization.
537
00:32:02,589 --> 00:32:05,230
So all this money is exchanging hands
within the in-group.
538
00:32:05,230 --> 00:32:07,379
This would be really
interesting one to test
539
00:32:07,379 --> 00:32:09,408
if we can tease out that in-group favoritism
540
00:32:09,409 --> 00:32:12,880
would we still see a charity gap
between the non-religious
541
00:32:12,880 --> 00:32:17,090
and the religious? We might, actually I
suspect, we probably would
542
00:32:17,089 --> 00:32:21,418
and for this reason
there's another aspect
543
00:32:21,419 --> 00:32:25,210
to religious charitable giving,
and that is generosity
544
00:32:25,210 --> 00:32:29,048
measured as a function
of religious importance
545
00:32:29,048 --> 00:32:33,139
was smaller than those measured as a
variation in religious attendance.
546
00:32:33,140 --> 00:32:37,390
That is church attendance
seems to be the key factor
547
00:32:37,390 --> 00:32:40,690
in how much a religious person will give.
548
00:32:40,690 --> 00:32:44,869
If you actually
measure religiosity by belief,
549
00:32:44,869 --> 00:32:48,889
how much conviction do you have
that God exists
550
00:32:48,890 --> 00:32:52,049
we'll see that
that predicts giving to a lesser degree
551
00:32:52,048 --> 00:32:55,048
then church attendance.
I think what's going on here is
552
00:32:55,048 --> 00:32:58,519
when you're actually in the building,
you're given an opportunity
553
00:32:58,519 --> 00:33:01,919
to give, right?
The plate is passed around
554
00:33:01,919 --> 00:33:05,820
and there's social pressure for you
to put something in that plate.
555
00:33:05,819 --> 00:33:09,480
I still think the religious should get
credit for this, but they get credit for
556
00:33:09,480 --> 00:33:12,528
building institutions
that support charitable giving.
557
00:33:12,528 --> 00:33:14,950
It may not be the belief,
the religious belief,
558
00:33:14,950 --> 00:33:17,130
that's really motivating this behavior.
559
00:33:17,130 --> 00:33:19,470
So I guess that kind of brings up
an interesting question here.
560
00:33:19,470 --> 00:33:22,839
How actually are we measuring religiosity
561
00:33:22,839 --> 00:33:25,878
because, as we just saw,
depending on how we measured it,
562
00:33:25,878 --> 00:33:28,259
we might get different effects.
563
00:33:28,259 --> 00:33:32,470
Typically the methodology
that's employed here is to compare
564
00:33:32,470 --> 00:33:35,980
a general population of people
to highly religious people
565
00:33:35,980 --> 00:33:39,950
and weekly religious people.
And then the atheists agnostics
566
00:33:39,950 --> 00:33:43,588
or all the nones, we call them,
those who declare no religious affiliation,
567
00:33:43,588 --> 00:33:45,648
are mixed into that sample as well.
568
00:33:45,648 --> 00:33:48,970
There are different ways
again of measuring
569
00:33:48,970 --> 00:33:51,370
intrinsically religiosity as I
mentioned is a measure
570
00:33:51,370 --> 00:33:54,190
of metaphysical belief or commitment.
571
00:33:54,190 --> 00:33:58,538
Extrinsic religiosity, as I call it,
is often a measure of behavior,
572
00:33:58,538 --> 00:34:01,638
how often do you pray,
engage in rituals.
573
00:34:01,638 --> 00:34:04,959
That sometimes includes another way
that is measured
574
00:34:04,960 --> 00:34:08,990
is measuring religiosity purely
through church attendance alone.
575
00:34:08,990 --> 00:34:13,179
So whenever you see a study
that says religious people are better
576
00:34:13,179 --> 00:34:16,570
at XYZ, the next question you should ask is;
577
00:34:16,570 --> 00:34:19,809
"Better compared to whom?"
And the reason is:
578
00:34:19,809 --> 00:34:24,139
how one measures religiosity
has a major impact on your findings.
579
00:34:24,139 --> 00:34:27,199
For example, frequent church attendance
has been linked
580
00:34:27,199 --> 00:34:31,340
to modestly lower rates of mental
illness such as depression,
581
00:34:31,340 --> 00:34:34,519
but the effect is negligible
when you measure
582
00:34:34,519 --> 00:34:37,098
religiosity as strength of belief.
583
00:34:37,098 --> 00:34:40,268
Again, people have better mental health
because they're
584
00:34:40,268 --> 00:34:44,079
in a congregation of people, they have a
support social support network,
585
00:34:44,079 --> 00:34:49,359
like-minded people to talk to. The belief
doesn't seem to be as important.
586
00:34:49,359 --> 00:34:51,900
Studies that control
for purely social factors
587
00:34:51,900 --> 00:34:54,440
find a greatly diminished
or non-existent effect
588
00:34:54,440 --> 00:34:57,493
of religious beliefs
on pro-social measures.
589
00:34:57,493 --> 00:34:59,336
So you can see how we measure religion
590
00:34:59,336 --> 00:35:03,599
and who we compare our groups to
is very important in this debate.
591
00:35:03,599 --> 00:35:06,069
Most frequently
the strongest pro-social effects
592
00:35:06,069 --> 00:35:08,369
are associated with church attendance
593
00:35:08,369 --> 00:35:12,170
and social contacts
rather than just metaphysical belief.
594
00:35:12,170 --> 00:35:15,930
So it appears that group affiliation
drives many of these behaviors.
595
00:35:15,929 --> 00:35:19,949
Could a committed secular group
- like this one right here -
596
00:35:19,949 --> 00:35:23,569
have effect on its membership
similar to that of a church?
597
00:35:23,570 --> 00:35:27,920
In this book that I mentioned earlier -
unfortunately it's buried on page 472 -
598
00:35:27,920 --> 00:35:32,769
you have to get
through all the good stuff
599
00:35:32,769 --> 00:35:36,060
to finally see this qualification,
600
00:35:36,060 --> 00:35:40,220
but Robert Putnam mentions
"even an atheist
601
00:35:40,219 --> 00:35:43,269
who happens to become
involved in the social life
602
00:35:43,269 --> 00:35:47,710
of a congregation is much more likely
to volunteer at a soup kitchen
603
00:35:47,710 --> 00:35:50,356
then the most fervent believer who prays alone."
604
00:35:50,356 --> 00:35:54,242
And then it goes on to say
- or slightly before that on page 465 -
605
00:35:54,242 --> 00:35:59,450
he says: "Religious belief turns out to be
utterly irrelevant to explaining the religious
606
00:35:59,450 --> 00:36:04,080
as in good neighbourliness."
That should've been on page 1.
607
00:36:04,079 --> 00:36:09,590
But both reviewers in that book
didn't get that far.
608
00:36:09,590 --> 00:36:14,160
You can guess how it was depicted
in the popular press.
609
00:36:14,159 --> 00:36:18,129
In fact that's a major problem.
The problem with most studies is
610
00:36:18,130 --> 00:36:22,119
that they are lumping all nonbelievers
together, without considering how
611
00:36:22,119 --> 00:36:24,130
confident they are in their non-belief,
612
00:36:24,130 --> 00:36:27,110
whether or not they attend groups
like you do right here,
613
00:36:27,110 --> 00:36:29,300
how involved they are
with the community overall.
614
00:36:29,300 --> 00:36:32,890
They're just all dumped
into one pool: the non-religious.
615
00:36:32,889 --> 00:36:36,789
And then they're compared with weekly
religious and highly religious,
616
00:36:36,789 --> 00:36:40,610
typically highly religious people
who are in a church context.
617
00:36:40,610 --> 00:36:44,900
When you do that, you do get
what's called a linear effect.
618
00:36:44,900 --> 00:36:49,539
If pro-social, being happy, healthy
and more helpful is all on this axis,
619
00:36:49,539 --> 00:36:54,210
and religiosity on this one,
we would see as religiosity rises
620
00:36:54,210 --> 00:36:57,339
the more religious you get,
the more happy, helpful
621
00:36:57,339 --> 00:37:00,070
and honest you are as an individual.
622
00:37:00,070 --> 00:37:03,380
But what we're kind of doing is
we're cutting off half of our sample.
623
00:37:03,380 --> 00:37:06,559
The few studies that compare
highly religious people
624
00:37:06,559 --> 00:37:09,570
with the confidently non-religious
actually show
625
00:37:09,570 --> 00:37:11,880
what's called a curvilinear effect
626
00:37:11,880 --> 00:37:14,949
between religiosity and pro-sociality.
627
00:37:14,949 --> 00:37:19,459
To explain what's going on
with this curvilinear effect,
628
00:37:19,460 --> 00:37:23,690
- I should have had noticed, but I didn't -
629
00:37:23,690 --> 00:37:26,900
Essentially what we do, what we've
done is we've expanded our sample.
630
00:37:26,900 --> 00:37:32,340
So before the atheists and agnostics and
humanists were getting lost in this side of
631
00:37:32,340 --> 00:37:34,560
the curve now we brought it out
632
00:37:34,559 --> 00:37:38,690
and we actually see that it's the
less confident, the weekly religious,
633
00:37:38,690 --> 00:37:40,449
the weekly secular in the middle
634
00:37:40,449 --> 00:37:44,539
that tend to have poor
ratings on pro-social measures.
635
00:37:44,539 --> 00:37:48,289
Oh, here's what I was looking for.
Nominal believers,
636
00:37:48,289 --> 00:37:51,529
not atheists, show the highest levels
of depression actually,
637
00:37:51,530 --> 00:37:53,180
the poorest mental health
638
00:37:53,180 --> 00:37:56,309
and they generally report
less satisfaction with life.
639
00:37:56,309 --> 00:38:00,650
And fact is, this is true of the
cross-cultural data on this too.
640
00:38:00,670 --> 00:38:04,659
The world value survey found that both
those who claim religion is very important
641
00:38:04,659 --> 00:38:06,910
and those who claim
that it wasn't important at all,
642
00:38:06,910 --> 00:38:08,720
tended to be the happiest.
643
00:38:08,719 --> 00:38:13,509
So curvilinear effects
are also found in the moral realm,
644
00:38:13,510 --> 00:38:18,620
for example physicians, Doctors
Without Borders and that sort of thing
645
00:38:18,619 --> 00:38:23,309
highest membership is going to be
highly religious and totally atheist.
646
00:38:23,309 --> 00:38:24,880
This is true when
647
00:38:24,880 --> 00:38:29,099
Milgrams famous obedience trials
- if you're familiar with those studies -
648
00:38:29,099 --> 00:38:31,779
where we get to see
just how much will somebody
649
00:38:31,780 --> 00:38:34,546
obey the experimenter.
When those were replicated,
650
00:38:34,546 --> 00:38:37,730
it was the extreme believers
and the extreme non-believers
651
00:38:37,730 --> 00:38:42,170
that were most likely to disobey the
researchers unethical orders.
652
00:38:42,170 --> 00:38:46,779
So actually being highly
religious or highly non-religious
653
00:38:46,779 --> 00:38:50,309
seems to give you a little
bit more moral integrity.
654
00:38:50,309 --> 00:38:54,039
Part of the hypothesis
why this might be is because
655
00:38:54,039 --> 00:38:58,350
these pools of individuals, they're so
certain of their world view
656
00:38:58,350 --> 00:39:03,729
that they're not as kicked around
by the pressure of social conformity as others.
657
00:39:03,729 --> 00:39:06,460
So it appears that confidence in one's worldview
658
00:39:06,460 --> 00:39:09,129
and regular affiliation with like minded people
659
00:39:09,129 --> 00:39:12,630
are far more important to well-being
and moral integrity
660
00:39:12,630 --> 00:39:17,190
than your particular beliefs
about metaphysics. Sorry guys,
661
00:39:17,190 --> 00:39:22,050
even some non-believers are sad to hear
that sometimes, they want to believe that
662
00:39:22,050 --> 00:39:24,990
believing the right thing, having the
right grasp on reality
663
00:39:24,990 --> 00:39:27,420
will make you a better person
664
00:39:27,420 --> 00:39:31,960
and it doesn't seem that metaphysical
beliefs are all that important.
665
00:39:31,960 --> 00:39:37,290
But sadly studies are not designed to
notice curvilinear effects a lot of times
666
00:39:37,290 --> 00:39:41,889
And when they aren't, they can give
the impression that atheists are in danger
667
00:39:41,889 --> 00:39:44,375
of poor physical or mental health
668
00:39:44,375 --> 00:39:50,170
and this is exactly what we see with the military's spiritual fitness scale, that they have.
669
00:39:50,170 --> 00:39:52,750
I don't know if anybody has
ever heard of that?
670
00:39:52,750 --> 00:39:56,540
The US military has a spiritual fitness
dimension in their instrument
671
00:39:56,540 --> 00:40:00,100
that they use to assess
a soldier's wellness and mental health.
672
00:40:00,100 --> 00:40:03,890
And they conclude that soldiers
have the greatest resiliency
673
00:40:03,890 --> 00:40:06,348
when they are spiritual,
when they are religious
674
00:40:06,349 --> 00:40:11,070
and this has prompted
some superior officers
675
00:40:11,070 --> 00:40:14,170
to go find their underlings
who are non-religious
676
00:40:14,170 --> 00:40:18,559
and to pressure them into prayer meetings
and other religious services, right,
677
00:40:18,559 --> 00:40:22,060
because it's bad for their health.
They might be in a suicide risk.
678
00:40:22,060 --> 00:40:29,110
However though an examination of the
actual question items on the spirituality scale
679
00:40:29,110 --> 00:40:31,948
shows a major flaw in the way
these concepts are measured.
680
00:40:31,948 --> 00:40:36,699
And it's going to be my last major point
about how this research is conducted.
681
00:40:36,699 --> 00:40:39,173
"Criterion contamination"
682
00:40:39,173 --> 00:40:42,180
this is where the pro-sociality literature
683
00:40:42,180 --> 00:40:46,119
defines spirituality in a way
that kind of begs the question.
684
00:40:46,119 --> 00:40:50,650
So for example, usually when we
make a prediction
685
00:40:50,650 --> 00:40:55,309
of some sort of criterion, you want the
items used in the prediction
686
00:40:55,309 --> 00:40:58,650
to not contain elements
of what is being predicted.
687
00:40:58,650 --> 00:41:03,278
If you flip the conclusion
and you put it in your premise,
688
00:41:03,278 --> 00:41:05,690
you're arguing in a circle, right?
689
00:41:05,690 --> 00:41:08,439
But yet we see
this happen all the time,
690
00:41:08,439 --> 00:41:10,629
we see the reverse
happening all the time.
691
00:41:10,630 --> 00:41:14,970
For example this right here.
Religiously engaged individuals
692
00:41:14,969 --> 00:41:19,009
have greater social networks,
but religious engagement
693
00:41:19,010 --> 00:41:23,000
was defined by having church social contacts.
694
00:41:23,000 --> 00:41:26,760
So really all this is saying
- I mean it sounds really good, right? -
695
00:41:26,760 --> 00:41:31,130
Doesn't it? Wow? Religious
engagement really benefits us.
696
00:41:31,130 --> 00:41:34,340
All this is saying, is;
"Socially engaged religious people
697
00:41:34,340 --> 00:41:36,318
are socially engaged religious people."
698
00:41:36,318 --> 00:41:41,349
That is all that is said .
Many spirituality scales measure concepts
699
00:41:41,349 --> 00:41:45,649
that do not necessarily refer
to supernatural believes either.
700
00:41:45,650 --> 00:41:49,800
For example, these are all the things
that will get you a high rating as a
701
00:41:49,800 --> 00:41:52,750
spiritual person on these fitness scales.
702
00:41:52,750 --> 00:41:55,960
"I believe there is
a larger meaning to life.
703
00:41:55,960 --> 00:41:59,559
It's important for me
to give something back to my community."
704
00:41:59,559 --> 00:42:03,378
If you answer yes to that,
you're labeled as religious on this scale.
705
00:42:03,378 --> 00:42:06,958
"I believe that humanity
as a whole is basically good."
706
00:42:06,958 --> 00:42:09,629
If you have a positive humanistic outlook,
707
00:42:09,640 --> 00:42:13,920
you might say you're going to score
on that spirituality scale too.
708
00:42:13,940 --> 00:42:18,809
"I'm concerned about those
who will come after me in life."
709
00:42:18,809 --> 00:42:22,929
So numerous studies including this
military spiritual fitness assessment
710
00:42:22,929 --> 00:42:27,318
claims to demonstrate that religiosity is
related to pro-social outcomes,
711
00:42:27,318 --> 00:42:30,780
but they are really
just criterion contamination effects.
712
00:42:30,780 --> 00:42:33,069
Having pro-social traits here
713
00:42:33,069 --> 00:42:35,650
is what defines being religious.
714
00:42:35,650 --> 00:42:38,930
Just begging the question.
And as we know many atheists
715
00:42:38,929 --> 00:42:42,789
with a broader sense of meaning
would score ‘spiritual’ on these same scales.
716
00:42:42,789 --> 00:42:47,440
This artificially inflates the apparent
relationship between religiosity
717
00:42:47,440 --> 00:42:51,019
or spirituality and these positive
pro-social outcomes.
718
00:42:51,019 --> 00:42:54,710
All right.
So, tying it all together.
719
00:42:54,710 --> 00:42:58,849
The question; “Does religion make us
better?” actually doesn't admit
720
00:42:58,849 --> 00:43:02,579
of a simple answer. You've already seen
evidence showing: "yes and no"
721
00:43:02,579 --> 00:43:07,189
or "yes in particular ways and no and other
particular ways".
722
00:43:07,190 --> 00:43:10,470
Unfortunately this stuff just doesn't
work in a sound bite
723
00:43:10,469 --> 00:43:12,489
and we live in a sound-bite culture.
724
00:43:12,489 --> 00:43:14,929
The conclusion one reaches depends
725
00:43:14,929 --> 00:43:19,799
on the measure of religiosity being used;
the way pro-sociality is defined.
726
00:43:19,800 --> 00:43:23,043
We have to be cognizant of a host of
727
00:43:23,043 --> 00:43:25,746
complicating factors if we're going to be accurate.
728
00:43:25,746 --> 00:43:30,509
Really this is like a minefield for a critical thinker.
729
00:43:30,509 --> 00:43:35,529
Even the most experienced critical thinker
is going to run into problems
730
00:43:35,530 --> 00:43:37,870
with how complex this data is.
731
00:43:37,870 --> 00:43:43,329
So we came up with 10 questions for
thinking critically about religious pro-sociality
732
00:43:43,329 --> 00:43:48,698
that will help people in the future
to think more carefully about these studies.
733
00:43:48,698 --> 00:43:53,030
Number 1: has the research controlled
for the possibility that stereotypes
734
00:43:53,030 --> 00:43:58,040
- such as the expectation that
religious individuals will be more pro-social -
735
00:43:58,040 --> 00:44:01,250
have those stereotypes affected
self-reports and ratings?
736
00:44:01,250 --> 00:44:04,699
2: Are the results based on evidence
that have been compromised
737
00:44:04,699 --> 00:44:07,139
by in-group favoritism or bias?
738
00:44:07,139 --> 00:44:10,909
3: When pro-social effects follow
the priming of religious concepts,
739
00:44:10,909 --> 00:44:13,540
will those same effects follow secular prime?
740
00:44:13,540 --> 00:44:16,010
That's a great one
for the priming study.
741
00:44:16,010 --> 00:44:20,460
Number 4: is the study also able
to detect potential negative
742
00:44:20,460 --> 00:44:23,490
as well as positive effects
for religious primes?
743
00:44:23,489 --> 00:44:29,228
5: Is the research based on self-reports
or does it also measures actual behaviors?
744
00:44:29,228 --> 00:44:33,559
If it doesn't measure actual behaviors,
it's worthless.
745
00:44:33,579 --> 00:44:38,339
6: could the context of this study have
an impact on the results? For example,
746
00:44:38,338 --> 00:44:42,670
would this study get the same results in
the United States as opposed to
747
00:44:42,670 --> 00:44:47,990
other nations in Northern Europe that
are predominately non-religious?
748
00:44:47,989 --> 00:44:52,169
7: are the results solely attributable to
religious belief itself
749
00:44:52,170 --> 00:44:54,419
or is there a group affiliation effect
going on?
750
00:44:54,419 --> 00:44:58,410
If church attending believers are compared to non church attenders,
751
00:44:58,410 --> 00:45:01,699
the sources of any differences
might be unclear.
752
00:45:01,699 --> 00:45:05,868
Number 8: does the study conflate non-believe with low religiosity
753
00:45:05,869 --> 00:45:09,480
or do we have a clear measure
of the non-believers?
754
00:45:09,480 --> 00:45:14,029
By the way, for we gonna fulfill number 8
we need more research on secularists.
755
00:45:14,039 --> 00:45:17,818
So we need more researchers willing
to study communities like this
756
00:45:17,818 --> 00:45:20,061
and answer surveys and that sort of things.
757
00:45:20,061 --> 00:45:22,284
If you ever see those things pop up in your inbox.
758
00:45:22,284 --> 00:45:25,509
Please take'm.
You will help us all.
759
00:45:25,510 --> 00:45:28,399
Number 9: do the religious groups
under comparison allow
760
00:45:28,399 --> 00:45:31,039
for an examination of curvilinear effects?
761
00:45:31,039 --> 00:45:33,630
That is, if you're comparing a church group,
762
00:45:33,630 --> 00:45:39,159
you got to compare it with an equal group like this.
763
00:45:39,159 --> 00:45:42,120
Number 10: has religion or spirituality
764
00:45:42,120 --> 00:45:45,818
been defined in a way that
would also include
765
00:45:45,818 --> 00:45:48,949
pro-social behavior
just from the definition?
766
00:45:48,949 --> 00:45:52,849
I think if you watch for those things
you're going to have a leg up
767
00:45:52,849 --> 00:45:58,060
on most other people who are paying attention
to this particular research.
768
00:45:58,060 --> 00:46:01,960
I hope you got something out of that.
I hope that brings a little more clarity
769
00:46:01,960 --> 00:46:04,400
to this often confusing debate
770
00:46:04,400 --> 00:46:09,459
and a last thing I just wont to put
in another plug for my podcast:
771
00:46:09,459 --> 00:46:16,010
if you happen to enjoy what you heart tonight,
found it enlightening at all,
772
00:46:16,010 --> 00:46:19,499
both I and the author of the
the Psych Review, Luke Galen,
773
00:46:19,499 --> 00:46:22,285
we both work
on this podcast "Reasonable Doubts",
774
00:46:22,285 --> 00:46:25,929
you can find it at doubtcast.org.
775
00:46:25,929 --> 00:46:28,362
It is one of the most informationally dense
podcasts you'll find
776
00:46:28,362 --> 00:46:31,425
that still manages to be funny from time to time.
777
00:46:31,425 --> 00:46:33,000
I thank you very much.
778
00:46:33,000 --> 00:46:40,840
(Applause)
779
00:46:41,560 --> 00:46:44,709
To catch up on past Reasonable Doubts episodes
780
00:46:44,709 --> 00:46:46,358
or to email your questions or comments,
781
00:46:46,358 --> 00:46:50,190
check out www.doubtcast.org
782
00:46:50,190 --> 00:46:53,712
Reasonable Doubt is a production
of WPRR Reality Radio.
783
00:46:53,712 --> 00:46:59,029
You can find out more about Reality
Radio at publicrealityradio.org
784
00:46:59,029 --> 00:47:04,008
Reasonable Doubt's theme music is performed
by Love Fossil and used with permission
785
00:47:04,334 --> 00:47:17,961
Subtitled by www.kritischdenken.info