[Script Info]
Title: 
[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
Dialogue: 0,0:00:02.19,0:00:06.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Welcome to Reasonable Doubts,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:06.07,0:00:11.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,your skeptical guide to religion.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:11.38,0:00:27.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(Music)
Dialogue: 0,0:00:27.08,0:00:30.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You're listening to Reasonable Doubts,\Nthe radio show and podcast for those who
Dialogue: 0,0:00:30.71,0:00:32.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,won't just take things on faith.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:32.12,0:00:35.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm Jamie Beahan \Nand for this special episode
Dialogue: 0,0:00:35.12,0:00:38.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of Reasonable Doubts, we're featuring a\Nlecture I gave in February
Dialogue: 0,0:00:38.54,0:00:41.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to the Grand Traverse humanists in\NTraverse City, Michigan.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:41.98,0:00:45.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The lecture was entitled; \N“Does religion make us better?",
Dialogue: 0,0:00:45.48,0:00:49.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a critical review of the religious \Npro-sociality hypothesis.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:49.56,0:00:52.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Longtime listeners will no doubt\Nrecognize many of the studies
Dialogue: 0,0:00:52.98,0:00:54.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,talked about in this lecture.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:54.64,0:00:59.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A previous RD-extra and our episode “The Skeptics Toolkit to Psychology of Religion”
Dialogue: 0,0:00:59.94,0:01:01.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,discussed these findings.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:01.81,0:01:05.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But this lecture is a bit different,\Nmostly in the trivial
Dialogue: 0,0:01:05.26,0:01:09.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and, I'm sure, disappointing fact that I\Nam presenting the findings rather than
Dialogue: 0,0:01:09.44,0:01:11.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,our resident doctor professor Luke Galen.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:11.76,0:01:16.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I think this lecture has some merit\Nin that it finally collects a wide range
Dialogue: 0,0:01:16.32,0:01:20.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of studies, discussed over several years\Non the show, into one convenient place
Dialogue: 0,0:01:20.76,0:01:24.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,hopefully making it easier for fans of\Nthe show to review the information
Dialogue: 0,0:01:24.96,0:01:29.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or share with a friend and please do\Nshare. This is important research and I
Dialogue: 0,0:01:29.87,0:01:33.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,know doctor Galen would agree with me\Nin thinking that it hasn't gotten as
Dialogue: 0,0:01:33.57,0:01:36.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,much attention as it deserves.\NSo you'd be doing us
Dialogue: 0,0:01:36.92,0:01:41.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the cause of skepticism \Na great favor by sharing this lecture
Dialogue: 0,0:01:41.11,0:01:45.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on whatever blogs or social media you\Nfrequent and never underestimate
Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.69,0:01:48.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the power of good old \Nword-of-mouth sharing either.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:48.21,0:01:52.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And please visit doubtcast.org to share \Nany comments or questions or feedback
Dialogue: 0,0:01:52.89,0:01:54.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you may have about the episode.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:54.97,0:01:58.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So be sure to tune in next week for\Nthe Doubtcasters review
Dialogue: 0,0:01:58.85,0:02:02.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the New Christian propaganda film\N“God's not dead”.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:02.74,0:02:07.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Should be a good one. Until then, take\Ncare and keep doubting.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:07.05,0:02:16.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(Music)
Dialogue: 0,0:02:16.52,0:02:19.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(Applause)
Dialogue: 0,0:02:19.10,0:02:21.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Thank you for coming and thank\Nyou for the privilege of
Dialogue: 0,0:02:21.52,0:02:24.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,allowing me to speak to your group. My\Nname is Jeremy Beahan.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:24.87,0:02:29.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I teach World Religions and Introduction\Nto Philosophy along with a handful of
Dialogue: 0,0:02:29.54,0:02:32.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,other subjects \Nat Kendall College of Art and Design.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:32.17,0:02:35.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm also the producer and cohost
Dialogue: 0,0:02:35.30,0:02:38.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the Reasonable Doubt Podcast which
Dialogue: 0,0:02:38.38,0:02:43.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at its peak was the top atheist podcast\Non iTunes for several years,
Dialogue: 0,0:02:43.19,0:02:46.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,won the People's Choice \Npodcasting award
Dialogue: 0,0:02:46.74,0:02:51.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for best religious inspirational podcast\Nwhich was - (Laughing) - different.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:51.69,0:02:54.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,People look at me funny \Nwhen I mention that.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:54.83,0:03:00.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'm speaking tonight on the issue of\N“Does religion make people better?”
Dialogue: 0,0:03:00.07,0:03:02.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and we're approaching\Nthis not so much from a philosophical
Dialogue: 0,0:03:02.21,0:03:05.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,perspective, as you usually \Nhear this question grapple with,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:05.12,0:03:08.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but we're approaching this\Nfrom an empirical standpoint. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:03:08.65,0:03:11.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What can science actually tell us
Dialogue: 0,0:03:11.15,0:03:15.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,about how religion affects morality. \NThe subtitle here's a skeptical review
Dialogue: 0,0:03:15.72,0:03:17.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the religious pro-sociality hypothesis.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:17.93,0:03:21.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, that might take some explanation.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:21.16,0:03:24.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You might guess from that subtitle that\Nthis is going to be a bit have been
Dialogue: 0,0:03:24.17,0:03:26.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,informationally dense talk tonight.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:26.92,0:03:29.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I don't have to tell you \Nthat in our culture\N
Dialogue: 0,0:03:29.48,0:03:32.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,there's an overwhelming assumption \Namong the general public
Dialogue: 0,0:03:32.74,0:03:36.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that being religious is necessary \Nto be a happy and ethical person.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:36.76,0:03:40.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We have plenty of preachers\Nand pundits and ordinary people
Dialogue: 0,0:03:40.07,0:03:44.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reminding us daily that without God\Nsociety will quickly de-evolve
Dialogue: 0,0:03:44.49,0:03:49.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into wickedness and anarchy. \NWhat you may not be familiar with
Dialogue: 0,0:03:49.24,0:03:53.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as much however is the growing body \Nof social psychology research
Dialogue: 0,0:03:53.24,0:03:56.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that at first glance actually \Nseems to support this notion.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:56.83,0:04:01.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The more technical term for the\Nhypothesis that religion makes us good
Dialogue: 0,0:04:01.52,0:04:05.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is known as the religious \Npro-sociality hypothesis.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:05.32,0:04:09.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,My task tonight is to present you with\Nan overview of this research
Dialogue: 0,0:04:09.26,0:04:13.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and to acquit you with the tools\Nnecessary to think critically about it.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:13.70,0:04:18.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Because as we're about to see the\Nreligious pro-sociality hypothesis
Dialogue: 0,0:04:18.01,0:04:19.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,really does indeed \Nhave some support.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:19.62,0:04:24.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But when we look at the evidence\Nmore closely, we're going to
Dialogue: 0,0:04:24.03,0:04:26.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,discover little devils\Nwithin the details.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:26.92,0:04:30.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But first I have to\Ngive you a quick disclaimer:
Dialogue: 0,0:04:30.22,0:04:32.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't get any credit or blame
Dialogue: 0,0:04:32.64,0:04:36.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for what I'm about to say this evening.\NThis is not my research
Dialogue: 0,0:04:36.66,0:04:39.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that I'm reporting on, this is actually\Ndoctor Luke Galen's research.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:39.93,0:04:44.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He is a professor of psychology of religion
Dialogue: 0,0:04:44.04,0:04:46.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at Grand Valley State University and
Dialogue: 0,0:04:46.34,0:04:51.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,almost all what I'm going to be drawing \Nfrom tonight comes from his paper
Dialogue: 0,0:04:51.36,0:04:55.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in the Psychological Bulletin of\Nthe American Psychological Association
Dialogue: 0,0:04:55.83,0:05:01.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,called: {\i1}“Does religious belief promote \Npro-sociality, a critical examination”{\i0}.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.28,0:05:04.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How did I get involved in this topic?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:04.31,0:05:06.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He put me in charge of
Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.55,0:05:09.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,writing up a summary of his research,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:09.62,0:05:13.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,kind of distilling pages \Nupon pages and pages of review
Dialogue: 0,0:05:13.86,0:05:17.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,into something coherent \Nthat the average consumer
Dialogue: 0,0:05:17.64,0:05:22.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,could actually understand. \NSo that was my task writing up
Dialogue: 0,0:05:22.02,0:05:25.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,his review and free inquiry,\Nsince Luke Galen
Dialogue: 0,0:05:25.47,0:05:28.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,doesn't like their leave the house \Ntoo often or interact
Dialogue: 0,0:05:28.61,0:05:32.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with ordinary human beings.\N(Laughing)
Dialogue: 0,0:05:32.13,0:05:34.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He kind of appointed me \Nto be his spokesman.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:34.24,0:05:37.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,He jokingly refers to me \Nas Galen's Bulldog.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:37.16,0:05:40.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I guess I'm Thomas Henry Huxley\Nto his Darwin.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:40.75,0:05:45.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I've been glad to have \Nthe opportunity to do interviews
Dialogue: 0,0:05:45.10,0:05:49.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and talk to groups like this\Nabout this research because I think it
Dialogue: 0,0:05:49.39,0:05:50.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,needs to get out there.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:50.98,0:05:53.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,All right, \Nbefore we go any further
Dialogue: 0,0:05:53.62,0:05:56.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,let us define \Nwhat we mean by pro-sociality.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:56.69,0:06:01.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I hate that word already. \NI am barely into this lecture
Dialogue: 0,0:06:01.50,0:06:05.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and tired of saying it,
Dialogue: 0,0:06:05.24,0:06:09.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the term pro-social refers \Nto any kind of positive social behavior
Dialogue: 0,0:06:09.92,0:06:15.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this runs the gamut from generosity\Nin the form a charitable giving
Dialogue: 0,0:06:15.13,0:06:19.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or time spent volunteering to personal\Nqualities perhaps
Dialogue: 0,0:06:19.51,0:06:21.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,such as positive personality traits:
Dialogue: 0,0:06:21.88,0:06:26.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,being helpful, being honest and there's\Nactually an impressive array of
Dialogue: 0,0:06:26.55,0:06:30.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,scientific studies that support this\Nhypothesis, that try to show
Dialogue: 0,0:06:30.68,0:06:35.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the religious exhibit greater \Npro-sociality than the non-religious.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:35.93,0:06:39.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In effect this has even become the subject\Nof a number a popular books.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:39.92,0:06:42.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One you may have heard of
Dialogue: 0,0:06:42.12,0:06:45.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is {\i1}“A Friendly Letter to Skeptics \Nand Atheists”{\i0} by David Myers
Dialogue: 0,0:06:45.89,0:06:50.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or more recently {\i1}“American Grace, How\NReligion Divides and Unites Us”{\i0}.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:50.69,0:06:54.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So the general public is being told \Nthat the data are in
Dialogue: 0,0:06:54.46,0:06:59.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and religion makes you happy, happier, \Nhealthier and more helpful.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:59.36,0:07:05.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That this is a conclusion that is not \Njust philosophy or religion. It's science.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:05.09,0:07:07.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In fact even some atheists \Nare getting in on this.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:07.54,0:07:10.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A seemingly overwhelming case \Nfor the pro-social effects
Dialogue: 0,0:07:10.98,0:07:15.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of religion has been enough to\Nconvince people here like Jessie Bering,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:15.48,0:07:19.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an atheist psychologist and actually a\Npretty good author.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:19.64,0:07:24.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Enough to convince him that religion\Nis beneficial, at least for others.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:24.73,0:07:28.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In a recent Slate article \Nentitled *“Don't trust the godless”(,
Dialogue: 0,0:07:28.94,0:07:33.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Jesse Bering confessed; "Even as an\Natheist, I have more confidence
Dialogue: 0,0:07:33.43,0:07:37.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in religious people \Nand now science is backing me up.”
Dialogue: 0,0:07:37.08,0:07:40.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,A fuller quote is up here; "This is a\Ndifficult confession to make
Dialogue: 0,0:07:40.72,0:07:45.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because on the surface I'm sure \Nit sounds wildly, wildly hypocritical.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:45.88,0:07:50.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Still here it goes; "I trust religious people \Nmore than I trust atheists."
Dialogue: 0,0:07:50.85,0:07:53.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Trustworthiness is a different thing\Naltogether from intellect
Dialogue: 0,0:07:53.31,0:07:56.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I suppose\NI'm the ever so social pragmatist
Dialogue: 0,0:07:56.68,0:07:58.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in my dealings with other people."
Dialogue: 0,0:07:58.22,0:08:02.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So pretty serious claim, \Nif you get even atheist psychologists
Dialogue: 0,0:08:02.71,0:08:04.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,saying; "Don't trust the godless".
Dialogue: 0,0:08:04.93,0:08:07.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Before we go any further though
Dialogue: 0,0:08:07.12,0:08:09.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we're going to have to look at \Nwhat are the kind of methods
Dialogue: 0,0:08:09.38,0:08:12.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that are used in pro-sociality research.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.53,0:08:15.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We're going to see a variety of different
Dialogue: 0,0:08:15.68,0:08:19.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,experimental setups and methods \Nfor conducting this kind of research.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:19.24,0:08:23.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This would include self-reports,\Nwhat people say about themselves and
Dialogue: 0,0:08:23.24,0:08:28.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,third-party ratings of individuals, \Nlaboratory tests of behavior,
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.33,0:08:32.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,lab studies of economic games \N– we’ll talk about those more later -
Dialogue: 0,0:08:32.24,0:08:34.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,priming studies, where people are presented
Dialogue: 0,0:08:34.30,0:08:37.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with the religious concept subconsciously
Dialogue: 0,0:08:37.04,0:08:40.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,- usually where they will not realize\Nthey've been primed by the concept
Dialogue: 0,0:08:40.89,0:08:44.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and then we'll see what happens - \Nand also spirituality scales.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:44.82,0:08:49.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Scales are meant to design, to detect\Nthe level of one's spirituality
Dialogue: 0,0:08:49.42,0:08:51.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and then we compare their behaviors on that.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:51.80,0:08:53.94,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What I'm going to try to highlight
Dialogue: 0,0:08:53.94,0:08:56.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is some other pitfalls \Nthat researchers face
Dialogue: 0,0:08:56.56,0:08:59.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in each of these types \Nof research methods.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:00.36,0:09:03.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Let's start with the top report data;
Dialogue: 0,0:09:03.24,0:09:05.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Will being religious \Nmake you a better person?"
Dialogue: 0,0:09:05.53,0:09:08.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, the fateful \Ncertainly seem to think so.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:08.38,0:09:11.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When asked to give an assessment of\Ntheir own character and values,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:11.76,0:09:13.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,religious individuals \Ntend to report being...
Dialogue: 0,0:09:13.99,0:09:18.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,having a more grateful disposition;\Nthey rate themselves as more helpful;
Dialogue: 0,0:09:18.37,0:09:22.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they claim to value forgiveness \Nmore highly than the non-religious;
Dialogue: 0,0:09:22.14,0:09:26.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And many studies actually take \Nthese self-reports at face value.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:26.42,0:09:29.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The fact that believers\Nthink they're more moral
Dialogue: 0,0:09:29.28,0:09:32.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is actually taken as evidence \Nthat they do exhibit
Dialogue: 0,0:09:32.70,0:09:38.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these pro-social traits. Big question is:\N"Should we take believers at their word?
Dialogue: 0,0:09:38.39,0:09:42.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,No. Not if their evaluations \Nare based on a self-serving bias
Dialogue: 0,0:09:42.23,0:09:46.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,rather than a realistic assessment\Nof their own character.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:46.36,0:09:51.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Self-report data tend to be\Nunreliable by its very nature.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:51.40,0:09:56.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,People are prone to forming positive\Nillusions about themselves. We all do it.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:56.29,0:10:00.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We tend to inflate our responses on\Nquestionnaires as a result \N\N
Dialogue: 0,0:10:00.30,0:10:02.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to make ourselves look better.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:02.70,0:10:06.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sometimes this is just concern \Nover our own personal self-image.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:06.18,0:10:08.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Social psychologists call this \Nself-enhancement.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:08.90,0:10:12.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Or sometimes we want to make \Na good impression with others
Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.04,0:10:15.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or good impression for our group in particular.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:15.23,0:10:18.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is sometimes referred\Nto as impression management.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:18.19,0:10:21.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,While this is a widespread tendency\N
Dialogue: 0,0:10:21.07,0:10:24.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and it's by no means restricted \Njust to the religious.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:24.58,0:10:27.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What's interesting is, this tendency\Nmight be more pronounced
Dialogue: 0,0:10:27.95,0:10:31.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in those who have \Na strong level of religious belief.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:31.23,0:10:35.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Highly religious people tend to view\Nthemselves as better than others, generally.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:35.71,0:10:39.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even better than \Nother religious individuals.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:39.43,0:10:43.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And they also evaluate themselves more\Nhighly than non-religious individuals
Dialogue: 0,0:10:43.60,0:10:46.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on attributes that have absolutely \Nnothing to do with religion.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:46.51,0:10:49.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So for example they might \Nscore themselves higher
Dialogue: 0,0:10:49.87,0:10:53.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on measures of intelligence \Nor being a good worker.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:53.61,0:10:59.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Things that do not seem immediately\Nrelated to their religious morality.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:59.09,0:11:02.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Those high in intrinsic religiosity\Nactually have been shown to have
Dialogue: 0,0:11:02.65,0:11:05.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a higher degree of self-enhancement\Nand impression management.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:05.92,0:11:11.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Just one example: if you prime a\NChristian with self-esteem primes,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:11.59,0:11:16.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you'll see them actually rating themselves \Nas living up to Christian principles
Dialogue: 0,0:11:16.77,0:11:21.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more often than their fellow believers.\NIf however you do the reverse
Dialogue: 0,0:11:21.26,0:11:25.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and you offer up an assessment that\Nquestions their high self-esteem
Dialogue: 0,0:11:25.41,0:11:29.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or make them write about something \Nthat they don't like about themselves,
Dialogue: 0,0:11:29.23,0:11:31.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,those who are high \Nin intrinsic religiosity
Dialogue: 0,0:11:31.57,0:11:36.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,- that means the level of belief -\Nthey are more likely
Dialogue: 0,0:11:36.33,0:11:39.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to resort to self-deception \Nas a compensating strategy.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:39.88,0:11:42.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Also highly religious people \Nare particularly
Dialogue: 0,0:11:42.92,0:11:47.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,concerned with presenting themselves \Nas moral persons
Dialogue: 0,0:11:47.21,0:11:50.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and particularly threatened \Nwhen that self-image is challenged.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:50.06,0:11:53.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, I guess the big question is;\N"Why do researchers even rely
Dialogue: 0,0:11:53.51,0:11:58.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on these self-reports some of the time?" \NWell, because at least in some cases
Dialogue: 0,0:11:58.24,0:12:01.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these positive self-assessments are actually corroborated by others: \N
Dialogue: 0,0:12:01.74,0:12:05.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,their family, their colleagues, their peers.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:05.03,0:12:08.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, third-party evaluators\Nrate religious individuals
Dialogue: 0,0:12:08.43,0:12:10.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as being nicer, more cooperative \Nand highly altruistic
Dialogue: 0,0:12:10.83,0:12:15.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and empathetic as well. \NTo some this is proof
Dialogue: 0,0:12:15.30,0:12:20.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the self-reports are not\Nself-delusion, they're not moral hypocrisy.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:20.03,0:12:23.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They are correct assessments \Nof their character.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:23.21,0:12:26.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I think we can still \Nbe a little skeptical here.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:26.81,0:12:29.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When we're talking \Nabout a predominantly religious society,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:29.70,0:12:32.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where about 80 to 95%\Nof people are religious
Dialogue: 0,0:12:32.50,0:12:35.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and around 75% are at least\Nnominally Christian,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:35.98,0:12:39.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it's a good bet that a significant\Nproportion of those subjects, families
Dialogue: 0,0:12:39.60,0:12:41.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and peers are also religious,
Dialogue: 0,0:12:41.63,0:12:44.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,meaning there's a possibility \Nof in-group bias at work here.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:44.66,0:12:48.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And actually there is some evidence \Nto support that.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:48.36,0:12:52.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In-group favoritism is a well-studied\Nphenomenon in social psychology.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:52.53,0:12:56.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Again, this is not just religious\Npeople here, this is all of us.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:56.54,0:13:00.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It is natural for individuals to\Nderive self-esteem from the groups
Dialogue: 0,0:13:00.33,0:13:01.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they’re associated with.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:01.84,0:13:05.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's natural to provide \Na positive image to the public
Dialogue: 0,0:13:05.07,0:13:08.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for those who share their identity. \NSo, consistent with the predictions
Dialogue: 0,0:13:08.92,0:13:10.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of social identity theory,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:10.77,0:13:15.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we see believers tend to show more\Nfavoritism towards other individuals
Dialogue: 0,0:13:15.20,0:13:17.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and speak more poorly of non-religious
Dialogue: 0,0:13:17.36,0:13:21.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this even includes\Nthose from different religious groups.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:21.28,0:13:24.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Often the favoritism \N- and here's the key point here -
Dialogue: 0,0:13:24.87,0:13:28.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,often the favoritism is extended \Nto other religious individuals,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:28.32,0:13:30.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,regardless of whether or not \Nthey behaved well or poorly,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:30.99,0:13:34.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are still be reviewed more favorably,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:34.70,0:13:38.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even when they've been up to no good.\NI'll give you an example here
Dialogue: 0,0:13:38.22,0:13:43.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of when sometimes believers will rate\Nreligious individuals more highly
Dialogue: 0,0:13:43.17,0:13:47.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than non-religious individuals, even when\Nthey exhibit the exact same behaviors.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:47.70,0:13:52.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I was a part of this study \Nwhich was published in 2011.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:52.09,0:13:56.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I was a participant and so in front of a\Ncamera I wore two different T-shirts,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:56.16,0:13:59.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I wore three actually: \Njust a plain white T-shirt
Dialogue: 0,0:13:59.41,0:14:03.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then in the other condition \NI wore a Jesus fish T-shirt
Dialogue: 0,0:14:03.25,0:14:06.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and then third condition \NI wore a Darwin fish T-shirt.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:06.71,0:14:10.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And then I read \Nthe exact same script each time
Dialogue: 0,0:14:10.66,0:14:14.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which was I was presenting myself \Nas a college student
Dialogue: 0,0:14:14.14,0:14:18.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who was using my spring break to help \Nin disaster relief organization
Dialogue: 0,0:14:18.82,0:14:20.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and talking\Nabout my positive experiences.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.77,0:14:24.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,No mention of religion or anything else.\NWhat we found in this study
Dialogue: 0,0:14:24.44,0:14:28.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was that people rated me\Nas more likable,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:28.24,0:14:31.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,more intelligent, more trustworthy \Nand more kind,
Dialogue: 0,0:14:31.75,0:14:34.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and more moral overall
Dialogue: 0,0:14:34.75,0:14:39.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when I was wearing the Jesus fish. \NSo exact same behaviors but a subtle cue
Dialogue: 0,0:14:39.48,0:14:44.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that I might be religious makes \Npeople evaluate my behavior better.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:44.16,0:14:47.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Most studies that rely on peer-rated\Nratings do not adequately control
Dialogue: 0,0:14:47.42,0:14:52.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for this tendency for in-group bias \Nand that's the problem.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:52.82,0:14:56.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Ideally researchers would ensure \Nthat participants are completely unaware
Dialogue: 0,0:14:56.78,0:14:59.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the religious identity \Nof those they're rating.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:59.29,0:15:02.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Then we have more reason to trust\Ntheir evaluations as accurate,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:02.97,0:15:06.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but this sadly is rarely the case.\NHowever in studies
Dialogue: 0,0:15:06.72,0:15:09.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that do, and most studies\Nwhere the raters
Dialogue: 0,0:15:09.87,0:15:13.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are actually aware of their targets\Nreligious identities
Dialogue: 0,0:15:13.51,0:15:15.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a clear bias emerges \Nand that suggests
Dialogue: 0,0:15:15.87,0:15:18.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an in-group bias \Nwhen the people know they're religious,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:18.97,0:15:23.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they rate them more positively. \NThere is an interesting twist to all of this:
Dialogue: 0,0:15:23.36,0:15:27.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,non-religious individuals do not appear\Nto rate their fellow non-believers
Dialogue: 0,0:15:27.91,0:15:31.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as any more pro-social than they do the\Nreligious. For some reason this
Dialogue: 0,0:15:31.92,0:15:37.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in-group bias doesn't seem to be affecting \Nthe non-religious to the same degree.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:37.05,0:15:40.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Now should the fact \Nthat non-religious people also rate
Dialogue: 0,0:15:40.81,0:15:45.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the religious highly, indicate that\Nthese judgments are based on a clear
Dialogue: 0,0:15:45.14,0:15:48.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,added assessment of their character? \NAre atheists really going to have
Dialogue: 0,0:15:48.66,0:15:53.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a pro-religious bias? Actually it's quite\Npossible that they would
Dialogue: 0,0:15:53.05,0:15:56.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if their judgments have been swayed \Nby a strong religious,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:56.93,0:15:58.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pro-religious cultural stereotype.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:58.46,0:16:01.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And again, there is evidence to suggest\Nthat's the case.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:01.95,0:16:05.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Here's more evidence \Nfor a pro-religious stereotype,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:05.03,0:16:08.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that we can find by looking at\Nsimilar studies that are conducted
Dialogue: 0,0:16:08.56,0:16:10.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in different cultures than our own.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:10.85,0:16:15.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For example some report that happiness,\Nlife satisfaction
Dialogue: 0,0:16:15.20,0:16:17.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and personality measures \Nlike agreeableness
Dialogue: 0,0:16:17.02,0:16:20.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are more closely associated \Nwith religion in the United States
Dialogue: 0,0:16:20.54,0:16:25.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than in the United Kingdom or Northern\NEurope where religion is less dominant.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:25.07,0:16:28.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To give you one specific example: \Nthis particular study here
Dialogue: 0,0:16:28.75,0:16:34.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,asks people to rate their impressions \Nof people just from looking at photographs
Dialogue: 0,0:16:34.79,0:16:36.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of faces and smiling faces were judged \N
Dialogue: 0,0:16:36.73,0:16:40.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to be more religious \Nthan non smiling faces.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:40.63,0:16:44.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That was in the United States. \NIn the United Kingdom
Dialogue: 0,0:16:44.35,0:16:47.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the exact opposite was true and
Dialogue: 0,0:16:47.07,0:16:50.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tends to be a general relationship
Dialogue: 0,0:16:50.89,0:16:54.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between religion and self-control, \Nmental well-being,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:54.04,0:16:57.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,psychological adjustment, \Nsocial support.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:57.10,0:17:00.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In general in societies where the\Nnon-religious are the majority
Dialogue: 0,0:17:00.87,0:17:04.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the non-religious are rated more favorably
Dialogue: 0,0:17:04.59,0:17:08.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on all those particular measures. \NSo, again evidence that there
Dialogue: 0,0:17:08.85,0:17:10.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is a cultural bias at work here.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:10.81,0:17:13.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think by now it should be clear that\Nself-report data doesn't provide
Dialogue: 0,0:17:13.60,0:17:17.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reliable evidence for the religious\Npro-social reality hypothesis.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:17.97,0:17:21.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Self-evaluations on religious subjects\Nare vulnerable to self-enhancement,
Dialogue: 0,0:17:21.92,0:17:26.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,impression management, distortions and\Nothers and they are contaminated
Dialogue: 0,0:17:26.35,0:17:30.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,quite possibly by a widely-held\Npro-religious cultural stereotype.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:30.64,0:17:34.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It might be better \Ninstead of trusting self-reports
Dialogue: 0,0:17:34.89,0:17:38.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to look at experimentally \Ncontrolled measures of behavior
Dialogue: 0,0:17:38.72,0:17:43.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or, if you prefer the way Jesus might say\Nit, we should judge believers
Dialogue: 0,0:17:43.20,0:17:46.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by their fruit not by their words. \NLet's look at
Dialogue: 0,0:17:46.81,0:17:50.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what their actual deeds tell us. \NWell, for one religious individuals
Dialogue: 0,0:17:50.33,0:17:53.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,claim to value forgiveness \Nmore than others
Dialogue: 0,0:17:53.65,0:17:57.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but actually any effect of their religiosity\Non actual forgiveness
Dialogue: 0,0:17:57.43,0:18:01.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,has been found to be negligible.\NThis is just one study
Dialogue: 0,0:18:01.60,0:18:06.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that shows that the comparison \Nof self-reports with controlled experiments
Dialogue: 0,0:18:06.05,0:18:09.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on behavior reveal how often believers
Dialogue: 0,0:18:09.27,0:18:11.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,fail to live up to their high opinion \Nof themselves. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:18:11.92,0:18:17.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Those in high in intrinsic religiosity again\N- this is a measure of belief -\N
Dialogue: 0,0:18:17.02,0:18:19.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,reported a more grateful disposition \Nbut don't do not perform
Dialogue: 0,0:18:19.71,0:18:21.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,better than anyone else in studies
Dialogue: 0,0:18:21.92,0:18:25.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,measuring reciprocal behavioral\Ngratitude: "Will they give back?"
Dialogue: 0,0:18:25.38,0:18:29.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,High intrinsic religiosity doesn't seem\Nto reduce aggression
Dialogue: 0,0:18:29.46,0:18:32.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,here is the scary detail: \Nit tends to make people think
Dialogue: 0,0:18:32.70,0:18:34.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they're less aggressive \Nthan they really are.\N
Dialogue: 0,0:18:34.87,0:18:38.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Fundamentalists in particular report
Dialogue: 0,0:18:38.24,0:18:41.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,higher levels of altruism \Ntowards everybody
Dialogue: 0,0:18:41.01,0:18:44.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but in reality they are \Nmore willing to help friends
Dialogue: 0,0:18:44.60,0:18:48.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or like-minded individuals. \NThey're not as likely to help strangers
Dialogue: 0,0:18:48.28,0:18:51.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or what is sometimes called \N'value violators',
Dialogue: 0,0:18:51.52,0:18:54.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,perhaps like a homosexual or\Nsomething like that,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:54.71,0:18:59.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that is clearly on the wrong side \Nof the divide on some culture war issue.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:59.00,0:19:02.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We have to remember again \Nthat everyone tends
Dialogue: 0,0:19:02.37,0:19:05.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to overestimate \Nhow moral they actually are.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:05.39,0:19:09.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, this is really common to find a gap\Nbetween how individuals predict
Dialogue: 0,0:19:09.56,0:19:11.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they'll behave \Nand how they actually behave.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:11.72,0:19:14.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If we were to take everybody in this\Nroom we would probably
Dialogue: 0,0:19:14.50,0:19:16.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,see the exact same phenomena.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:16.51,0:19:20.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We are no different. \NIt's just that the fact
Dialogue: 0,0:19:20.19,0:19:23.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seems to be more pronounced \Nin religious populations.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:23.37,0:19:28.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,As we said before, highly religious do\Nshow a greater tendency
Dialogue: 0,0:19:28.28,0:19:32.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,towards self-enhancement \Non questionnaires and this disjunction
Dialogue: 0,0:19:32.02,0:19:34.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between self-reported measured behavior
Dialogue: 0,0:19:34.20,0:19:38.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is actually wider in the religious \Nthan in the rest of the population.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:38.02,0:19:40.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In fact the greatest gap \Nwe can see
Dialogue: 0,0:19:40.75,0:19:44.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between altruistic beliefs and\Naltruistic behaviors
Dialogue: 0,0:19:44.65,0:19:47.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is actually found \Nin those who rate religion
Dialogue: 0,0:19:47.63,0:19:49.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as more important to them personally.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:49.80,0:19:53.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What's funny is that sometimes \Nthe experimental evidence
Dialogue: 0,0:19:53.78,0:19:57.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is so contrary \Nto our stereotypes about religion
Dialogue: 0,0:19:57.73,0:20:01.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that some researchers \Nput a spin on this conclusion.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:01.40,0:20:05.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,What they're publishing\Nis showing no positive effect for religion
Dialogue: 0,0:20:05.95,0:20:09.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but their abstracts or the way \Nthey interpret the data
Dialogue: 0,0:20:09.17,0:20:13.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,speaks in glowing terms. For example\Nthis particular study here.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:13.23,0:20:16.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,McCullough & Worthington in 1999 said that
Dialogue: 0,0:20:16.92,0:20:20.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Even if religious people \Nare no more facile
Dialogue: 0,0:20:20.83,0:20:24.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at forgiving in real life situations\Nthan are less religious people,
Dialogue: 0,0:20:24.87,0:20:29.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they do you desire to be forgiving and\Ngo on about how great it is that they
Dialogue: 0,0:20:29.70,0:20:32.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,want to be good forgiving people."
Dialogue: 0,0:20:32.37,0:20:36.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'd like to argue to you that praising\Nthe leaders for their moral intentions
Dialogue: 0,0:20:36.22,0:20:37.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,kind of misses the point.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:37.95,0:20:41.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's not that we just desire to be\Nbetter - and that's good -
Dialogue: 0,0:20:41.39,0:20:44.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in some cases they already \Nthink they're superior.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:44.69,0:20:49.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And there are major dangers in having an unrealistic assessment
Dialogue: 0,0:20:49.36,0:20:51.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of one's own character and limits
Dialogue: 0,0:20:51.05,0:20:54.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Let's move on to a different type of study:
Dialogue: 0,0:20:54.41,0:20:58.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,religious priming studies. \NAlthough religious individuals do not seem
Dialogue: 0,0:20:58.34,0:21:00.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to behave as morally as they report,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:00.36,0:21:03.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it would still be very odd. \NI personally would find it strange
Dialogue: 0,0:21:03.60,0:21:07.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if religion didn't have some impact \Non moral behavior.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:07.09,0:21:11.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,After all, scriptures and sermons abound\Nwith exhortations to love thy neighbor,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:11.44,0:21:14.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to do unto others \Nas you would have them do onto you
Dialogue: 0,0:21:14.82,0:21:17.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and I think frequent exposure \Nto these messages
Dialogue: 0,0:21:17.83,0:21:20.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would result in pro-social behaviors.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:20.12,0:21:24.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So priming studies are a useful way \Nof seeving this out.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:24.24,0:21:28.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Again participants are primed somehow.\NMaybe they have to unscramble
Dialogue: 0,0:21:28.42,0:21:30.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a word bank \Nand it has religious words in it.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:30.36,0:21:32.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Or perhaps they have to read
Dialogue: 0,0:21:32.21,0:21:35.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a portion of Scripture \Nand write a response to it.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:35.26,0:21:38.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Sometimes it can be really subtle:\Nsymbols in the room,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:38.41,0:21:40.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a crucifix in the room,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:40.04,0:21:44.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,jewelry or clothing. \NSometimes it's just the context.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:44.28,0:21:48.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Conducting the experiment in a\Nchurch instead of,
Dialogue: 0,0:21:48.25,0:21:51.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,say, a high school gymnasium \Nor something like that.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:51.44,0:21:55.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well the good news of priming studies \Nis that this is the best evidence
Dialogue: 0,0:21:55.21,0:21:58.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we can find for the religious \Npro-sociality hypothesis.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:58.54,0:22:00.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There's a lot of data supporting it.\N
Dialogue: 0,0:22:00.61,0:22:01.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There are good studies
Dialogue: 0,0:22:01.96,0:22:04.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,showing greater honesty and generosity
Dialogue: 0,0:22:04.76,0:22:07.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,amongst the religious, \Nincreased sharing,
Dialogue: 0,0:22:07.82,0:22:11.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,increased cooperation, \Nbetter self-control in distressing situations
Dialogue: 0,0:22:11.00,0:22:15.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and greater resistance to temptation.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:15.67,0:22:20.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So why are religious concepts so good at\Npriming these kinds of behavior?
Dialogue: 0,0:22:20.10,0:22:22.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Several studies cited a possible\Nmechanism here.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:22.72,0:22:25.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,'Supernatural surveillance' they called it.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:25.28,0:22:29.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The belief that one's actions \Nare constantly and inescapably
Dialogue: 0,0:22:29.25,0:22:31.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,being observed by a divine being.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:31.55,0:22:34.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Thinking that this is a strong\Nreminder to us
Dialogue: 0,0:22:34.56,0:22:37.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to be aware of our actions \Nand perhaps that's why
Dialogue: 0,0:22:37.83,0:22:41.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,religious concepts prime \Nthese pro-social behaviors.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:41.73,0:22:44.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,God might be watching after all.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:44.100,0:22:46.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But I wont to share \Nsome curious details
Dialogue: 0,0:22:46.86,0:22:50.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that aren't as often shared \Nin these priming studies.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:50.85,0:22:54.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Neutral religious works \Nlike Bible, the Cycle ????
Dialogue: 0,0:22:54.14,0:22:58.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or Chapel don't seem to promote \Nany helping behavior.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:58.05,0:23:01.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It seems to be only positive words \Nlike heaven, miracle or bless
Dialogue: 0,0:23:01.26,0:23:05.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that have that effect on people.\NEven more interesting
Dialogue: 0,0:23:05.02,0:23:08.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the positive effects \Ndon't seem to be dependent
Dialogue: 0,0:23:08.02,0:23:12.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on the participants level of religiosity.\NYou can be just kind of religious
Dialogue: 0,0:23:12.14,0:23:14.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or you could be a hardcore fundamentalist\N
Dialogue: 0,0:23:14.05,0:23:17.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the priming affects you the same way.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:17.28,0:23:21.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Also, non-religious people respond\Npositively to religious primes
Dialogue: 0,0:23:21.75,0:23:24.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and to the exact same degree \Nas their religious counterparts.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:24.76,0:23:30.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you were to look at all those symbols, \Nyou would act more morally too.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:30.84,0:23:34.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even more interesting: \Npriming secular concepts, like civil
Dialogue: 0,0:23:34.37,0:23:37.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or court, seem to have \Nthe same power to promote
Dialogue: 0,0:23:37.70,0:23:41.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,honesty or lower hypocrisy \Nas religious primes do.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:41.60,0:23:44.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And religious destructive atheists:
Dialogue: 0,0:23:44.85,0:23:48.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the distrust they have for us \Ngoes down
Dialogue: 0,0:23:48.47,0:23:52.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when the religious are primed \Nwith concepts of secular authority.
Dialogue: 0,0:23:52.18,0:23:55.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's really interesting. \NWhy would that possibly be?
Dialogue: 0,0:23:55.41,0:24:00.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Well, one idea, not exactly sure, \Nbut one idea is that the leaders know
Dialogue: 0,0:24:00.01,0:24:03.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that atheists do not live their lives \Nas if God is watching them.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:03.68,0:24:06.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So without the supernatural monitoring\Nthey may wonder
Dialogue: 0,0:24:06.24,0:24:09.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what reason we have \Nfor behaving well.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:09.58,0:24:14.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But this distrust can be ameliorated\Nwhen we are reminded
Dialogue: 0,0:24:14.20,0:24:16.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that morality can be\Nmonitored in different ways.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:16.87,0:24:18.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So these kind of pacific primes\Nremind everybody;
Dialogue: 0,0:24:18.93,0:24:22.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Oh wait, there is a social order,\Nthere is something keeping these
Dialogue: 0,0:24:22.65,0:24:27.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,evil atheists in check." And so their negative impressions go down.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:27.06,0:24:30.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Amazingly even the presence of a mirror
Dialogue: 0,0:24:30.66,0:24:36.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or just pictures of eyes in the laboratory \Nwill actually have these same effects
Dialogue: 0,0:24:36.13,0:24:41.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,which actually really boost \Nthat notion of supernatural surveillance.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:41.11,0:24:46.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Obviously this has implications \Nfor the religious pro-sociality hypothesis.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:46.11,0:24:49.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Religious concepts do not seem
Dialogue: 0,0:24:49.48,0:24:54.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to prime pro-social behavior like honesty\Nbecause they're religious.
Dialogue: 0,0:24:54.31,0:24:58.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It may be that any concepts that are\Nassociated with morality in a particular
Dialogue: 0,0:24:58.89,0:25:03.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,culture trigger greater concern \Nfor protecting your reputation.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:03.27,0:25:05.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Again since there's a widespread\Ncultural stereotype
Dialogue: 0,0:25:05.90,0:25:08.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that religion is linked to morality here,
Dialogue: 0,0:25:08.39,0:25:12.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,religious concepts will activate moral\Nbehavior, but as we pointed out
Dialogue: 0,0:25:12.25,0:25:14.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,secular primes do just as well. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:25:14.60,0:25:17.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,While the positive effects \Nof religious priming
Dialogue: 0,0:25:17.00,0:25:21.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are the stuff of headlines, what you don't\Nusually hear about is the dark side
Dialogue: 0,0:25:21.06,0:25:22.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of religious primes. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:25:22.54,0:25:24.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Numerous studies demonstrate
Dialogue: 0,0:25:24.59,0:25:26.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that socially undesirable behaviors
Dialogue: 0,0:25:26.36,0:25:30.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,also manifest when subjects \Nare exposed to religious messages.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:30.69,0:25:34.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So for example, participants \Nwho read passages from the Bible
Dialogue: 0,0:25:34.68,0:25:38.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,depicting God sanctioned violence,\Nadminister more electrical shocks
Dialogue: 0,0:25:38.99,0:25:40.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than the control group\Nin studies of aggression.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:40.56,0:25:45.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We should note this works \Non non-believers as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:45.33,0:25:49.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even a non-believer reading \Nthose passages from the Bible
Dialogue: 0,0:25:49.31,0:25:53.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will also become more vicious \Nin their behaviors toward somebody.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:53.68,0:25:57.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's just that the effect seems to\Nbe more pronounced for believers.
Dialogue: 0,0:25:57.93,0:26:01.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Especially disturbing is this subgroup
Dialogue: 0,0:26:01.16,0:26:05.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of religious believers \Nhigh in intrinsic religiosity
Dialogue: 0,0:26:05.10,0:26:07.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and also high in levels of submissiveness. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:26:07.76,0:26:12.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This group was very disturbing\Nbecause they became the most vengeful
Dialogue: 0,0:26:12.15,0:26:16.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,after being primed with religious words.\NThey really seemed to go off the rails.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:16.18,0:26:19.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I guess what I'm saying is: \Nit doesn't affect all people equally.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:19.49,0:26:23.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Certain personality characteristics \Ncome into play here too
Dialogue: 0,0:26:23.53,0:26:26.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to either aggravate \Nor kind of mute these responses.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:26.95,0:26:31.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I'd like to share this study real quick. \NExperiments where people were assigned
Dialogue: 0,0:26:31.33,0:26:34.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to read the biblical version \Nof the golden rule
Dialogue: 0,0:26:34.32,0:26:38.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,actually had no effect on diminishing\NChristians’ homophobia.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:38.07,0:26:40.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, negative attitudes \Ntowards homosexuals \N
Dialogue: 0,0:26:40.34,0:26:41.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,were not at all diminished
Dialogue: 0,0:26:41.71,0:26:45.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by reading what we think \Nis a very positive prime,
Dialogue: 0,0:26:45.31,0:26:49.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,right, the golden rule. Strangely enough\Nreading the Buddhist version
Dialogue: 0,0:26:49.56,0:26:53.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of the golden rule actually increased\Ntheir homophobic responses.
Dialogue: 0,0:26:53.98,0:26:57.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If they read another religious text\Ntelling them to be merciful
Dialogue: 0,0:26:57.75,0:27:01.43,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and do onto others as you would have\Nthem to do want to them,
Dialogue: 0,0:27:01.43,0:27:05.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they wanted to do that even less. \NThis is perhaps
Dialogue: 0,0:27:05.42,0:27:08.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because the moral imperative
Dialogue: 0,0:27:08.24,0:27:11.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was coming from this \Ndistrusted out-group source.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:11.72,0:27:15.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Likewise unscrambling words associated\Nwith Christianity increased
Dialogue: 0,0:27:15.87,0:27:17.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,racial prejudice \Ntowards african-americans
Dialogue: 0,0:27:17.78,0:27:21.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that was found by Johnson, \Nlead author Johnson in 2010.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:21.95,0:27:26.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And attitudes toward all out-group\Nmembers became more negative
Dialogue: 0,0:27:26.25,0:27:29.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when experiments were conducted \Nin a church setting rather than
Dialogue: 0,0:27:29.28,0:27:32.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than in a civic context.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:32.36,0:27:34.100,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This is a strange paradox \Nwe're looking at here.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:34.100,0:27:37.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Religious priming seems to increase
Dialogue: 0,0:27:37.11,0:27:42.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,both pro-social behaviors like honesty and\Nsharing, and non pro-social behaviors
Dialogue: 0,0:27:42.16,0:27:47.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like aggression and prejudice. This will\Nmake more sense I think to us when we
Dialogue: 0,0:27:47.27,0:27:49.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,consider another curious,
Dialogue: 0,0:27:49.08,0:27:52.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but consistent finding in this literature
Dialogue: 0,0:27:52.53,0:27:55.74,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that the kindness of religious individuals\Nis typically not
Dialogue: 0,0:27:55.74,0:27:58.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,extended universally to everyone.
Dialogue: 0,0:27:58.77,0:28:02.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Instead the primary beneficiaries \Nof a religious pro-sociality
Dialogue: 0,0:28:02.85,0:28:09.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are usually other believers. This can be \Nmost clearly seen in economic games.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:09.11,0:28:12.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, to save a little bit of time\NI'm not going to go into how all of
Dialogue: 0,0:28:12.36,0:28:17.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these games work, but they basically\Nstart with people trading or exchanging money.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:17.68,0:28:22.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Those games are designed \Nto encourage cooperation and trust.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:22.22,0:28:26.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So basically \Nif the players work together,
Dialogue: 0,0:28:26.35,0:28:29.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,they will both get further along, \Nbut one player
Dialogue: 0,0:28:29.87,0:28:34.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,might have the opportunity to make off\Nwith more money if they deceive or lie
Dialogue: 0,0:28:34.92,0:28:37.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or cheat the other players. \NSo this is all trying
Dialogue: 0,0:28:37.63,0:28:39.83,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to assess cooperation, trust,
Dialogue: 0,0:28:39.83,0:28:43.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,giving, that sort of thing. \NThe economic games shown
Dialogue: 0,0:28:43.68,0:28:48.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in behavioral economic studies where\Nthe religiosity of the participants is none.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:48.77,0:28:52.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,- so we actually know what they are - \Na general trend emerges:
Dialogue: 0,0:28:52.22,0:28:55.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,religious individuals cooperate more \Nand give more money
Dialogue: 0,0:28:55.95,0:28:59.15,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than non-religious participants. \NSo they do that overall.
Dialogue: 0,0:28:59.15,0:29:02.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They give more and they trust more\Nthan the non-religious.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:02.81,0:29:06.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The pro-sociality hypothesis is true.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:06.14,0:29:09.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's just has that twist: \Nthey only give it to those
Dialogue: 0,0:29:09.20,0:29:10.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who share their religious identity.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:10.97,0:29:15.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For example this study, Ahmed, 2009\Nfound the clergy students
Dialogue: 0,0:29:15.31,0:29:19.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,exchanged greater money offers \Nthan non clergy students,
Dialogue: 0,0:29:19.34,0:29:23.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but only to those from their own\Nreligious group.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:23.93,0:29:25.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,These findings are almost,\Nwell, they are most likely due
Dialogue: 0,0:29:25.79,0:29:29.68,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to that previous phenomenon \Nwe mentioned of in-group favoritism.
Dialogue: 0,0:29:29.68,0:29:33.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But there also might be something else\Ngoing on here. This might be that
Dialogue: 0,0:29:33.66,0:29:35.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pro-religious cultural stereotype
Dialogue: 0,0:29:35.60,0:29:39.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,happening again, because notice:\Nnon-religious participants
Dialogue: 0,0:29:39.45,0:29:42.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,did not show the same in-group favoritism
Dialogue: 0,0:29:42.61,0:29:46.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in those economic games. \NThey also trusted
Dialogue: 0,0:29:46.10,0:29:50.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,religious participants more \Nthan their non-religious peers
Dialogue: 0,0:29:50.78,0:29:54.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and allocated more money to them overall,\Neven though that money
Dialogue: 0,0:29:54.61,0:29:56.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would not be reciprocated. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:29:56.89,0:30:01.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Yeah, it's amazing\Nhow ingrained that stereotype is.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:01.51,0:30:03.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This pattern of preferential treatment \N
Dialogue: 0,0:30:03.41,0:30:06.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is not limited \Nto behavioral economic studies.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:06.03,0:30:10.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It constitutes a general trend \Nacross the entire literature.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:10.27,0:30:13.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In fact a new word had to be coined \Njust to explain it.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:13.62,0:30:17.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,One researcher who is very popular in\Nthis by the name of Saroglou
Dialogue: 0,0:30:17.91,0:30:21.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,coined the term "minimal prosociality",
Dialogue: 0,0:30:21.58,0:30:25.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,meaning the greater helping on the part of\Nthe religious that extended to friends
Dialogue: 0,0:30:25.09,0:30:27.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,an in-group members \Nbut not too out-group members
Dialogue: 0,0:30:27.85,0:30:30.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who threatened religious values.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:30.88,0:30:35.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So, I guess the correct way to say it \Nor was consistent with most of the evidence
Dialogue: 0,0:30:35.18,0:30:36.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in these economic games
Dialogue: 0,0:30:36.33,0:30:39.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are that religious people \Nare ‘minimally pro-social’.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:39.56,0:30:43.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And actually if we take this idea\Nof limited pro-sociality seriously
Dialogue: 0,0:30:43.63,0:30:46.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it explains a lot of other trends \Nthat we see in the data.
Dialogue: 0,0:30:46.76,0:30:50.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For example across different cultures \Nwe see that religiosity
Dialogue: 0,0:30:50.12,0:30:56.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is weakly but still positively correlated \Nwith the value of benevolence,
Dialogue: 0,0:30:56.12,0:31:01.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,charity, helping people out\Nand yet at the same time is negatively
Dialogue: 0,0:31:01.01,0:31:03.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,related with the value of universalism,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:03.40,0:31:06.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,helping out, you know, your neighbor,\Nyour stranger,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:06.45,0:31:10.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the Good Samaritan, that type of thing.\NAgain it seems like a contradiction,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:10.60,0:31:13.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but when you take the idea of limited
Dialogue: 0,0:31:13.60,0:31:15.86,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or minimal pro-sociality seriously,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:15.86,0:31:19.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it tends to make more sense. \NIt's that in-group favoritism again.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:19.51,0:31:23.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Also it might explain things \Nlike why religious primes
Dialogue: 0,0:31:23.13,0:31:24.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,increase ethnic prejudice
Dialogue: 0,0:31:24.31,0:31:27.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and derogation of out-group members,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:27.31,0:31:31.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because religious concepts activated\Nin-group bias in people's minds.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:31.50,0:31:34.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This also plays through\Nreligious research on giving.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:34.55,0:31:37.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This one conclusion \NI'm not as sure about,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:37.71,0:31:42.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but it is very clear that religious\Norganizations themselves
Dialogue: 0,0:31:42.47,0:31:46.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are the largest source of charitable giving. \NReligious people give way more to charity
Dialogue: 0,0:31:46.59,0:31:51.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than the non-religious and that finding\Nhas held up across the board.
Dialogue: 0,0:31:51.42,0:31:54.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But as other studies note, \Nmany of the recipients of these,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:54.96,0:31:58.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even ones that are labeled secular,
Dialogue: 0,0:31:58.34,0:32:02.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tend to be religious \Nor some religious organization.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:02.59,0:32:05.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So all this money is exchanging hands \Nwithin the in-group.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:05.23,0:32:07.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This would be really \Ninteresting one to test
Dialogue: 0,0:32:07.38,0:32:09.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if we can tease out that in-group favoritism
Dialogue: 0,0:32:09.41,0:32:12.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would we still see a charity gap \Nbetween the non-religious
Dialogue: 0,0:32:12.88,0:32:17.09,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and the religious? We might, actually I\Nsuspect, we probably would
Dialogue: 0,0:32:17.09,0:32:21.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and for this reason \Nthere's another aspect
Dialogue: 0,0:32:21.42,0:32:25.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to religious charitable giving, \Nand that is generosity
Dialogue: 0,0:32:25.21,0:32:29.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,measured as a function \Nof religious importance
Dialogue: 0,0:32:29.05,0:32:33.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was smaller than those measured as a\Nvariation in religious attendance.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:33.14,0:32:37.39,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That is church attendance \Nseems to be the key factor
Dialogue: 0,0:32:37.39,0:32:40.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in how much a religious person will give.
Dialogue: 0,0:32:40.69,0:32:44.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you actually \Nmeasure religiosity by belief,
Dialogue: 0,0:32:44.87,0:32:48.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how much conviction do you have \Nthat God exists
Dialogue: 0,0:32:48.89,0:32:52.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we'll see that \Nthat predicts giving to a lesser degree
Dialogue: 0,0:32:52.05,0:32:55.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then church attendance. \NI think what's going on here is
Dialogue: 0,0:32:55.05,0:32:58.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when you're actually in the building,\Nyou're given an opportunity
Dialogue: 0,0:32:58.52,0:33:01.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to give, right?\NThe plate is passed around
Dialogue: 0,0:33:01.92,0:33:05.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and there's social pressure for you \Nto put something in that plate.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:05.82,0:33:09.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I still think the religious should get\Ncredit for this, but they get credit for
Dialogue: 0,0:33:09.48,0:33:12.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,building institutions \Nthat support charitable giving.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:12.53,0:33:14.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It may not be the belief, \Nthe religious belief,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:14.95,0:33:17.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that's really motivating this behavior.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:17.13,0:33:19.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So I guess that kind of brings up \Nan interesting question here.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:19.47,0:33:22.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,How actually are we measuring religiosity
Dialogue: 0,0:33:22.84,0:33:25.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because, as we just saw, \Ndepending on how we measured it,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:25.88,0:33:28.26,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we might get different effects.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:28.26,0:33:32.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Typically the methodology \Nthat's employed here is to compare
Dialogue: 0,0:33:32.47,0:33:35.98,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,a general population of people \Nto highly religious people
Dialogue: 0,0:33:35.98,0:33:39.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and weekly religious people. \NAnd then the atheists agnostics
Dialogue: 0,0:33:39.95,0:33:43.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or all the nones, we call them, \Nthose who declare no religious affiliation,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:43.59,0:33:45.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are mixed into that sample as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:45.65,0:33:48.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,There are different ways\Nagain of measuring
Dialogue: 0,0:33:48.97,0:33:51.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,intrinsically religiosity as I\Nmentioned is a measure
Dialogue: 0,0:33:51.37,0:33:54.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of metaphysical belief or commitment.
Dialogue: 0,0:33:54.19,0:33:58.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Extrinsic religiosity, as I call it, \Nis often a measure of behavior,
Dialogue: 0,0:33:58.54,0:34:01.64,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how often do you pray, \Nengage in rituals.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:01.64,0:34:04.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That sometimes includes another way \Nthat is measured
Dialogue: 0,0:34:04.96,0:34:08.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is measuring religiosity purely\Nthrough church attendance alone.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:08.99,0:34:13.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So whenever you see a study \Nthat says religious people are better
Dialogue: 0,0:34:13.18,0:34:16.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,at XYZ, the next question you should ask is;
Dialogue: 0,0:34:16.57,0:34:19.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Better compared to whom?" \NAnd the reason is:
Dialogue: 0,0:34:19.81,0:34:24.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how one measures religiosity \Nhas a major impact on your findings.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:24.14,0:34:27.20,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For example, frequent church attendance\Nhas been linked
Dialogue: 0,0:34:27.20,0:34:31.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to modestly lower rates of mental\Nillness such as depression,
Dialogue: 0,0:34:31.34,0:34:34.52,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but the effect is negligible \Nwhen you measure
Dialogue: 0,0:34:34.52,0:34:37.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,religiosity as strength of belief.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:37.10,0:34:40.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Again, people have better mental health\Nbecause they're
Dialogue: 0,0:34:40.27,0:34:44.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,in a congregation of people, they have a\Nsupport social support network,
Dialogue: 0,0:34:44.08,0:34:49.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,like-minded people to talk to. The belief \Ndoesn't seem to be as important.
Dialogue: 0,0:34:49.36,0:34:51.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Studies that control \Nfor purely social factors
Dialogue: 0,0:34:51.90,0:34:54.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,find a greatly diminished \Nor non-existent effect
Dialogue: 0,0:34:54.44,0:34:57.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of religious beliefs \Non pro-social measures. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:34:57.49,0:34:59.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So you can see how we measure religion
Dialogue: 0,0:34:59.34,0:35:03.60,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and who we compare our groups to\Nis very important in this debate.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:03.60,0:35:06.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Most frequently \Nthe strongest pro-social effects
Dialogue: 0,0:35:06.07,0:35:08.37,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are associated with church attendance
Dialogue: 0,0:35:08.37,0:35:12.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and social contacts \Nrather than just metaphysical belief.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:12.17,0:35:15.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So it appears that group affiliation\Ndrives many of these behaviors.
Dialogue: 0,0:35:15.93,0:35:19.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Could a committed secular group \N- like this one right here -
Dialogue: 0,0:35:19.95,0:35:23.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have effect on its membership\Nsimilar to that of a church?
Dialogue: 0,0:35:23.57,0:35:27.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In this book that I mentioned earlier -\Nunfortunately it's buried on page 472 -
Dialogue: 0,0:35:27.92,0:35:32.77,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you have to get \Nthrough all the good stuff
Dialogue: 0,0:35:32.77,0:35:36.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to finally see this qualification,
Dialogue: 0,0:35:36.06,0:35:40.22,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but Robert Putnam mentions \N"even an atheist
Dialogue: 0,0:35:40.22,0:35:43.27,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,who happens to become \Ninvolved in the social life
Dialogue: 0,0:35:43.27,0:35:47.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of a congregation is much more likely \Nto volunteer at a soup kitchen
Dialogue: 0,0:35:47.71,0:35:50.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,then the most fervent believer who prays alone."
Dialogue: 0,0:35:50.36,0:35:54.24,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And then it goes on to say \N- or slightly before that on page 465 -
Dialogue: 0,0:35:54.24,0:35:59.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,he says: "Religious belief turns out to be \Nutterly irrelevant to explaining the religious
Dialogue: 0,0:35:59.45,0:36:04.08,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as in good neighbourliness." \NThat should've been on page 1.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:04.08,0:36:09.59,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But both reviewers in that book\Ndidn't get that far.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:09.59,0:36:14.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can guess how it was depicted \Nin the popular press.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:14.16,0:36:18.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,In fact that's a major problem. \NThe problem with most studies is
Dialogue: 0,0:36:18.13,0:36:22.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that they are lumping all nonbelievers\Ntogether, without considering how
Dialogue: 0,0:36:22.12,0:36:24.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,confident they are in their non-belief,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:24.13,0:36:27.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,whether or not they attend groups \Nlike you do right here,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:27.11,0:36:29.30,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,how involved they are \Nwith the community overall.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:29.30,0:36:32.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,They're just all dumped \Ninto one pool: {\i1}the non-religious{\i0}.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:32.89,0:36:36.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And then they're compared with weekly\Nreligious and highly religious,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:36.79,0:36:40.61,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,typically highly religious people \Nwho are in a church context.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:40.61,0:36:44.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,When you do that, you do get \Nwhat's called a linear effect.
Dialogue: 0,0:36:44.90,0:36:49.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If pro-social, being happy, healthy \Nand more helpful is all on this axis,
Dialogue: 0,0:36:49.54,0:36:54.21,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and religiosity on this one,\Nwe would see as religiosity rises
Dialogue: 0,0:36:54.21,0:36:57.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the more religious you get, \Nthe more happy, helpful
Dialogue: 0,0:36:57.34,0:37:00.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and honest you are as an individual.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:00.07,0:37:03.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But what we're kind of doing is \Nwe're cutting off half of our sample.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:03.38,0:37:06.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The few studies that compare \Nhighly religious people
Dialogue: 0,0:37:06.56,0:37:09.57,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with the confidently non-religious\Nactually show
Dialogue: 0,0:37:09.57,0:37:11.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,what's called a curvilinear effect
Dialogue: 0,0:37:11.88,0:37:14.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,between religiosity and pro-sociality. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:37:14.95,0:37:19.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To explain what's going on \Nwith this curvilinear effect,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:19.46,0:37:23.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,- I should have had noticed, but I didn't -
Dialogue: 0,0:37:23.69,0:37:26.90,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Essentially what we do, what we've \Ndone is we've expanded our sample.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:26.90,0:37:32.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So before the atheists and agnostics and\Nhumanists were getting lost in this side of
Dialogue: 0,0:37:32.34,0:37:34.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the curve now we brought it out
Dialogue: 0,0:37:34.56,0:37:38.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and we actually see that it's the\Nless confident, the weekly religious,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:38.69,0:37:40.45,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the weekly secular in the middle
Dialogue: 0,0:37:40.45,0:37:44.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that tend to have poor\Nratings on pro-social measures.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:44.54,0:37:48.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Oh, here's what I was looking for. \NNominal believers,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:48.29,0:37:51.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,not atheists, show the highest levels \Nof depression actually,
Dialogue: 0,0:37:51.53,0:37:53.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the poorest mental health
Dialogue: 0,0:37:53.18,0:37:56.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and they generally report \Nless satisfaction with life.
Dialogue: 0,0:37:56.31,0:38:00.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And fact is, this is true of the\Ncross-cultural data on this too.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:00.67,0:38:04.66,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The world value survey found that both \Nthose who claim religion is very important
Dialogue: 0,0:38:04.66,0:38:06.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and those who claim \Nthat it wasn't important at all,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:06.91,0:38:08.72,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,tended to be the happiest.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:08.72,0:38:13.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So curvilinear effects \Nare also found in the moral realm,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:13.51,0:38:18.62,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for example physicians, Doctors\NWithout Borders and that sort of thing
Dialogue: 0,0:38:18.62,0:38:23.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,highest membership is going to be\Nhighly religious and totally atheist.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:23.31,0:38:24.88,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,\NThis is true when
Dialogue: 0,0:38:24.88,0:38:29.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Milgrams famous obedience trials \N- if you're familiar with those studies -
Dialogue: 0,0:38:29.10,0:38:31.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,where we get to see \Njust how much will somebody
Dialogue: 0,0:38:31.78,0:38:34.55,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,obey the experimenter. \NWhen those were replicated,
Dialogue: 0,0:38:34.55,0:38:37.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,it was the extreme believers \Nand the extreme non-believers
Dialogue: 0,0:38:37.73,0:38:42.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that were most likely to disobey the\Nresearchers unethical orders.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:42.17,0:38:46.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So actually being highly\Nreligious or highly non-religious
Dialogue: 0,0:38:46.78,0:38:50.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,seems to give you a little\Nbit more moral integrity.
Dialogue: 0,0:38:50.31,0:38:54.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Part of the hypothesis \Nwhy this might be is because
Dialogue: 0,0:38:54.04,0:38:58.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,these pools of individuals, they're so\Ncertain of their world view
Dialogue: 0,0:38:58.35,0:39:03.73,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that they're not as kicked around \Nby the pressure of social conformity as others.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:03.73,0:39:06.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So it appears that confidence in one's worldview
Dialogue: 0,0:39:06.46,0:39:09.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and regular affiliation with like minded people
Dialogue: 0,0:39:09.13,0:39:12.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are far more important to well-being \Nand moral integrity
Dialogue: 0,0:39:12.63,0:39:17.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,than your particular beliefs \Nabout metaphysics. Sorry guys,
Dialogue: 0,0:39:17.19,0:39:22.05,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,even some non-believers are sad to hear\Nthat sometimes, they want to believe that
Dialogue: 0,0:39:22.05,0:39:24.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,believing the right thing, having the\Nright grasp on reality
Dialogue: 0,0:39:24.99,0:39:27.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,will make you a better person
Dialogue: 0,0:39:27.42,0:39:31.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and it doesn't seem that metaphysical\Nbeliefs are all that important.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:31.96,0:39:37.29,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But sadly studies are not designed to\Nnotice curvilinear effects a lot of times
Dialogue: 0,0:39:37.29,0:39:41.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And when they aren't, they can give \Nthe impression that atheists are in danger
Dialogue: 0,0:39:41.89,0:39:44.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of poor physical or mental health
Dialogue: 0,0:39:44.38,0:39:50.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this is exactly what we see with the military's spiritual fitness scale, that they have.
Dialogue: 0,0:39:50.17,0:39:52.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I don't know if anybody has \Never heard of that?
Dialogue: 0,0:39:52.75,0:39:56.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The US military has a spiritual fitness \Ndimension in their instrument
Dialogue: 0,0:39:56.54,0:40:00.10,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that they use to assess \Na soldier's wellness and mental health.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:00.10,0:40:03.89,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And they conclude that soldiers \Nhave the greatest resiliency
Dialogue: 0,0:40:03.89,0:40:06.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,when they are spiritual, \Nwhen they are religious
Dialogue: 0,0:40:06.35,0:40:11.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and this has prompted \Nsome superior officers
Dialogue: 0,0:40:11.07,0:40:14.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to go find their underlings \Nwho are non-religious
Dialogue: 0,0:40:14.17,0:40:18.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and to pressure them into prayer meetings\Nand other religious services, right,
Dialogue: 0,0:40:18.56,0:40:22.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,because it's bad for their health. \NThey might be in a suicide risk.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:22.06,0:40:29.11,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,However though an examination of the \Nactual question items on the spirituality scale
Dialogue: 0,0:40:29.11,0:40:31.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,shows a major flaw in the way \Nthese concepts are measured.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:31.95,0:40:36.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,And it's going to be my last major point \Nabout how this research is conducted.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:36.70,0:40:39.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"Criterion contamination"
Dialogue: 0,0:40:39.17,0:40:42.18,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,this is where the pro-sociality literature
Dialogue: 0,0:40:42.18,0:40:46.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,defines spirituality in a way \Nthat kind of begs the question.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:46.12,0:40:50.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So for example, usually when we\Nmake a prediction
Dialogue: 0,0:40:50.65,0:40:55.31,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of some sort of criterion, you want the\Nitems used in the prediction
Dialogue: 0,0:40:55.31,0:40:58.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to not contain elements \Nof what is being predicted.
Dialogue: 0,0:40:58.65,0:41:03.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you flip the conclusion \Nand you put it in your premise,
Dialogue: 0,0:41:03.28,0:41:05.69,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you're arguing in a circle, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:41:05.69,0:41:08.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,But yet we see \Nthis happen all the time,
Dialogue: 0,0:41:08.44,0:41:10.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we see the reverse \Nhappening all the time.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:10.63,0:41:14.97,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For example this right here.\NReligiously engaged individuals
Dialogue: 0,0:41:14.97,0:41:19.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have greater social networks, \Nbut religious engagement
Dialogue: 0,0:41:19.01,0:41:23.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,was defined by having church social contacts.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:23.00,0:41:26.76,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So really all this is saying \N- I mean it sounds really good, right? -
Dialogue: 0,0:41:26.76,0:41:31.13,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Doesn't it? Wow? Religious\Nengagement really benefits us.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:31.13,0:41:34.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,All this is saying, is; \N"Socially engaged religious people
Dialogue: 0,0:41:34.34,0:41:36.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,are socially engaged religious people."
Dialogue: 0,0:41:36.32,0:41:41.35,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That is all that is said . \NMany spirituality scales measure concepts
Dialogue: 0,0:41:41.35,0:41:45.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that do not necessarily refer \Nto supernatural believes either.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:45.65,0:41:49.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,For example, these are all the things\Nthat will get you a high rating as a
Dialogue: 0,0:41:49.80,0:41:52.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,spiritual person on these fitness scales.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:52.75,0:41:55.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I believe there is \Na larger meaning to life.
Dialogue: 0,0:41:55.96,0:41:59.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It's important for me \Nto give something back to my community."
Dialogue: 0,0:41:59.56,0:42:03.38,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you answer yes to that, \Nyou're labeled as religious on this scale.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:03.38,0:42:06.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I believe that humanity \Nas a whole is basically good."
Dialogue: 0,0:42:06.96,0:42:09.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you have a positive humanistic outlook,
Dialogue: 0,0:42:09.64,0:42:13.92,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you might say you're going to score\Non that spirituality scale too.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:13.94,0:42:18.81,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,"I'm concerned about those \Nwho will come after me in life."
Dialogue: 0,0:42:18.81,0:42:22.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So numerous studies including this\Nmilitary spiritual fitness assessment
Dialogue: 0,0:42:22.93,0:42:27.32,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,claims to demonstrate that religiosity is\Nrelated to pro-social outcomes,
Dialogue: 0,0:42:27.32,0:42:30.78,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,but they are really \Njust criterion contamination effects.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:30.78,0:42:33.07,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Having pro-social traits here
Dialogue: 0,0:42:33.07,0:42:35.65,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,is what defines being religious.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:35.65,0:42:38.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Just begging the question.\NAnd as we know many atheists
Dialogue: 0,0:42:38.93,0:42:42.79,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with a broader sense of meaning \Nwould score ‘spiritual’ on these same scales.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:42.79,0:42:47.44,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,This artificially inflates the apparent\Nrelationship between religiosity
Dialogue: 0,0:42:47.44,0:42:51.02,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or spirituality and these positive\Npro-social outcomes.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:51.02,0:42:54.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,All right. \NSo, tying it all together.
Dialogue: 0,0:42:54.71,0:42:58.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The question; “Does religion make us\Nbetter?” actually doesn't admit
Dialogue: 0,0:42:58.85,0:43:02.58,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,of a simple answer. You've already seen\Nevidence showing: "yes and no"
Dialogue: 0,0:43:02.58,0:43:07.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or "yes in particular ways and no and other\Nparticular ways".
Dialogue: 0,0:43:07.19,0:43:10.47,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Unfortunately this stuff just doesn't\Nwork in a sound bite
Dialogue: 0,0:43:10.47,0:43:12.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and we live in a sound-bite culture.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:12.49,0:43:14.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,The conclusion one reaches depends
Dialogue: 0,0:43:14.93,0:43:19.80,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on the measure of religiosity being used; \Nthe way pro-sociality is defined.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:19.80,0:43:23.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,We have to be cognizant of a host of \N
Dialogue: 0,0:43:23.04,0:43:25.75,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,complicating factors if we're going to be accurate.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:25.75,0:43:30.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Really this is like a minefield for a critical thinker. \N
Dialogue: 0,0:43:30.51,0:43:35.53,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Even the most experienced critical thinker \Nis going to run into problems
Dialogue: 0,0:43:35.53,0:43:37.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,with how complex this data is.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:37.87,0:43:43.33,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So we came up with 10 questions for \Nthinking critically about religious pro-sociality
Dialogue: 0,0:43:43.33,0:43:48.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that will help people in the future\Nto think more carefully about these studies.
Dialogue: 0,0:43:48.70,0:43:53.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Number 1: has the research controlled \Nfor the possibility that stereotypes
Dialogue: 0,0:43:53.03,0:43:58.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,- such as the expectation that\Nreligious individuals will be more pro-social -
Dialogue: 0,0:43:58.04,0:44:01.25,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,have those stereotypes affected \Nself-reports and ratings?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:01.25,0:44:04.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,2: Are the results based on evidence \Nthat have been compromised
Dialogue: 0,0:44:04.70,0:44:07.14,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,by in-group favoritism or bias?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:07.14,0:44:10.91,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,3: When pro-social effects follow \Nthe priming of religious concepts,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:10.91,0:44:13.54,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,\Nwill those same effects follow secular prime?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:13.54,0:44:16.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That's a great one \Nfor the priming study.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:16.01,0:44:20.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Number 4: is the study also able \Nto detect potential negative
Dialogue: 0,0:44:20.46,0:44:23.49,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,as well as positive effects \Nfor religious primes?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:23.49,0:44:29.23,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,5: Is the research based on self-reports\Nor does it also measures actual behaviors?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:29.23,0:44:33.56,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If it doesn't measure actual behaviors, \Nit's worthless.
Dialogue: 0,0:44:33.58,0:44:38.34,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,6: could the context of this study have\Nan impact on the results? For example,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:38.34,0:44:42.67,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,would this study get the same results in\Nthe United States as opposed to
Dialogue: 0,0:44:42.67,0:44:47.99,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,other nations in Northern Europe that\Nare predominately non-religious?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:47.99,0:44:52.17,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,7: are the results solely attributable to\Nreligious belief itself
Dialogue: 0,0:44:52.17,0:44:54.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or is there a group affiliation effect \Ngoing on?
Dialogue: 0,0:44:54.42,0:44:58.41,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If church attending believers are compared to non church attenders,
Dialogue: 0,0:44:58.41,0:45:01.70,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,the sources of any differences \Nmight be unclear.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:01.70,0:45:05.87,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Number 8: does the study conflate non-believe with low religiosity
Dialogue: 0,0:45:05.87,0:45:09.48,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or do we have a clear measure \Nof the non-believers?
Dialogue: 0,0:45:09.48,0:45:14.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,By the way, for we gonna fulfill number 8 \Nwe need more research on secularists.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:14.04,0:45:17.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,So we need more researchers willing \Nto study communities like this
Dialogue: 0,0:45:17.82,0:45:20.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and answer surveys and that sort of things.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:20.06,0:45:22.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,If you ever see those things pop up in your inbox.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:22.28,0:45:25.51,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Please take'm. \NYou will help us all.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:25.51,0:45:28.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Number 9: do the religious groups\Nunder comparison allow
Dialogue: 0,0:45:28.40,0:45:31.04,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,for an examination of curvilinear effects?
Dialogue: 0,0:45:31.04,0:45:33.63,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,That is, if you're comparing a church group,
Dialogue: 0,0:45:33.63,0:45:39.16,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you got to compare it with an equal group like this.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:39.16,0:45:42.12,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Number 10: has religion or spirituality
Dialogue: 0,0:45:42.12,0:45:45.82,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,been defined in a way that\Nwould also include
Dialogue: 0,0:45:45.82,0:45:48.95,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,pro-social behavior \Njust from the definition?
Dialogue: 0,0:45:48.95,0:45:52.85,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I think if you watch for those things\Nyou're going to have a leg up
Dialogue: 0,0:45:52.85,0:45:58.06,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,on most other people who are paying attention \Nto this particular research.
Dialogue: 0,0:45:58.06,0:46:01.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I hope you got something out of that. \NI hope that brings a little more clarity
Dialogue: 0,0:46:01.96,0:46:04.40,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,to this often confusing debate
Dialogue: 0,0:46:04.40,0:46:09.46,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,and a last thing I just wont to put \Nin another plug for my podcast:
Dialogue: 0,0:46:09.46,0:46:16.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,if you happen to enjoy what you heart tonight, \Nfound it enlightening at all,
Dialogue: 0,0:46:16.01,0:46:19.50,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,both I and the author of the \Nthe Psych Review, Luke Galen,
Dialogue: 0,0:46:19.50,0:46:22.28,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,we both work\Non this podcast "Reasonable Doubts",
Dialogue: 0,0:46:22.28,0:46:25.93,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,you can find it at doubtcast.org.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:25.93,0:46:28.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,It is one of the most informationally dense \Npodcasts you'll find
Dialogue: 0,0:46:28.36,0:46:31.42,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,that still manages to be funny from time to time.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:31.42,0:46:33.00,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,I thank you very much.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:33.00,0:46:40.84,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,(Applause)
Dialogue: 0,0:46:41.56,0:46:44.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,To catch up on past Reasonable Doubts episodes
Dialogue: 0,0:46:44.71,0:46:46.36,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,or to email your questions or comments,
Dialogue: 0,0:46:46.36,0:46:50.19,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,check out www.doubtcast.org
Dialogue: 0,0:46:50.19,0:46:53.71,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Reasonable Doubt is a production \Nof WPRR Reality Radio.
Dialogue: 0,0:46:53.71,0:46:59.03,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,You can find out more about Reality\NRadio at publicrealityradio.org
Dialogue: 0,0:46:59.03,0:47:04.01,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Reasonable Doubt's theme music is performed \Nby Love Fossil and used with permission
Dialogue: 0,0:47:04.33,0:47:17.96,Default,,0000,0000,0000,,Subtitled by www.kritischdenken.info