Religion is all about being good. The critical question is: To whom? A recent review of the scientific literature on religion and morality argues that our evolutionary past may hold the key to understanding why religion can bring out the best and worst in us.
Much to the annoyance of angry atheists, there is considerable evidence that religion encourages cooperative, pro-social behavior. Studies show that religious people engage in more charitable giving, volunteerism and civic involvement than their non-religious counterparts. Religion facilitates self-control which translates into lower rates of delinquency, criminality, substance abuse, promiscuity and divorce. When reminded of religious concepts, people are more generous, honest, trusting and trustworthy. Finally, religious groups tend to be more cohesive and enduring than non-religious ones.
But take heart, angry atheists, for the evidence is not all positive. For example, increased religiosity -- especially of the fundamentalist variety -- has been associated with more intense prejudicial attitudes. Both covert and overt prejudice against African-Americans increases when people are reminded of Christian concepts. Religion can also increase aggressive tendencies or hostile attitudes against perceived competitors or out-group members and in some instances intensify vengefulness.
In an attempt to make sense of this seemingly conflicting evidence, social psychologist Jesse Preston and her students (Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, p. 574) argue that a distinction must be made between two guiding principles of religious pro-sociality: A religious principle, where moral concern is primarily targeted at protecting the integrity of the religious in-group; and a supernatural principle where moral concern is focused on following divine laws of virtuous behavior.
The religious principle emphasizes the communal aspects of religion, where traditions, rituals and distinctive behaviors (e.g. keeping kosher, wearing a turban) mark and unify members of the religious community. A constant threat to any community, including religious ones, are free-riders -- individuals who attempt to reap the benefits of community membership without making necessary contributions. To remain viable, all communities must find ways of thwarting free-riders. Excluding them from community benefits, such as the monetary and emotional largesse of the group, can be an effective control mechanism.
Thus, a thriving religious community must be able to clearly distinguish "worthy" in-group members from "unworthy" out-group members and predominately dispense their moral concern amongst the former. This would explain why studies have often found that religion facilitates pro-social actions toward some people some of the time but not everyone all the time. Being "good" to members of one's religious community often means being indifferent or even antagonistic to those outside the community. Taken to its extreme, the religious principle is the motivation behind the bin Ladens and Torquemadas of the world.
The supernatural principle involves adherence to divine laws of virtuous behavior. Virtuous behavior includes anything believed to be pleasing to or required by one's God (or gods). Typically virtuous behaviors are such things as being honest, charitable, just, compassionate and temperate. The supernatural principle is the basis for the universal love motivating the Ghandis and Mother Theresas of the world.
So what are origins of these two principles? It is here that evolutionary history becomes relevant. In the deep past, the religious and supernatural principles probably overlapped considerably if not perfectly. For example, one might believe that God requires that virtue be restricted to one's religious community and that enmity be demonstrated to out-group members. In small tribal communities, interactions with out-group members would have been rare. The neighbor that one was supposed "to love as oneself" would almost always have been a fellow religious in-group member.
However, as societies grew larger and more complex, the religious and supernatural principles would have increasingly diverged. A more universalist understanding of virtue was probably essential as interactions with both out-group members and widely-dispersed co-religionists became more common. Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, redefines "neighbor" in a way consistent with the supernatural principle (anyone in need) and in stark contrast to the religious principle. It is also of more than trivial significance that this parable emerges at a time when Jews were both widely dispersed across the Roman Empire and interacting regularly with non-Jews. Just as the religious principle may have been essential in successfully broadening community beyond just kin, the supernatural principle may have been critical in moving us from tribes to nations. Indeed, research has found that as societies grow larger and more complex, their tendency to envision moralizing gods increases.
How well does the supernatural vs. religious distinction hold up under scientific scrutiny? In their review paper, Preston and her colleagues describe a study where subjects are given the opportunity to cooperate with either an in-group or out-group member (defined by racial/ethnic identity). When reminded of concepts associated with "religion," subjects showed increased cooperativeness with in-group members. However, when reminded of concepts associated with "God" they showed increased cooperativeness with out-group members. A similar finding was obtained when it came to choosing to contribute to a charity. When reminded of "religion" people gave more to a domestic charity, when reminded of "God" people gave more to a foreign charity.
Religious morality (indeed all morality) struggles with an ever-present tension between universalist ideals and the gritty practicalities of human social life. Outside of kinship, religion is humanity's most potent mechanism for building social cohesion. Common rituals and traditions are the social glue of religious communities, binding them together while clearly defining their boundaries. Deep moral concern thrives within but not beyond these boundaries. Religion, however, did not invent bounded moral concern. It is inherent to the human psyche. The family, clan, tribe and nation have, throughout all of human history, taken moral priority over the stranger. In order to have some confidence that the stranger was not a dangerous free-rider and could therefore be invited into the circle of moral regard, humans have historically employed either common gods or common enemies. If the gods are now outdated, are common enemies all we have left?
Religion and Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Flaws in Theistic, Religious Morality: Why Religion and Theism are ...
Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YouTube - Richard Dawkins Lays Into Religious Morality
Morality without religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm not angry, just an atheist who gives because I can and I should. I didn't have a lot when I grew up and now I find myself in different circumstances. I believe, because of my own sense of ethics, that it is right to help others who have less. I remember being hungry and cold when I was a small child. I find that a lot of folks who work beside me when I volunteer or who I talk to about the charities we support have much the same interests and reasons for giving. None of us give because of the promise of heaven or the threat of hell.
Maybe atheists aren't such bad people after all now, are we?
That is total BS. Let's look at crime rates, divorce rates, teen pregnancy and drug abuse in the deep south. Those hypocrites make statements like the one above, but the numbers don't lie.
In addition to the problem of ego, there is the reality that if I believe that a)what I have is better than what you have, and b) I am required by both God and generosity to see that you get the good thing I have, I am going to want you to change. You, of course, feel the same way about me. Both of us have to accept the other's (wrong, wrong, wrong) belief as a sign of sincerity, if not brains, and then shut up.
I deal with this by trying to live my life in a way that encourages others to ask about my beliefs, to be the "city on the hill." This, of course, means that I really have to guard against spiritual pride; I have to listen carefully to you, (even though I know you are wrong) just in case you are right.
It is no wonder that people have a hard time with mutual respect and tolerance! But, to truly serve God, we have to keep trying.
What a sad fact it is that when the majority of humans to find social communion through religion, they at the same time create a whole world of everyone outside of that.
umm, actually, atheists are much much more annoyed that the evidence shows that religion also encourages violent, anti-social behavior.
What studies? The one that says that Sweden, the most secular country in the world, gives the most charitable donations as a percentage of GDP?
"Religion facilitates self-control which translates into lower rates of delinquency, criminality, substance abuse, promiscuity and divorce"
That's why 0.02 percent of prisoners in the US are atheists, with almost 100% belonging to some religion (about 84% judeo-christian).
You can't just throw out random facts that you've made up.
"But take heart, angry atheists..."
I find these two phrases rather insulting. It perpetuates the idea that atheists are non-believers because of anger towards a god(s) or religion(s). I don't consider myself an "angry atheist." I am an atheist and there are things that really peeve me--predominately the idea that religion has a corner on the morality market and that we should all believe in one particular version of religion. I am mad that it is seeping into our government to the point that we ignore more pressing matters in the hopes of placating the Religious Right. Don't we have more important things to worry about than abortion, a flash of nudity, or where a place of worship is located?
Now, I don't think those issues are the sole property of the believers among us. I am quite sure there are many more non-religious folks pulling the strings than we realize. (We often have to "pretend" in order to "pass"). I am just as angry at them. I am appalled at how we have put money, god, and "patriotism" over the needs of our fellow human beings. If that makes me an "angry atheist," then color me angry.
This is a study, scientific in nature, the results will most assuredly change as situations change. If you take this study as a referendum on the atheist community and the 'need' for religion in 20 years you will find you have miscalculated.
He therefore puts us in a category more precious than happenstance which leaves evolutionary myths for others to worship.
Sorry but the creator of the universe would not be that small and limited. Christianity does hold some good moral code but it is also judgmental by its very nature.
Then there are the people who are undiscriminating cheerleaders for religions. They allow for the reprehensible and anachronistic elements of religions to carry on without criticism. Birth control, stoning, misogyny, and other social ills are promoted by religions. These are altogether different from the subjective states. They have to do with what the author calls a "religious principle"(a label I disagree with, all groups distinguish between out/in members)
There should be some appreciation for the authors capacity to acknowledge the blessings and ills of religions, and to make references to science to analyze the religious scene.