Advertisement

In Theory: Recent study questions religion’s role in altruism

In a new study, children who were from secular families were more likely to share than children from religious families.

In a new study, children who were from secular families were more likely to share than children from religious families.

(Lefteris Pitarakis / AP)
Share

Children raised in nonreligious households are more generous than those from religious families, according to a study published this month in the journal Current Biology.

In a test involving 1,170 children from various religious backgrounds and from seven cities around the world, nonreligious children were found to be more willing to share stickers with their peers and less likely to endorse harsh punishments for people who bumped into or pushed others.

“The researchers also found that the more religious the family, the less altruistic the child. This pattern held up for all religions in the study,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

The children ranged in age from 5 and 12 years old. Forty-three percent were Muslim, 24% were Christian, 2.5% were Jewish, 1.6% were Buddhist, 0.4% were Hindu, 0.2% were agnostic, 0.5% were classified as “other,” and 28% were from families classified as “not religious.”

“The findings ‘call into question whether religion is vital for moral development,’” the Times reports. “They don’t seem to think so; separating religion from morality, they wrote, ‘will not reduce human kindness — in fact, it will do just the opposite.’”

Q. What is your take on the results of the study? Is religion necessary in the development of altruistic and moral children?

--

The study’s findings are reasonable. However, one study is not enough to base an absolute conclusion. Even the most professionally done studies are imperfect, so in order to get the most accurate results possible, numerous large sample, objective, controlled studies must be done and analyzed.

This particular study tested religious people versus non, but it utilized different sample amounts from the various religions. Had there been equal numbers of respondents from each test group, or even other percentages tested, the results may have been different.

That being said, I think multiple studies would come up with the same result. I absolutely believe morality and ethics is not at all a function of religious belief and, as the study suggests, is often undermined by faith. When children are taught to do good because of threat of punishment or promise of reward, rather than simply because it is the right thing to do; they don’t really learn the lesson or internalize the behavior. When the threat or reward is removed from the equation; the behavior changes as well. Children should learn to do good based on their own judgment and instinct of how it affects others, the world and themselves. Guiding by example rather than commandment is the best way to teach ethical behavior.

Joshua Lewis Berg
Humanist Celebrant
Glendale

--

For the longest time I have believed that one can be moral without being religious. And the findings in the study seem to suggest the same thing. However, I must confess that I am amazed that the nonreligious seemed to be better on all counts than the religious. I would have expected some equality in the results, but not the nonreligious coming out more “moral” or generous or altruistic than the religious.

I suppose I am surprised because I recently read something about how the power of prayer, worship, and being charitable helps with one’s all-around good health. And so I guess I’d expect the benefits of being “religious” would spill over into other aspects of life, such as treating others nicer or being more “moral” or altruistic. Maybe another study needs to be done! But for the time being, I remain amazed at the results of the aforementioned study. Good for you, you godless pagans! Once again you have shown up us pious souls! The Lord be with you!

Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

--

These are counterintuitive and disturbing findings. I think that what each religion actually teaches about punishment and altruism should be factored into the study, although it doesn’t appear to have been. A religion that emphasizes holiness might produce children who lean toward stricter treatment in situations that require discipline. A religion that emphasizes rote memorization of religious passages without understanding their practical application toward the treatment of others might produce children who are less altruistic.

These statistics actually substantiate Jesus’ words of wisdom to Nicodemus the religious man: “You must be born again” (see John 3:7). Apparently, being religious doesn’t make people better than others. In fact, it could even make them worse. Religious people were Jesus’ worst and most violent opponents. Only God can produce the changes in our hearts that make us truly kind, gentle and giving. Indeed, any person who is not born again has only an unredeemed nature that will naturally produce “immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these (Galatians 5:19-21). Only people who are filled with the Holy Spirit will naturally produce “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23). Religion is not what we need. A relationship with God is what we need, with the accompanying, divinely produced change of heart that deepens the longer we know him. Jesus Christ came as “the way, and the truth, and the life” to make this relationship with God a reality for all who have faith in him.

Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank

--

When I read the title of the magazine “Biology Today,” I wondered why this journal was touting a study of morality. When I saw its conclusion I understood. It is another “science” fusillade against religion in the battle over which is more beneficial to mankind, secularism or religion.

Having taught children from all the ages 5 to 12, I am not sure I ever saw true altruism. So let us look at the communities in question, some multicultural and some unicultural.

Without seeing the empirical data, it is hard to see which group was the most altruistic, the multicultural religious or the unicultural secular. In a cosmopolitan community, the biblical injunction, “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev. 19), may include people from a different religious group, hence a stranger. In an insulated unicultural religious group, it is hard to find a stranger to give to. Also, in certain religious groups children below the age of maturation, 12 for girls and 13 for boys, the child is not held responsible for “sins,” improper behaviors, such as refusing to care for widows and orphans, Isiah 58:7.

So let Biology Today’s staff use adults over the age of 18, the secular norm, and let them use the rubric of Moses Maimonides, a man revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims as well as Aristotelian philosophy students, toward giving:

1. the lowest: giving begrudgingly and making the recipient feel disgraced or embarrassed;

2. giving cheerfully but giving too little;

3. giving cheerfully and adequately but only after being asked;

4. giving before being asked;

5. giving when you do not know who is the individual benefiting, but the recipient knows your identity;

6. giving when you know who is the individual benefiting, but the recipient does not know your identity;

7. giving when neither the donor nor the recipient is aware of the other’s identity;

8. the highest: giving money, a loan, your time or whatever else it takes to enable an individual to be self-reliant.

Let us then rely on those results to guide us in our judgments. Then we ourselves can rely on truthful results not “child”-ish ones.

Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank

--

An important take-away from any survey research is that association is not causation. We do not know that being secular has made the children more altruistic, and though similar findings from more studies would strengthen the association, proving cause is more challenging.

It is theoretically possible that pure luck brought the researchers generous secular children and selfish believers. Some of the seculars’ parents could own sticker stores so that amassing stickers is the furthest thing from their childrens’ minds. While these are far-fetched scenarios, my point is that there is no proof in this research that being secular causes more altruism than being religious.

Interestingly, the findings in this study are not borne out based on my extended family — among whom I, my husband and our children, all secular, are the exceptions. My seven siblings, hordes of nieces and nephews, and their children are mostly believers, yet are neither selfish nor harsh, in my observation. However our family isn’t causal proof one way or the other either.

But if being secular does tend to make you more altruistic, I can see a possible explanation. Given the high level of religiosity in the U.S., those who have broken free of our culture’s religious domination may have given more conscious thought to living morally, whereas believers may assume that their religion covers them on the moral front.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

--

I think the study is flawed in several ways, but maybe it reveals some conclusions that were not considered by the researchers. The assumption that nonreligious kids are morally superior, based on a mere thousand participants, is hardly definitive. Given another thousand and another study, the results could be opposite, especially if nonreligious participants were increased to half, rather than just a quarter. That should be obviously more equitable. Since almost half of the participants were Muslim (the majority) a conclusion might be that Muslims are the worst, but again, the collection of representatives seems rather unbalanced.

Given that they’re kids, it may say nothing about what sort of people they’ll grow up to be with or without religion. People often grow into or out of childhood attitudes, and much of this is a direct result of their cultivated religious beliefs. While the study showed the minority of nonreligious children evidencing an inclination toward sharing, it also showed that they were less inclined to justice. Justice is a moral good that’s often understood better by people who perceive the differences between right, wrong, fair and unfair. Religion deals with this issue, and within Christianity, the central message is based upon this, with the leap to mercy being God’s final answer to sinful humanity. God reveals ultimate altruism through Jesus Christ who shared our pain and took our punishment. He taught us the Golden Rule; “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” (Luke 6:31 MEV).

“Religion” per se, has never been a guarantee of better behavior or morality, as there are many religions with disparate views. Most religions will share some of the same social morals, but unless a religion is true, then it’s not any better morally than atheism. Morals are found in the biblical God, apart from whom there is no true morality, only accepted social behaviors.

Finally, of the nearly 200 countries in the world, America is always in the top slots as most altruistic. More than 90% of us identify as religious, and more than 80% identify as Christian. In other words, our religious nation stands above the secular and nonreligious nations of the world. Both foreign and domestic “sharing” by predominantly Christian America is unmatched. Without our Christian religion, we wouldn’t be nearly as altruistic and moral as we are. I know I wouldn’t.

Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga

--

There is some peril in placing too much faith in studies. There have been others, with larger sample groups, which concluded that those who are religious have the greater tendency to be generous. We gain nothing but contention from arguing over which study is definitive.

There is even greater risk in debating whether any one group is kinder, more charitable — in essence, better — than another. It is a conversation that at best nurtures hubris and at worst leads to hypocrisy and intolerance.

From the perspective of Mormon doctrine, such debate also is irrelevant. In the eyes of God we are not compared with others, nor are we measured in terms that can be quantified on a researcher’s spreadsheet. Instead, the scriptures tell us, God “looketh on the heart.” None of us has the capacity to follow God’s teachings perfectly. Fortunately, he can see what we truly desire. He can look into our hearts to see the good even as human weakness and frailty sometimes cause us to fail. Because of Christ’s atonement, a sincere heart, coupled with repentance, can erase those moments of failure.

Jesus’ parable of the widow’s mite helps explain this concept. The poor widow’s small offering was of little consequence to the treasury, but was great in the eyes of God because it represented all that she had. Our task, then, is not to give more than someone else, but to lay all that we have on the altar for God to take should he require it.

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta

Advertisement