Are religious people more altruistic, or altruistic people more religious?

It appears to be perceived wisdom that religious people tend to give more to charity, they get more involved in helping those less able, and they have more of a sense of serving the community.

Let's assume that this is all true - (and I have no reason to doubt it).  Is it their religion that makes them more altruistic, or is the fact that they are inherently predisposed towards altruism that means that they find a natural home in religion?  Are we confusing which is cause and which is effect? 

If it is true that altruistic people are naturally drawn to a group where they can express this, then there is a future for humanity without religion.  As religion continues to wane, perhaps we need to find a way to replace religious groups with equivalent secular groups.

If, however, it is belief in a supernatural God is what drives people to be altruistic, then perhaps we need to continue to accept that religion is a necessary civilising influence, even if most of us are no longer believers..

An eye for an eye?

I'm always perplexed when I read about religious people advocating the death penalty for murder, on the basis of Biblical or other Holy book justice.  I saw an article recently which addressed this in a rather interesting way - Would those same people who advocated death for murder feel the same way about the State blackmailing those who blackmail, or raping those who rape?  I sincerely hope not.

Who gives? Do women make the best Humanists?

I find myself more interested in reading other people's blogs than writing my own, but this blog still provides me with a useful tool to track the progression of my thoughts and attitudes.  It really doesn't matter if nobody reads my posts, or if I repeat myself.  This is mostly so that I can capture some of my thoughts before they evaporate.  Anyway, I digress. To the subject in mind:

Last weekend I spent hours standing outside a supermarket collecting for the local Air Ambulance.  The supermarket serves a mostly affluent local population who predominantly vote Conservative or Liberal.  The thing that struck me was that probably 95% of those giving donations were female, and of those the vast majority were certainly over 50 years old.  By contrast, most men, of all ages, went out of their way to avoid me, and slunk by into the store.  This is also in line with previous experiences.

Why is this?  I can't empirically prove the answer, but perhaps these women are better able to empathise with those in need, and to feel their need, even though they have no direct relationship or benefit from helping these unknown people.

Perhaps I should come back to this having thought some more on it.

Young Earth Creationism - The lengths to which supporters go...

An article by a Young Earth Creationist caught my eye today.  It was about the "problem of distant stars".  In it he considers the probem that if the Earth is indeed only about 6,000 years old and was a part of the 6 day creation of Life the Universe and Everything by God, then why is it that we can see the light from any of the myriad of stars which are clearly at distances significantly greater that 6,000 light years...

The author tries hard to convince us that this is possible because Newton's and Einstein's laws do not apply, but the logic he uses, and the pseudoscientific ideas he postulates are laughable to anyone with a broad education and even a moderate scientific knowledge.  It seems though that the author is utterly convinced of his logic, and one presumes that so are those who already believe as he does, against all the actual reputable natural evidence that already exists.

My puzzlement is why they seek so hard to explain what is to them a supernatural event by recourse to natural laws.  Why do they think this is necessary? 

There are also those among the more moderate believers who believe in miracles, and believe in supernatural intervention, but who under scrutiny simply say that these are in fact natural events, but ones which are outside our understanding, and known only to God.  Hmmm...  That's a cop out if ever I heard one.

I can understand why people might possess faith in a higher being.  What I fail to understand is why they try to rationalise or to "prove" this by pseudoscience. Not only is it counterproductive, but also uneccessary.

Spurious correlations

I heard the following snippet on UK Radio 4's pick of the week, by Chris McManus of University College London.  I may not have recorded exactly correctly but I hope this gives the gist of it:

"People are extremely good at making explanations of things they find in the World, but those explanations may not be true. People are also very good at spotting differences such as red hair, left-handedness etc but then they often make spurious correlations such as "she's a writer, she's left handed; She must be a writer because she is left handed. -  And then we boring scientists come along, sort it out and then find there is no correlation at all."

Perhaps this human propensity to make any connection rather than none (no matter how bizarre) and avoid having to admit that the real answer is not yet within human capability to understand;  is part of what is behind enduring religious belief.

Saw this great definition again today...

The American Humanist Association's Definition of Humanism:

"Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracty and the expansion of open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values -- be they religious, ethical, social or political -- have their source in human nature, experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny."

Dark humour

I've been struggling to keep it together recently.  The following has little to do with anything on this blog except humans sometimes find comfort in black humour to which they can relate. For me it works where religion does not.  The following cheered me up no end.  Still chuckling about it.  I have a terrible memory.  One of the few upsides is that I refind jokes I had forgotten and they make me smile all over again:

"Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline.

If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.
If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.
If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5, and 6.
If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call.
If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press.
If you are depressed, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one will answer.
If you are delusional and occasionally hallucinate, please be aware that the thing you are holding on the side of your head is alive and about to bite off your ear."

I've been there, and I've met all these people....

Frustration, Incredulity, Anger

It's been a while since my last post.  Too many pressing tasks got in the way. 
It's now several months since I started taking a more in depth look at religious motivation.  I had hoped to discover something that went some way to explaining why people still cling to religion in advanced democracies.  I have to admit to still being none the wiser.  It still seems to me that people embrace religion as a coping strategy, and as a way to feel a sense of community and purpose.  In this respect it is useful and helpful, but surely the cost in human misery as a result of the misuse of religious belief to oppress people is not worth it.
I hope that one day humans advance to the point that they can live without religion, and instead understand the World in which they live for what it is, not for what legends imply it could be.
I remain amazed that intelligent humans can be so wilfully blind to physical reality.

The Golden Rule

Many religions include an exhortation to "do unto others as you would have done unto you" or some similar form of words.  This exhortation is also a fundamental part of being a Humanist.  This common theme from so many different cultures and religions must surely imply that it is essentially an idea created by humans, and not something passed down by "God"?

Examples of the ‘Golden Rule’ from around the world (Courtesy of BHA)

"He should treat all beings as he himself should be treated. The essence of right conduct is not to injure anyone." (JAINISM -from The Suta-Kritanga, about 550 BCE*)

"Do not do to others what you would not like for yourself."
(CONFUCIANISM - from The Analects of Confucius, about 500 BCE)

"I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself."
(BUDDHISM - from The Siglo-Vada Sutta, about 500 BCE)

"This is the sum of duty: Do nothing to others Which, if done to you, could cause you pain." (HINDUISM - from The Mahabharata, about 150 BCE)

"What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (ANCIENT GREECE - Epictetus, the Greek philosopher, about 90CE*)

"Love your neighbour as yourself." (JUDAISM / CHRISTIANITY - Leviticus 19, in The Torah, about 400 BCE, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22 and Mark 12, 1st Century CE)

"What is harmful to yourself do not do to your fellow men. That is the whole of the law…" (JUDAISM - from Hillel: The Talmud, about 100 CE)

"None of you truly believes, until he wishes for his brothers what he wishes for himself." (ISLAM - a saying of The Prophet Muhammad, 7th Century CE)

"As you think of yourself, so think of others." (SIKHISM - from Guru Granth Sahib, 1604 CE)

One should be "contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow against himself." (GREAT BRITAIN - Thomas Hobbes, English philosopher, 1588-1679 CE)

Is there a point to any of this?

I thought I had come to terms with their being no point to all of this - That there was no higher purpose, no need to have more than that which we experience in the here and now.  Sometimes one could wish for something more.  But there is an unbridgeable gulf between wishing there to be more, and believing, knowing that there is.  Since thinking more deeply about what I believe and what I know, I have become ever more aware of how little of which I can be sure.
And yet one thing continues by turns to fascinate and annoy me - Why do apparently rational, intelligent and well educated people still believe in the Abrahamic God.  There is now so much evidence that explains why humans created this supernatural being, and the anthropological origins of the stories; and so many far more extraordinary tangible things we have now discovered about our existence that make this God look feeble by comparison.  And yet belief continues.  Is it the comfort, the tribal togetherness, the social status, or something else, or have have many humans really discovered something real that I cannot ever comprehend?  The apparent rough correlation between atheism and higher education would tend to make one think not.
And yet it still continues.
Puzzling to be sure....