Summary of Haidt's findings on religious giving from his book The Righteous Mind:

• For decades religious people claimed more giving but in laboratory experiments showed about the same behavior as nonreligious people toward strangers.

• Religious people show very generous behavior toward other believers, particularly when reputation is enhanced.

• In the U.S. the least religious fifth of the population (based on church attendance) gives 1.5% of its income.

• The most religious fifth of the population (based on church attendance) gives 7% of its income, mostly to religious organizations. The same is true of volunteer work.

• People who attend church most often are more generous overall and give not only to religious organizations but give equally or slightly more to secular charities as compared to secular people.

• In experiments using economic games, religious people behave more generously and trustingly with other religious people and generate more wealth.

Haidt, Jonathan (2012-03-13). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Kindle Location 4647-4690). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

On the motivations for giving, Haidt writes

“[B]eliefs and practices turned out to matter very little. Whether you believe in hell, whether you pray daily, whether you are a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Mormon … none of these things correlated with generosity. The only thing that was reliably and powerfully associated with the moral benefits of religion was how enmeshed people were in relationships with their co-religionists. It’s the friendships and group activities, carried out within a moral matrix that emphasizes selflessness. That’s what brings out the best in people.”

Haidt, Jonathan (2012-03-13). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Kindle Locations 4699-4700). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 06:33PM by robertb.

Yes, Mormons generously give 10% of their income to TSCC, but I would not call that a compassionate act.

Often, I wounder if one can call the donations and volunteer work given to a church one believes in an INVESTMENT rather than a generous contribution. The investment being an attempt to by the stairway to heaven.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 11:44AM by MJ.

I agree. Nor are they mutually exclusive. Like so many things, it depends. People can be generous toward odious causes.

"Investment" in another sense is also part of the group bonding. We support and are supported by what we invest in.

But if you want to study compassion and compassion alone, one needs to eliminate the parts of "generous" that are not based on compassion. Generous tithing would likely not count towards evidence of compassion, for example.

Thus, when talking about if religious people are more or less compassionate than non-religious people, it is quite possible that they are more generous but less compassionate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 11:54AM by MJ.

Possibly. Perhaps it is possible to talk about compassion as simply emotion or as part of a complex of emotions. I don't assume that religious people give so generously simply because they are guilted into it. Giving can be integrated into part of their self-image, which I suspect it is.

Studies on giving and other social behavior per Robert Chialdini show that once we do a behavior, especially if others witness it, we create an internal expectation to live up to. That would mean to get people to give you don't *need* to keep generating the same level of compassionate feelings over the long haul.

I wonder that while atheists in the study were motivated by compassion (a good thing!) if that behavior would continue over the long haul or at what level over the long haul without group reinforcement and other motivations coming into play. Compassion, as an emotion, is not easy to sustain, in my experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 12:06PM by robertb.

"I don't assume that religious people give so generously simply because they are guilted into it" I never said anything about being guilted into anything. I used an example of Mormon tithing which many may have been guilted into paying but it may also "be integrated into part of their self-image". You are projecting your view of the LDS church onto what I am saying.

It seems to me that you are trying to make what I said into something that was not even implied.

Yes, compassion can be looked at as an emotion and that would be an interesting study, I think this study was looking at compassion as a motivating force. If they are looking to see how much a person is motivated by compassion, they need to eliminate other motivating factors.

I actually wasn't trying to attribute the statement about guilt to you. I was selecting among possibilities that seem likely to *me* about the Mormon Church. However, I see how you can legitimately understand it as attributed to you and will try to be more sensitive and clear about attribution when communicating with you in the future. I'm sure you will remind me if I forget.

You made it about something I was not talking about, changing the point entirely.

Would it help if I restated your point of view as I understand it before commenting? Do you want others to respond to what you say if they have a different point of view or if what you say generates a different thought?

I really hope you can see why.

It's not even 10%. I think the Barna group did a survey on tithing and Mormons came out ahead of other groups but, on average of course, 2% or 3% below what they are supposed to give. Other Christian groups were 5% or 6% below the 10% mark.

.... if charitable contributions were no longer tax deductible!

and what would the unintended effects be? Many churches give a lot to their communities. Would it be a net loss or net gain to communities? My gut feeling is it would be a loss. Also, what would be the justification for singling out churches from other nonprofits if churches are meeting the required definitions for nonprofit status? I, like others here, wonder if the Mormon Church doesn't violate the requirements, but law is not my area.

The LDS claims to do a lot of charitable work in the community, and looking at it from one perspective, yes that could be seen as true, but it is small compared to the amount they rake in it is not a lot.

I often wonder about churches and the cost of so many buildings that are vacant so much of the time. Even though they are vacant, there are still costs involved in maintenance etc.

Many churches use their buildings throughout the week and allow the community to use them when the church is not. By contrast, when I was a Mormon, the meetinghouse was idle the greatest part of the week and didn't host community events.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 02:39PM by robertb.

Sit vacant most of the time. I used to work for a gay and lesbian center that was next to a church. The center worked hard to make full use of the building. They tried to insure there were services going as much of the time as possible. The church parking lot was empty during the day during the week and refused to let the center use their parking lot.

I really do not see churches doing that sort of thing the center was doing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 05:05PM by MJ.

Difference between CA and UT?--and prejudice against your center?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 05:06PM by robertb.

For that experience. Another: For several years I lived where I could see two churches and their parking lots, always empty. One refused to allow a request for an AA meeting to be held there (SF bay area).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 05:11PM by MJ.

We have churches in our area that rent out their buildings for graduations and assemblies. Quite the cash cow and not exactly "given" freely to the community.

I don't mind exempting churches from taxation on the part of their budget that is used for actual CHARITY; they should be treated the same as individuals on that score. But to exempt them from all taxation is absurd.

Why do I have to subsidize LD$ Inc. in its commerical real estate ventures (i.e., building temples & other buildings)? Why do I have to subsidize the bowling alleys and ski trips that Baptists are so fond of?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2012 05:07PM by Timothy.

Like "horny joe smith" points out above, I too have had a lot of pressure to contribute to fundraisers for whatever some church might be pushing (tickets for a drawing to support kids who can't afford Bible school camp was the most nauseous). They consider that charity work.

I have participated in 5 "community service" fundraisers at work over the last 1 1/2 years.

The company I work for encourages community service and likes to help provide us with opportunities.

The problem is, the opportunities end up being an employee pushing something that is related to their church.

So, my contributions to a battered women's center, toy drive for children, cancer walk, tornado relief clean up, etc. went into the pool that ultimately are associated with a church. The church looks all charitable because the church member puts pressure her on coworkers outside of church.

I do not appreciate religions taking the credit. The people are out there doing the work, and that includes people like me. It is part of how I am a team player at work and am willing to support the causes of my coworkers.

Will you see this on my taxes? No. Will you hear about how Church Jesus-such-and-such did the charitable work on the news? Yes. I've got the church T-shirt to prove it.

So, the point is, many religious people do contribute to secular causes and many nonreligious people contribute to religion.

I've seen some amazingly charitable bleeding heart liberals and some who are amazingly charitable with Christ-like motives. I’m not convinced “the experts” are measuring all the factors to determine who is most charitable. I think human nature includes being charitable.

A couple of my thoughts on this:

You obviously care about your coworkers and community. You even contribute to causes when you won't get recognition or the recognition is misattributed. What also seems obvious to me to me is you contributed to causes that were church-related because a church or church member pushed the cause.

It wasn't an atheist, humanistic, or secular group organizing causes at your workplace. So, if you wanted to participate, the church effort is what you had. With atheists being 4% of the population, I imagine there aren't the numbers in most places to organize.

I would be interested in knowing whether atheists would be as inclined as religious people to organize and to act as groups if they had greater numbers.

Why are you convinced that the "experts" are mistaken? What do you think is being left out?

I think atheists tend to be less organized in groups and fewer in numbers. They don’t herd as well as religious folks, IMO.

Also, I don't identify myself as an atheist at work because unlike my religious coworkers, I consider it something to keep to myself.

When I contribute to secular organizations, it is as an individual. I don't look for an atheist group to contribute for me.

Many of the charitable things religions do can be done by anyone. I think people are accustomed to thinking it is religion's role so they look for a religion to sponsor things.

Some religious people are very quiet and private about the good they do for others. Others tend to want the acknowledgement. I wonder if there are more introverts outside of religion and if this could be a factor as well.

Religious people are more charitable within their group, because they stand something to gain whether it's that someone will return the act directly or it will elevate their status within the group. Either way it's reciprocity.

There's nothing wrong with reciprocity; it's the basic currency of human interaction. However, it's a lot lower on the altruism scale - not exactly what I would call the "pure love of Christ".

Yes. There is also liking--"They are like me. I am comfortable with them."

With giving the question also comes up about giving to an extent or in ways that encourage people to take from the group without giving back. A certain amount of that is unavoidable if a group is going to be giving, but too many free riders can also take down the the group. They use resources and they also discourage more committed group members who begin to feel taken advantage of and stop giving or move on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2012 11:47AM by robertb.

There's plenty of tight-a$$ bishops that cut people off at a certain point or will just plain refuse them in the first place. The idea of self-sufficiency is drummed into everyone like a mantra and they usually have no trouble doling out the tough love.

Also there's just as much stigma attached to taking morg welfare as there is attached to taking government welfare. They can even be more. For example, I recall visiting my wife's TBM friends in St. George, UT. They lived in a nice house (they got it for 300k and was problably worth twice that at some point before the real estate bubble), but he had been out of work for a while. They were getting food stamps to help get by. All the tithing and FO they had probably paid and yet they would not take morg welfare for the stigma attached.

The morg's motto should be: Remember, we're always here for you, just as long as you don't really need us.

After reading The Book of Mammon: A Book About A Book About The Corporation That Owns The Mormons it seemed to me many bishops could be more generous than they are, certainly.