Given that other studies find people who put their faith into practice (active participation in worship communities) tend to outgive those who do not several times over, the headline is accurate, just misleading and slanted.

Or at least those would be the conclusions gleaned by someone predisposed to aggrandize the faithful and denigrate the compassion or charitable impulses of those who reject the groundless faith in an ethereal divine being. It's hard to imagine a weaker and more flawed conclusion than one that credits theists with more criticism and skepticism when confronted with "unsubstantiated emotional appeals from unknown agencies," which encapsulates the call to religiosity quite nicely.

Thanks for your help in dealing so generously with my lack of understanding regarding science. But when I reread the article I perceived for the first time that they actually seemed to be interested in the study of the relationship of morality, etc. to personality. Is it not 'possible' that someone could actually think up questions that could be addressed. That's what I thought they were attempting in my last reading. I perhaps was right in my original instinctive response that something was wrong with the method, or something. Granted, it may not be possible to be specific enough. But on my second reading, thinking of the possibility, I merely thought 'wow'! (After all they do 'soft?' research in psychology, etc.)
There's also the problem of interpretation. Would Humean behavior be some sort of soft sentimentality, or would it be closer to one of many definitions of affection, love, etc? How would one distinguish scientifically between self-interest and altruism? Is it possible to 'connect' an idea to a fact in these cases. I appreciate I'm 'way out' on this, and of course I'll bow to your better judgment, but once upon a time there was no idea let alone a fact of flight. (And yes, maybe I'm resorting to metaphor for this crazy thought of mine).

The thing about science, the reason there's improvement, is that the question has to be very clear, clear enough and connected enough to physical reality that some test of that physical reality can clearly answer the question.

Does information travel faster than the speed of light? Set up a relay, separate it by a great distance, send a message, track how fast the message takes. If you get the message fast enough, then information can travel faster than the speed of light. If you don't, then it's unknown whether information can travel faster than the speed of light.

Are there black swans? Same thing. Go out and find a black swan.

What's the clear question that we'd be answering, and how does it connect to physical reality? Will Humean behavior have particular properties that Kantian behavior never will?

Yes, but science generally tends to improve on any particular issue they tackle. And I think they could provide an interesting prospective to the human condition. It could even encourage people to be more 'self-reflective'[; even if only in defense of a particular conclusion that any particular study comes to. I do believe however, that literature is a far better vehicle for exploring the 'individual', whether a person or a context. Like I said the hardest correlation/;correspondence to find is that between idea and fact. My look at this relationship within this context has put the ideas of 'the word made flesh', and the 'living word', within a new light, as well. I also find it interesting to attempt to figure out 'how' I 'think', or whether indeed it can be called that!!!!! grin grin..

All these things seem very fuzzy and hard to test in any scientifically rigorous way.

On reading the article again in more detail it seems like a deontological ethic (i.e. duty) is associated with the theists, while a Humean:i.e. a sympathy or sentimentally based ethic is associated with the atheists. But these are studied only respect to giving within the context of monetary donations. Could this science of the personality extend the scope of its thesis and examine the relation of duty vs. empathy to other criteria: like offering advice, helping someone out of a jam, (indeed when it would be best to do same or not do same) and the decisions within all of the continually occurring dilemnas that we find in others in our daily and ongoing interaction with them.

I was thinking about the difficulties of the correspondence theory of truth in a recent post. Correlations/correspondences between ideas are possibly easier to make than between ideas and facts; A thought that maybe distinguishes between the respective 'domains' of philosophy and religion, etc. in contrast with science??? Just wondering here. Added another edit below. Thanks.

Thanks Paul. I think scripture could be interpreted to be making a similar kind of case, but of course in a more abstract and ironically in a more 'personal' language.

Edit: I pressed thumbs up, cause it was the only way I could find out who had left the previous one. Thanks, Paul.

My opinion is that the results say nothing about atheism or theism, even if interpreted correctly. Atheists may be more compassionate because they are more likely to be feminists or vegetarians and maybe feminists or vegetarians are more compassionate. Or maybe there are lots of other underlying causes. Correlation is not the same as causation, and the results would be too hard to disentangle from other possible causes.