Duh! Rising above the basest level of happiness/needs is rewarding for everyone. Of course it is biological. Does that make the man-God Jesus Christ unnecessary? No. Simply proving we smile, without God is not proof that He does not exist or that He did not die and rise for us. It proves only that a study can see biology more clearly than it has before.

Please remember that scientific discoveries are fact. Also keep in mind that the opinion that science proves there is no God, is not fact but spin.

Thanks and keep up the great reporting, but save me from your spin that God is a fairy tale. I do not need to feel like I am playing a shell game when I listen to NPR.

Sent by George Kloss | 12:01 PM ET | 05-29-2007

George, I'm not arguing that God is a fairy tale. Nor do I think that this kind of research proves that God doesn't exist. I enjoy reading about these discoveries because I think they better help us understand the way we work. It makes perfect sense to me that we would develop what we now call altruism as a survival strategy. I've also read articles that argue that "selfishness" works better inside a group, while altruism works better between groups. Lots of interesting research to ponder.

Atheism is but one viewpoint of the meaning of these discoveries across a wide spectrum of viewpoints.

Sent by Tom Regan | 2:42 PM ET | 05-29-2007

I think what George may have taken offense to is the headline saying that "being good" (which is a topic for another time) is "based" on biology. Those of us who believe that God exists and is our Creator might say, "researchers have found that rewards for being good have been built into our brain." Who do you think built it into our brain? Some would say it was done by evolution driven by chance over millions of years. Others (including me) might say it was done by God - driving evolution (not by chance or random, natural selection).

Sent by Jim Dodd | 11:24 AM ET | 05-30-2007

I also enjoy reading these articles for the same reason you state. I think that in this case the results of the study show that most truly sucessful people would be altruistic. In short, a reasonable environment built upon altruism would make more time for sucessful gene swapping.

But your original blog seemed more interested in setting up a told-you-so prediction on those who may not see things as you do. That is why I originally thought you enjoyed writing about this study for less intellectually pure reasons.

Calling attention to opinions of people before they react is a direct means of introducing conflit. I wouldn't go as far to say that it is evidence of a prejudiced mind set. But, I would think a writer who wanted to call attention to results would stick to the data. It seems you may have inadvertently diverted attention away from the study to the reaction of "theologians, ministers and philosophers." And if the point isn't about what they think then, I think your reply of 2:42 PM is much more on target.

I do enjoy NPR because it presents news in a fuller more thoughtful manner. (lenghtier discussions, presentation of a few sides on a given topic, lighter subject matter sprinkled in, scientific processing at times ...) I accept the spin because it seems to be part of the NPR culture right now. But the anti-religious twist does make it harder to tune in. And sometimes I literally smack my head in disbelief when it is so blatant.

I like the format of NPR productions. I guess I wish I didn't have to filter as many anti-religous elements.

Thanks for your work and understanding.

Sent by George Kloss | 4:37 PM ET | 05-30-2007

I'm sorry, but what you personally feel is offensive to your belief in your deity has absolutely no bearing on biological research. When this type of research is conducted, and the results are reported, what any individual's personal religion may be is irrelivent, and should not influence the reporting. Silence due to fear of offending people's religious feelings would leave us in a world that is still believed to be flat.

However the reporters of this article seem to be using the wrong words anyway. What was described is empathy/altruism, not morality. While the two may be related, they are not the same thing. Saying that an act is moral because it makes us feel good would imply that any act that we are hard-wired to feel good doing is inherantly moral. Is eating and sex "moral"? What about actions that may activate the reward center, but which we all agree are immoral nonethelss?
(If interested, this blog post tackles the issue rather well: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/05/morality-is-not-hard-wired.html )

Sent by Eneasz Brodski | 6:05 PM ET | 06-01-2007