In my studies, I have not analyzed the role of religion in guilt-related gender differences, nor do I know of any study that has done so. However, my response would be: “Yes, it does.”

In our last study, we found that, among adolescents, young adults, and adults in Spain, women habitually feel more intense guilt than men do, and this difference can basically be explained by two factors: 1) women have greater interpersonal sensitivity than men, and 2) they tend to experience types of guilt with a higher anxious-aggressive component than men. Of all the sex and gender groups analyzed, that of adult women (40 to 50 years old) was the one in which the highest levels of this component and, as a result, the highest levels of habitual guilt were found.

We believe that this tendency to experience guilt with a high anxious-aggressive component is, to a large extent, related to the educational practices prevalent in Spanish society during Franco’s era and the first years of the transition to democracy, in which traditional Catholic thinking had an enormous influence. Those practices were fundamentally based on guilt induction, specifically the induction of anxious-aggressive guilt rather than the empathic kind (i.e., a much more positive kind of guilt that occurs when we realize that we have hurt someone and prompts us to make reparation). Furthermore, this guilt induction was particularly aimed at (or against) women, seeking to control their sexual behavior, anger, assertiveness, and independence. I very much fear that other religions may have had (and are still having) the same influence in other cultural contexts.

Itziar Etxebarria is a researcher at the University of the Basque Country in Spain.

I would not go so far as to say that “gossip can be good for you,” but I will say that gossip can have beneficial social effects, such as bonding people together and keeping cheaters in line because they know that others might gossip about their transgressions. Undeniably, gossip has negative effects on the individuals who are gossiped about if the gossip is negative, but sometimes, it can serve a greater good if these individuals acquire the nasty reputation they deserve.

Religion has understandably focused on the type of gossip that serves no purpose other than to advance one person’s selfish interests at the expense of another person’s reputation. In the quest to curtail the unkind and unfair behavior of individuals, religion may have been a bit too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. After all, even the Old Testament and the Gospels are full of stories about the sexual and financial misdeeds of people that would qualify as gossip in anyone’s book, but because this “gossip” is designed to teach valuable moral lessons and to serve as a warning to others, it is apparently OK.

Frank McAndrew is a professor of psychology at Knox College.

By “God” I’ll mean here God as God’s conceived by the three major monotheistic religions: a being outside of the laws of nature who willed this world into existence according to some moral purpose and who plays a role in the unfolding of human history. I would offer a three-pronged argument against God as so conceived, and it’s a complicated one.

It first considers all the arguments offered for the existence of that being and analyzes how each of them fails to establish its conclusion. It then goes on and explains why, given human psychology, there is nevertheless an almost irresistible urge to believe. And lastly (and as far as I’m concerned this is the most important prong and can stand on its own), it looks at that unfolding human history, marked by the suffering of innocents, sometimes brought about through the actions of others, but also through natural processes. The intellectual gymnastics (known as theodicy) that you have to jump through in order to reconcile the suffering of innocents with the being described above (the attribution of free will will only take you so far) is so torturous and, ultimately, insensitive to the horror of suffering that the best conclusion to be drawn is that there is no God, especially given the first two prongs.

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein is a philosopher and the author of a number of novels, including The Mind-Body Problem and most recently 36 Arguments for the Existence of God.

Several years ago, when researchers were studying religious expressions in, what we might now call, Web 1.0, they made a distinction between two types of religious content on the Internet: “religion online” and “online religion.” The first of these referred to the simple presence of religious institutions, and related organizations, on the Internet. A religious congregation’s Web site would be a good example of this. The second category refers to content that facilitates and constitutes manifestations of religious experience on the Internet. Religious communities and churches in Second Life are a contemporary example of this type of content.

The first type of content was, and still is, very useful for those who are part of established religious communities or organizations, and for those who seek more information about specific types of religions or congregations. The second type of content was, and likely still is, attended to by at least three categories of Internet users: those who are religiously disenfranchised from established religions, those who are geographically separated from the type of religious communities that best fit their beliefs and needs, and those who want to enhance their offline religious lives. The Internet is a platform that allows all three types of people to reach across geographic and other boundaries and connect with spiritually like-minded individuals around the globe.

The pope’s call for priests to be more active online, and the recent popularization of Facebook and social media in general, suggest a blurring of this demarcation between religion online and online religion. Religious leaders generally, though not always, represent some established religious tradition. Facebook, on the other hand, represents a more bottom-up, online religion-like way of gravitating toward people whom you like and who are like you. Religious leaders’ presence on Facebook might, therefore, make the established religions they represent seem more informal and approachable to their fellow Facebook users. So people may find it easier to interact with these religious leaders, ask them questions, seek guidance, share their joys and sorrows, and so on. But I’m not convinced that Facebook users will be more likely to do so.

All the folks I mentioned earlier—those who surf to church or temple Web sites, read up on religions on Beliefnet, or get together for a religious service in Second Life—are all somehow already invested in religion. If they are not affiliated with some established religious tradition, then they are at least seeking, are open to, some religious knowledge or experience. And these will be the types of folks who interact with religious leaders on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. They are already, and have always been, likely to interact with religious leaders.

What the religious leaders’ presence in social media is unlikely to accomplish, however, is getting in touch with those who feel perfectly fine being as religious or nonreligious as they currently are. Those who were not inclined to get in touch with religious leaders before Facebook are probably still not inclined to do so now.

Piotr Bobkowski is a doctoral candidate at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and a researcher on the “Youth Online Self-Disclosure Project.”