Is altruism really due to religious sensibility?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think religion has historically been a vessel for good deeds, looking at the model Zoroastrianism started way back when (Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds)... I think people of good will would have found other avenues for this notion had religion never existed, but at the same time, religion can, and has been a popular way of expressing the notion of altruism historically.

...Not sure about the "selflessness" aspect of altruism though... As some religions don't recognize that.

So I put I don't know, because I think it depends on the religion.

I wonder, though. When you say that "religion has historically been a vessel for good deeds," can you say who those good deeds were aimed at? I mean, traditionally, religions have fought one another like crazy, killing wantonly.

What was the massacre of the Canaanites about? Exterminating another religion, or just taking their land (and daughters)? What were the Crusades about, if not trying to exterminate "the infidel?" What was the persecution of Jews about if not -- well, persecuting Jews?

Even just within Christianity, during the reformation and counter-reformation, Protestants and Catholics were burning each other like crazy for not worshipping the right way! You can't deny that is false.

Or how about missionaries? You know, those people who went out into the world to take other people's beliefs away from them, and replace them with their own. And if that meant that those people had to die, well, that was okay, because hey, they were "heathens" anyway, right?

In those examples I gave, how many Christians were exhibiting the same spirit that Jesus praised in the story of the Good Samaritan? Not many, so far as I can tell.

 

[Left Coast]

Religion doesn't change one's personality or morals, just one's perspective. A crappy atheist will be a crappy Buddhist, Christian, etc. A good atheist will be a good Buddhist, Christian, etc.

I think it's a little of column A, little of column B. I think people influence religions and religions influence people. And that can include their moral values.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think it's a little of column A, little of column B. I think people influence religions and religions influence people. And that can include their moral values.

That would be true of anything that is accepted dogmatically (i.e. without evidence). Religion is only one of those: political viewpoints, usually inherited from parents and community in exactly the same way the religion is; ideologies of every sort.

Sadly, sometimes it takes nothing more than not wanting to go against "the community" to influence moral values. I've no doubt there have been many people who have participated in lynchings, for example, who privately would never have dreamed themselves capable of it.

 

[Left Coast]

That would be true of anything that is accepted dogmatically (i.e. without evidence). Religion is only one of those: political viewpoints, usually inherited from parents and community in exactly the same way the religion is; ideologies of every sort.

Sadly, sometimes it takes nothing more than not wanting to go against "the community" to influence moral values. I've no doubt there have been many people who have participated in lynchings, for example, who privately would never have dreamed themselves capable of it.

While I think that's true, I think it's not that simplistic. Any worldview, even an evidence-based one, influences those who embrace it, and quite often those who embrace it go on to influence their worldview. Think of all the ways that scientific thinking, for example, has influenced people, and people have influenced scientific thought. There's a sort of feedback loop that happens between people and the groups or ideologies with which they align.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

While I think that's true, I think it's not that simplistic. Any worldview, even an evidence-based one, influences those who embrace it, and quite often those who embrace it go on to influence their worldview. Think of all the ways that scientific thinking, for example, has influenced people, and people have influenced scientific thought. There's a sort of feedback loop that happens between people and the groups or ideologies with which they align.

Absolutely! That's the point I was trying (obviously with limited success ) to make.

That is why the study of human nature is so interesting to me. We are capable of so very much -- so much good, at our best, and so much bad, at our worst. "Know thyself," I think, should be as good an admonishment to humanity as a whole as it is to each of us as individuals.

 

[Bear Wild]

I’ve heard it said (just today in an online debate, actually) that many acts of kindness and generosity result from “religious sensibilities.” And yet, I wonder. After all, I can honestly say that when I see someone in trouble, my first instinct, though I’m a life-long atheist, is to help. And I have tried to do so on many, many occasions. I'm a life-long donor to the Salvation Army, as well as other charities. And by the way, I have many atheist friends of whom I can say the same, and know of many public figures, known atheists, who have been among some of the most altruistic people in history. (Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, many others.)

So I guess the question I’m raising is this: Do we do “good deeds” because of religion, or do we do good deeds because doing them is a part of our own nature? That is, would we do them if we were religious or not? (And I would love to hear from any member who is willing to say that, if they lost their religion, they would stop doing good for other people.)

And is it not unfair, then, to suggest that religion has any role to play?

It seems to me this is rather akin to the old question – everybody who has ever misplaced their car keys just before an important meeting will understand this – “why is everything always found in the last place we think to look?” Well, the answer is obvious, isn’t it? It’s because once you’ve found them, you stop looking.

Or the old adage that “everything happens in threes!” Well, is that really true? Or do we just stop counting when we get to three, and start again?

In other words, is it not really a false attribution to equate religious sensibility with altruistic behaviour?

Discuss

Humans and many other animals have the neurologic design for altruism as a necessary neurologic process that evolved for social behavior. It exists equally within or without religion and cannot be attributed to any one religion.

 

[Clara Tea]

Carnegie was poor. He built a steel empire. He employed the poor (like little boys whose arms were small enough to fit inside running machinery). When a little boy lost an arm, he was fired, and a new little boy hired. These boys were paid a pittance. Carnegie is well known for building elaborate libraries for the public. He could not take his riches to the afterlife, so he spent it in this life building legacies that extolled him. He built edifices for his own aggrandizement.

Bill Gates was lucky to get away with a monopoly. If they people didn't love him, he'd be forced to break up his monopoly. Therefore he was forced to donate. Initially rejecting the idea of donating, he came to believe that it was good PR.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Religion doesn't change one's personality or morals, just one's perspective. A crappy atheist will be a crappy Buddhist, Christian, etc. A good atheist will be a good Buddhist, Christian, etc.

Except it's not unusual for religion to teach people who to hate. Like homosexuals, with legions of Christians and Muslims offering scriptural support for their disdain of homosexuals. Or the many LGBT teens who learn to hate themselves because of what scripture says. The same scriptures that have also been used to repress women. Murder people believed to be witches. Hate for apostates is something that doesn't happen unless the religion teaches it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Humans and many other animals have the neurologic design for altruism as a necessary neurologic process that evolved for social behavior. It exists equally within or without religion and cannot be attributed to any one religion.

When we consider the evidence, such as parents disowning a gay child and even kicking them out of their home, suggests it's possible for religion to sever and overide these normal features of empathy and altruism to disturbing degrees.

 

[Cooky]

I wonder, though. When you say that "religion has historically been a vessel for good deeds," can you say who those good deeds were aimed at? I mean, traditionally, religions have fought one another like crazy, killing wantonly.

What was the massacre of the Canaanites about? Exterminating another religion, or just taking their land (and daughters)? What were the Crusades about, if not trying to exterminate "the infidel?" What was the persecution of Jews about if not -- well, persecuting Jews?

Even just within Christianity, during the reformation and counter-reformation, Protestants and Catholics were burning each other like crazy for not worshipping the right way! You can't deny that is false.

Or how about missionaries? You know, those people who went out into the world to take other people's beliefs away from them, and replace them with their own. And if that meant that those people had to die, well, that was okay, because hey, they were "heathens" anyway, right?

In those examples I gave, how many Christians were exhibiting the same spirit that Jesus praised in the story of the Good Samaritan? Not many, so far as I can tell.

I think you've misunderstood my post. Or maybe I didn't word it properly.

But can you describe the crimes of Zoroastrianism..?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Except it's not unusual for religion to teach people who to hate. Like homosexuals, with legions of Christians and Muslims offering scriptural support for their disdain of homosexuals. Or the many LGBT teens who learn to hate themselves because of what scripture says. The same scriptures that have also been used to repress women. Murder people believed to be witches. Hate for apostates is something that doesn't happen unless the religion teaches it.

True, but I wonder if judgemental tendencies are inside waiting to find something like evangelicalism to bring it out. I was a fairly normal but very big on "right vs wrong," so when I became evangelical, I became very judgmental in regard to LGBT issues and abortion. Ugh. I feel like I need to go back and apologize. Now that I am no longer Christian, my judgemental side is reserved for those who drive dangerously and are rude to and bully others. I think that younger folks are less likely to be raised to be judgemental, now that fewer people are Christian, so it is nice to see that younger evangelical people seem to be less judgemental on the two "moral" issues.

 

[Kenny]

If they had little, then these atheists and agnostics gave more than the wealthiest church organization. That's according to Christ.
But that doesn't tell us how much they have to give. But it does say those with less, predictably, gave less.
And we also know Christians tend to mostly give to their church. Non-theists give more to those outside their own immediate community. In other words, Christians tend to give to their own group and see where their giving goes. Non theists tend to not have that direct link to where they give.

I don't think they have "little".

Christians are the biggest help group for the world.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

True, but I wonder if judgemental tendencies are inside waiting to find something like evangelicalism to bring it out. I was a fairly normal but very big on "right vs wrong," so when I became evangelical, I became very judgmental in regard to LGBT issues and abortion. Ugh. I feel like I need to go back and apologize. Now that I am no longer Christian, my judgemental side is reserved for those who drive dangerously and are rude to and bully others. I think that younger folks are less likely to be raised to be judgemental, now that fewer people are Christian, so it is nice to see that younger evangelical people seem to be less judgemental on the two "moral" issues.

That's basically how I was, which was how I was taught to be as an Evangelical. This included learned prejudices.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think they have "little".

There is no way to verify this. That's why I pointed it out. Because what you think isn't supported by what is provided.

Christians are the biggest help group for the world.

They largely and mostly give to their own. Proselytizing is also frequently attached as a price tag, if not an outright requirement of conversion.
Amd they are also very destructive. Little care for the environment or concern for global warming because Jesus is coming back and gods going to end this world as we know it anyways. Laws banning LGBT equality and liberties, Christians are there to be found. Laws that unreasonably amd dangerously restrict a woman's access to birth control and abortions? Christians are there behind it. Enforcing morality as law regarding victimless behaviors? There's a good chance there are Christians behind that one as well. A homeless teen who is gay? He has Christian parents who kicked him out.

 

[Kenny]

I think overall it is just your personal opinion about Christianity.\

There is no way to verify this. That's why I pointed it out. Because what you think isn't supported by what is provided.

People are people. I think it is a broad stretch and somewhat anti-atheists to say that their work capacity is less than the other normal people.

They largely and mostly give to their own. Proselytizing is also frequently attached as a price tag, if not an outright requirement of conversion.

That is a mantra that I find little support for. Are there "some" -- absolutely! But by and large - they will help everybody!

Amd they are also very destructive. Little care for the environment or concern for global warming because Jesus is coming back and gods going to end this world as we know it anyways

Again... there is absolutely no support for this position. I think it is just a bleed through of your personal viewpoint.

 

[Sand Dancer]

That's basically how I was, which was how I was taught to be as an Evangelical. This included learned prejudices.

It's insidious too. You don't realize it until one day you are "that person."

 

[Sand Dancer]

Again... there is absolutely no support for this position. I think it is just a bleed through of your personal viewpoint.

I was taught this, and I have heard this very attitude in person and online.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't think they have "little".

Christians are the biggest help group for the world.

Depends. The Christian Left is very helpful and they tend to do it without strings attached. The Religious Right, unfortunately, uses helping as a guise to proselytize. I don't think native Americans would agree that they are helpful. Some Christians are anti-slavery and others use the Bible to be pro-slavery.

 

[Kenny]

I was taught this, and I have heard this very attitude in person and online.

Interesting... I have been around a ton of Christians and I have never heard about, was neither taught or promoted... I guess there are exceptions to every rule.

What I have heard is that there are Christians who don't believe in the climate control as promoted -- but it had nothing to do with faith.

 

[Kenny]

Depends. The Christian Left is very helpful and they tend to do it without strings attached. The Religious Right, unfortunately, uses helping as a guise to proselytize. I don't think native Americans would agree that they are helpful. Some Christians are anti-slavery and others use the Bible to be pro-slavery.

Again, interesting. You would probably qualify me as a "religious right" and I have friends ministering from Zimbabwe, to India, to Israel, Cuba and Honduras and none of them have strings attached. Schools, food, medical brigades et al.

I'm sure there are strange Christians, atheists et al... but I don't know of anyone that is pro-slavery. I know that there are many pro-sex slave... but I wouldn't call them Christians.