This week, Barack Obama is expected to sign into law the GIVE Act, which aims to increase volunteering. It gives young people a way to pay for education with public service. Some right wingers have been squawking because the plan excludes religious activities like church attendance and outreach from the social service hours that can be applied for credit. Personally, I'm relieved. I want my taxes to pay for programs with clear benefits, and I want the wall separating church and state repaired. But before we secular types get all high and mighty we should take a look at why some people think that faith-based programs are necessary for the good of society.
Several studies (e.g. here and here) show that religious people give more dollars and volunteer hours to charity than do nonbelievers. Evangelical Christians have been trumpeting these findings: No matter what you may think about our exclusive offer of salvation, our religion is a social good.
As a former Evangelical I tend toward skepticism, especially when it comes to data that have been assembled and promoted by ideologues. And yet I'm inclined to suspect that these results tap into something real. Sociologists have found that tribal identity increases altruism toward other members of the tribe (though at the expense of outsiders). In many ways, a religion functions as a tribe. Besides ordinary in-group/out-group effects, religions explicitly teach that we are made to serve something larger than ourselves. They encourage members to give of themselves to gods, co-religionists and others -- in part by promising deferred compensation. But perhaps even more importantly, they provide a community and structure for doing so.
Let's assume that religious people are more generous or altruistic. An interesting follow-up question is this: Where is this generosity directed? Does it serve the cause of goodness? By a scientific definition of altruism, suicide bombing is an altruistic act supported by religious attendance. It is the individual sacrificing his life (and reproductive potential) in the service of another individual or the greater collective -- in this case Allah, Islam, the Muslim brotherhood. But is it as a social good?
Within conservative Christianity, a tremendous amount of donated time and money is solicited for conversion activities: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Is religious recruiting a social good? On this, most evangelists and I would have opposite opinions, at least about Christian recruiting. (We might be more in agreement about the proselytizing done by Hare Krishnas or Scientologists.) It is only fair to give evangelical missionaries credit for their intentions. If you truly believe the unsaved are going to be tortured eternally, then there is no greater good than to spend your life saving their souls. By comparison, nothing else matters. A missionary, operating on this premise, may experience herself as highly generous, because she is.
She also might protest that independent of afterlife benefits, accepting Jesus makes people happy in this life, here and now. This is true. Sometimes. Jesus worship can fill people with deep joy. It can get alcoholics to stop drinking and abusers to stop abusing. It can save marriages. But sometimes the opposite happens. (See thousands of testimonials at exChristian.net.) Pentecostals point to happy African church-going children singing and dancing. A former Pentecostal might point to the African children who have been kicked out of their communities or killed because new converts to Pentecostalism saw them as witches and took their Bibles literally. The net here and now benefits of proselytizing are arguable.
A darker way to look at Christian "outreach" is as an example of how viral beliefs, sometimes called meme complexes, can exploit the human tendency toward altruism. What I mean is that a belief set can redirect altruistic do-gooder impulses away from activities that actually serve human well-being and onto activities that serve to replicate the belief set itself. When the Asian tsunami hit, a highly successful Seattle mega church directed members to do three things: pray for people who were affected, give to Mars Hill Church, and give to the Mars Hill church-building work in India. Why not reverse this -- pray for Mars Hill church, pray for our missionary work, and give money to the people who were affected? Churches that make suggestions like these are, on average, shrinking. Churches that follow the Mars Hill model are growing.
In the first three pages of his book, Breaking the Spell, Daniel Dennett beautifully narrates how a similar redirection occurs in nature. An ant climbs to the top of a stem of grass and lingers there. Why? Not because it is adaptive for the ant. Rather, another organism has taken charge of the ant's brain and to reproduce it needs the ant to be eaten by a cow. When a person's altruistic impulses are directed toward winning converts, it is valid to ask whether they are actually serving human well-being or simply serving a mind virus.
If we don't count their recruiting activities, do Evangelical Christians actually give more than non-religious? Do they give more to things that we humans pretty much agree are social goods? Sorry, all you fellow secularists, though the gap narrows the answer still appears to be yes. Besides outreach, giving to churches funds what economists call "club goods". Churches often do a wonderful job of providing and organizing members services: warm meals for kids with sick parents, adventures for teenagers, housing for young adults, support during bereavement, even free counseling or legal services. And with regard to outsiders, even if food, medical care, or friendship is offered primarily as bait to set a fish hook, the food and medical care are real.
But even beyond the money given to churches, religious people appear to give more to ordinary charities than secular folks do. At least based on self report data, religious participation and religious giving are positively correlated with giving to nonreligious charities like educational institutions, social services, even blood banks. This appears to hold true for the 40ish percent of Americans who self-describe as Evangelical or born again as well as their more theologically open counterparts. If this makes those of us who are freethinkers squirm a bit, perhaps it should.
You might protest that that charity should be only a way station on the road to justice, and that your energies are better spent working for structural change. Many secular folks and liberal people of faith believe this is true. I know I do. As a non-theist, I once sat on the nonprofit board of an organization called the Washington Association of Churches because their mission was my mission: Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly. Like me, they sought solutions that went beyond charity.
But even if justice is the destination, those way stations are still needed. Most of us agree that both generosity and justice are virtues. We prefer to live in a world where both are in rich supply. Maybe, now that freethinkers are coming out of the closet it is time for us to begin thinking about how to create our own communities and structures that empower personal generosity. Since we don't have a sales mandate or a promise of treasure laid up in Heaven, we -- unlike many Christians -- are free to give without expecting something back except maybe a bit of good will. Recently Seattle Atheists organized a blood drive for members. Now, that's what I'm talking about.
Follow Valerie Tarico on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ValerieTarico
Dori Hartley: Free With Purchase: Eternal Damnation
The _idea_ of evolution (as opposed to actual evolution) was key in "Social Darwinism", which in many cases ran completely counter to altruistic giving.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
But reference to "suicide bomber" rather than bloodier "ethnic cleansing" threw me for a loop.
Her reference may in measure account for the "suicide bomber" meme formation.
Note that "suicide bombing" can readily be ended.
Here's how - just have the USA equip Palestinians with F-16s, munitions & arms caches, modern tanks, drones, and hi-tech ways to obliterate then presto "suicide bombing" - in practice and as cultural meme - vanishes.
These people's arrogance is beyond any words I could describe. They think they are "saving" these people's souls. How dare they. The Jews are a chosen people and will always make it to heaven, even though these evangelical MORONS don't believe that.
SUCH ARROGANCE!!
either way they basically think the same thing "our people get the free ride into heaven"... the mormons are just trying to help the other people out, no matter how ridiculous the whole thing is.
Activities under the Give Act will have to be monitored extremely carefully to ensure that no religion is involved.
Belief in any supernatural god requires an astonishing lack of reason; proselytizing the belief requires an outrageous arrogance.
But fear that the unconverted are missing out or headed for the burning flames of hell is not what 21st Century proselytizing is truly about. It's about the collection plates. As millions follow reason and abandon religion, collection plates sit empty.
That's why most Catholics are now from South America. That 's why Africa is swarming with Christian fundamentalists handing out scraps of education in rickety shacks, while building massive churches where future congregations of Africans can fill their collection plates.
If those Christian vultures in Africa were sincere, with no ulterior motive, they would hand out the education with no mention of their religion or expectations of conversion.
Those who accepted this "charity" to feed their starving children, they were called "Soupers" by both the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics.
Proselytizing, is simply a form of reinforcing a particular belief, there was a chap at Univ of Wisconsin who articulated a theory called ~hierarchy of needs~...
Organized religion is like a ponzi scheme or, a business model which is based aggregation not, organic growth.
In my opinion; this because of Stoicism is the primary basis of Monotheism, I think it's unfortunate that Epicurean-ism was discarded.
In other places, i was told, the missionaries build schools. The public schools are poor and underfunded, so parents send their children there--to a place where there are books and paper. But the children are taught that their parents gods are false and their worship is evil, undermining the ability of the parents to do their job.
A business transaction comes to mind as good metaphor.
Giving should be done anonymously, and the greatest gift is that which both most precious, and give with no expectation of reciprocity.
Valerie, your post resonates deeply with me; thank you for your gift!
And yet, even for those of us who give for the delight of giving, isn't there something selfish in that, too? I don't know how you get away from it.
In the end, I the only question really that it seems like we may be able to answer the one about doing good and doing harm--this world--independent of motives.
1) A trade--
2) self-looting, what I mean by this; is that some people give as a form of self-flagellation-
3) giving unconditionally, without any sort of qualification-
I agree, it is the ultimate selfish act to make the world a better place. So, red line #3, ouch!
I have had the honor to meet Dr. Muhammad Yunnis, Nobel Laureate-( Peace Prize 2006 for creating a micro-finance bank for Bangladeshi Women); which has serves two purposes:
1) breaking the ugly misogynistic (another lovely hallmark of Abe & Zapporah) treatment of women &
2) Lifting millions of people out of poverty
His gift to me was quite simple: he told me to believe that one person can change the world.
Love
As to the good works bit, it's the teaching, and my belief, that the giving is not enough. There has to be the heart involved. It has to be non judgemental. It has to be to all men, not just those in your pew in church. You cannot derive credits for doling out the money and calling that enough. It cannot have strings attached. It must be from the charity of our hearts and souls.
These people give lots of money, get the people to convert, then make them become church warriors or donate tons of money to the church... so they get it all back anyways
Not only is the hospital for those who cannot afford to pay it is also staffed by donors. Now all over the World Tzu Chi Foundations have blossomed. In Asia people donate old news paper and other recyclable items for them to sell for charity purpose. The people working inside are volunteers. They help people all over the world irregardless of race, religion or nation. They help out of compassion and not to propogate Buddhism. Buddhist are forbidden to perform evangelism to promote their religion. A person can only become a Buddhist because of her/his own merits.
St. Augustine was ahead of his time . This teaching is beautiful in that it leaves "God" out of the equation and it also mirrors Buddhist precepts.
Propagation of faith or any recruitment or mission work for the sole purpose of conversion has always made me personally uncomfortable though I do identify as a Christian.I am not familiar with Evangelicals but I do know that the Christian commitment to serve has saved many.
As with all human activity the intentions may not always stem from a high place but if the action is still helping someone in need then I can't judge it as "bad".(i.e., Salvation Army).
Ultimately if giving is a way of life it cannot be about an expectation or a desired outcome.
There are many active and interesting Churches in NYC that serve all sorts of communities in need. As a kid growing up I remember being able to go to summer camp because the Catholic Church paid for it and no we weren't victimized in any way....escaping NYC summers was great. I also remember the food pantry we were dragged to when our dad was laid off. And there were a couple of Xmas where our gifts came from the Catholic Church's donations. These were all different Churches btw and the beauty of it is that our dad was a marxist atheist and never had a kind word for the Church...so we didn't even have to attend. LOL
But the kindness is not forgotten.I really can't speak to the Evangelists...that is an entirely different world.
The atheists are also attacked when they spread reason by first attending to the needs of the disenfranchised.
I think that both rationalism, in order to reduce group-centric behavior wrought by divisive ideologies such as religion and nationalism, as well as compassion and charity to reduce the suffering of our fellow human beings, need to be done simultaneously by the secular movement. We atheists need to recognize when there is something missing in our calls for reason. So, thanks for this excellent article.
For people who claim to own the patent on logic and reason, secularists/Brights/atheists/(choose your own label) seem unaware of the proof requirement when it comes to making a claim--i.e., that you need to have some if you expect to be taken seriously!
Hubris is the problem, really--"free" thinkers think they've discovered the wheel, intellectually speaking, parading the most elementary insights as if they were something astonishing and esoteric. And they're so caught up in their ritual of calling out the dummies (people of faith, like me) that they forget to mind their own minds. People forget that there's more to being logical and correct than pointing out how illogical and incorrect someone else is.
Hope that helps.