Warren Buffet: Atheist Philanthropist?
The Jewish Atheist quotes from the Celebrity Atheist List:
“He did not subscribe to his family’s religion. Even at a young age he was too mathematical, too logical, to make the leap of faith. He adopted his father’s ethical underpinnings, but not his belief in an unseen divinity.” --from Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, by Roger Lowenstein (Doubleday, 1995), page 13.
Unless Warren Buffet believes in a seen divinity, or some divinity that is completely unlike whatever divinity his father believed in, it sounds like Warren Buffet doesn’t believe in any divinity at all. Of course, if he doesn’t believe in any gods, this makes Warren Buffet an atheist. Warren Buffet, if you remember, is giving away 85% of his USD $40 billion fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the charitable work they do. Notice that he isn’t giving it to any religious foundations and he isn’t even giving to secular groups, like the United Way.
The Foundation, which is already worth USD $30 billion, was founded by Bill Gate — who may also be an atheist, according to the Celebrity Atheist List:
Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.
Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
Gates: I don’t. I’m not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I’m a huge believer in. There’s a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact.
Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you’d say you don’t know?
Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.
It’s interesting that he thinks “religious principles are quite valid,” but he isn’t a believer in the Sermon on the Mount. Usually, when an irreligious non-Christian recognizes any validity to Christianity, it’s usually through some of the principles in the Sermon on the Mount. I wonder what Bill Gates had in mind?
Gates was profiled in a January 13, 1996 TIME magazine cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:
“Isn’t there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?” interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates “His face suddenly becomes expressionless,” writes Isaacson, “his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis.”
“I don’t have any evidence on that,” answers Gates. “I don’t have any evidence of that.”
He later states, “Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There’s a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.”
So, Bill Gates doesn’t go to church on a regular basis, doesn’t believe much in the specific elements of Christianity, doesn’t think there is any evidence for souls, doesn’t know that there is any god, and doesn’t consider religion very efficient. Bill Gates is definitely irreligious and is definitely agnostic. He may or may not be an atheist, but he is also definitely not the sort of person whom religious believers have in mind when they claim that religion is necessary for charitable work. Bill Gates is thus an effective demonstration that charity is possible without religion playing any role whatsoever.
Understanding Atheism & Atheists:
Comments
What a terrific rebuttal to the notion that only Christians give to others!
I don’t presume to know what Bill Gates believes beyond what he stated in interviews. But it seems to me that people who claim to be agnostic only, even after it’s explained that gnosticism and theism aren’t mutually exclusive (gnostic theist, agnostic theist, etc.), are just afraid to say out loud that they don’t believe in any gods. Granted, I’ve never had to directly interact with a religious person arguing for their religion, but based on the mail and comments that Austin gets on a regular basis it seems there is a condition of fear in the US. Fear of ridicule and possibly even attack from certain religious people.
I don’t see how a third option can even exist between believing in god and not believing in god. Even when a person says that they don’t know if god exists, that doesn’t preclude them from saying whether they currently believe in said existence.
A friend I once talked to about this told me that he hopes that god exists but he didn’t know whether god existed, I didn’t really argue the point. It seems to me that even if one hopes that a god exists, he should still have a current belief of gods existence. The main reason I didn’t continue to argue with this friend was that I didn’t want to create a rift between us that often results from lengthy discussion of religious beliefs (even when we’re both agnostic). But I think this just underlines my original point. That people are unwilling (even if only subconsciously) to admit to not believing in any gods, and that, unfortunately, this position is actually justified given the anti-atheist culture that we currently live in.
Needless to say we didn’t even get into discussing a logical definition of god, although I’m pretty sure we were both talking about the Christian idea of god.
Bob
A meaningless Straw Man argument.
The facts show that the religious are 4 times more likely to give to charitable causes:
See this study:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
Excerpt:
The Church Connection
Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
“Actually, the truth is that they’re giving to more than their churches,” he says. “The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.”
If this isn’t clear enough.
The facts from Charitable Choices http://www.charitablechoices.org/chargive.asp :
Those who give $1391 to religious institutions also give $958 to non-religious institutions.
Those who give only to non-religious institutions give $623 on average.
The religious give $335 more on average to non-religious causes.
PLUS they then give an extra $1391 to religious institutions (MANY OF WHICH ARE RELIGIOUS CHARITIES DOING, SAY, DISASTER RELIEF OR WORK WITH THE HOMELESS ETC.).
A massive percentage of the money given to our church goes to our work with Romanian orphans and other causes we are involved with in places like Botswana.
The rest goes to the upkeep of the building which is used as a community centre, a day-care centre for pensioners, a day-care centre for those with learning difficulties and so on… It also supports a full-time community worker who supports and represents those who live in a deprived area.
What is not factored in is volunteer work, which in the UK is more than likely to be done by Christians.
So it appears that the religious give in total $2349 on average.
The non-religious give $623.
So as the above study said, the religious outgive by 4 times
It’s nice to have some facts to get at the truth.
So, I know you would like it to be otherwise, but atheists are far more indifferent about these things than the religious.
Since churches that spend money on priests, Bibles, and buildings are “charities,” that doesn’t necessarily say very much.
I know you would like it to be otherwise, but none of the figures you cite support your conclusion. Your figures about the religious vs. the non religious; many theists are not religious and are members of no religious organizations while some atheists are devoutly religious (Ethical Culture, Buddhists, etc.). Thus, both sides of the figures you cite will include both atheists and theists.
The simple fact of the matter is, you have no statistics regarding the charitable donations of atheists vs. theists. Furthermore, what you do have is only about America and says nothing about religious, irreligious, theists, or atheists elsewhere. Without such figures, you cannot make any broad generalizations about any of those groups.
So, in the end, what we have is you arriving at negative conclusions about atheists on the basis of data that says nothing about atheists. This indicates that your position is more likely based on anti-atheist bigotry, not on any sober evaluation of facts and figures.
When you have something substantive and reliable regarding atheists and charity, please share it. If all you have is anti-atheist bigotry that you’re trying to rationalize and prop up with irrelevant data, please don’t.
You know I here a lot about us living in an anti-Atheist culture, but I seem to find that it can often be the exact opposite. I often find myself attacked for claiming any belief in a higher power. Of course I don’t doubt that there are places where Atheists are attacked for their beliefs, I just don’t think it’s accurate to say we live in an anti-Atheist culture. Of the Christians I know (obviously this cannot be expected to represent Christians as a whole, but other than a mass survey this is the largest data available)very few of them have any hard feelings towards atheists. I personally have an extremely good friend who is an atheist (or at least I had a good friend who was an atheist, he is now addicted to drugs and was shipped off by his family. I’m afraid there is very little of him left to be friends with)as I have good friends who are of various other religions beliefs. I’ve never had any problem with civilly disscussing my beliefs with them. I have however entered several situations where I was under attack based on stereotypical views of Christianity.
I personally have nothing against atheists, if anything I feel sorry for them. Where is my reason to live outside of pleasure if there is no God? If I am merely animate matter how can I claim any real moral views? Ultimately if I’m merely matter morality ought to matter very little to me. Perhaps you have an answer?
Either way, no hard feelings based on your beliefs but make sure that next time you are posting about people stereotyping atheists make sure not to stereotype Christians with the same paragraph, it looks a little hypocritical to be angry when people stereotype atheists as uncharitable and then turn around and stereotype the religious (Christians mostly) as bigoted and hateful. Perhaps that isn’t your intent but that is the way you come across.
P.S.
To your friend Bob Parsons, you say
“A friend I once talked to about this told me that he hopes that god exists but he didn’t know whether god existed, I didn’t really argue the point.”
and then you say
“The main reason I didn’t continue to argue with this friend was that I didn’t want to create a rift between us that often results from lengthy discussion of religious beliefs (even when we’re both agnostic). But I think this just underlines my original point. That people are unwilling (even if only subconsciously) to admit to not believing in any gods, and that, unfortunately, this position is actually justified given the anti-atheist culture that we currently live in.”
I don’t understand how you came to this conclusion to your statement. Granted, I don’t know your friend but to me it sounds like your friend wants to believe in god but is afraid to say he believes in god, wouldn’t that suggest an anti-Theist culture not an anti-Atheist culture? If you are trying to suggest that he said hoped rather than believed because he doesn’t believe in God, I could possibly agree with you, but the connection didn’t seem very clear. Just a thought.
Anyway, Good luck with your attempts on this site. I don’t agree with your beliefs, but I’d die to ensure you had the right to have them and I’m proud to live in a country where we can choose what we believe. There can be persecution at times, but just remember what it has been like (and is still like) elsewhere.
You mean, like this?
That’s a serious accusation. Can you point to where I have actually done this?
Bob Grismer says:or at least I had a good friend who was an atheist, he is now addicted to drugs and was shipped off by his family.
well,it’s obvious that it was the atheism that lead directly to this persons addiction. we can go even further and find that all addicts are atheists…it’s obvious isn’t it and all non-addicts are true believers, even if they don’t know it. what saves them from addiction is their even-unconscious belief in jehovah or whatever name the imaginary being goes by
how about a class action to the human rights commission that the human rights of atheists are violated every time some true believer villifies and insults them by calling them infidels, heathens, and so on, or characterizes “unbelief” or “disbelief” as something less than logical and less than respectable. I’m sick and tired of it and want my day before the human rights commission that these people should stop insulting my lack of belief in their god or anybody elses god, and stop being so patronizing and pompously condescending as to say absurdities like “I actually feel sorry for atheists who eschew happiness in their disbelief”. Really, somebody actually said that!
Ben,
You’re suffering from privilege induced delusions of persecution. You think that as part of the majority that you should never have to hear about the minority. Now that we are speaking up, something that is fairly new, you take it as an attack. Sorry, Ben, we’re done being quiet. Also, non-believers are still a very small portion of the US population. Less than a tenth, i suspect.
Here is an illustration of your post:
http://abbreviationenthusiast.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/christianoppression.gif
“Of the Christians I know (obviously this cannot be expected to represent Christians as a whole, but other than a mass survey this is the largest data available)very few of them have any hard feelings towards atheists.”
Would you, or the Christians you know, vote for an atheist running for public office?
Hey Baker buddy.
Australia has ELECTED. atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, and that includes the Leader.
Right now we have as our leader an Anglican (Episcopalian) with his Deputy a non believer. We’ve had many who take the affirmation and not the oath. You’ll catch up one day.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
” If I am merely animate matter how can I claim any real moral views? Ultimately if I’m merely matter morality ought to matter very little to me. Perhaps you have an answer?”
We are extremely social creatures. Its in our best interests to have a healthy social life. None of my athiest/jewish/christian/buddist friends have any problem with their own moral code. Would you be friends with someone who had no morals?
Now that I think about your comments …
If a god threatening you with hell is the only thing keeping you from falling into a immoral rampage then by all means… keep believing in that.
Same in New Zealand, we just changed from a WOMAN atheist prime minister who served three terms.
“Where is my reason to live outside of pleasure if there is no God? If I am merely animate matter how can I claim any real moral views? Ultimately if I’m merely matter morality ought to matter very little to me. Perhaps you have an answer?”
Yes, I have an answer. It might not work for you, but I have one.
The exercise of reason shows me why I should be moral. It also gives me some idea as to what sort of morals I should have.
If you need a god to tell you not to hurt people, then by all means, keep the faith.
Bill Gates’ atheism isn’t just a maybe; he is an atheist.
“When biographers Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews asked him about his faith for their 1993 book, Gates, the Congregationalist-raised billionaire displayed an astonishing nonchalance about religion: “Oh, I guess agnostic, atheist: I must be one of those things.”
This is a perfect example of relativism, why atheists are unfortunately unfamiliar with true giving. A man who gives his fortune to an organization that is already rich is not charity. What is so unbelievable is that people actually think that Mr. Buffet’s gift to the needless is comparable to providing 70% of worldwide healthcare, creating the scientific method and university system, advancing peace further than any other human organization on earth, to name a few attributes of the Catholic Church. But, Warren Buffet gives once and atheists shout to heaven of his glory. All one must do is look around and see that economic moguls like Warren Buffet are gods among men; his outreach to the rich is not charity. Then again, its not surprising to see who atheism takes as its role models: rich, old celebrities.
Where did Joshua Drecker get such misinformation about the Catholic Church? It’s been a force of human suffering throughout history, and has mostly worked against science.
Blacknad:
The page you link to as evidence for the numbers you cite does not contain any differentiation between religious and non-religious giving patterns.
However, as that page points out, money is not the only form of contribution. One can also donate time. I think one can also distinguish between cash value of items donated and cash donated. It’s easier to part with the former than the latter.
As to the moral high ground asserted by religionists on this subject: while the donations are appreciated, I’m sure, one can’t call all religious charities “altruistic.”
As you pointed out in your post, much of those financial contributions on the part of the religious goes right back into their own church for maintenance and upkeep. Furthermore, don’t the donors get to claim these contributions as tax credits? I’m not diminishing the help that they’re offering, I’m simply pointing out that what seems like a selfless act on the one hand may be done for very selfish reasons on the other. On that same point, there is no mention of how much of those donations and charitable giving programs are tied to evangelical outreach (in other words, seeking converts).
Did the study take into account the fact that tithing in some Christian denominations is compulsory, not voluntary. Did the study account for that? Can compulsory giving really be considered “charitable” in the same sense of someone who donates items/money while under no social compulsion or edict to do so?
This also raises the issue of whether that portion of our taxes that funds the community food banks, community hospitals, public education, shouldn’t also be taken into consideration.
Too, what about science research funded through public taxes? I mean, which is a better use of resources: giving money to earthquake victims, or spending money on research and monitoring (to say nothing of building code enforcement and public health programs) to reduce if not eliminate the number of casualties and amount of damage from earthquakes? Which is more moral? My vote is for the latter, not the former.
Hey Aussies and Kiwis, I think it’s fantastic that your country is open minded enough to elect an atheist! Unfortunately I think the author was referring to us poor Yanks! We’re a long way off! p.s. Don’t you hate it when you’re pitied because of your philosophy? It’s sooo condescending!
Warren Buffet is a sociopath. He will believe anything that will further one of his rackets.
Master crooks have no god or country. They use god and country.
This is a perfect example of relativism, why atheists are unfortunately unfamiliar with true giving. A man who gives his fortune to an organization that is already rich is not charity.
By this definition, any donations to the Catholic church should not be considered charity.
Any donation to the catholic church should be seen as support of murder.
Hypocrisy is one attribute the Catholic Church has in abundance.
I recall seeing the then Pope blessing the Italian troops as they went off to murder Ethiopians (Abyssinians). in the 30s. They also blessed the Italian and German Troops fighting the Allies in WW2 then, when the tide turned, blessed the Allies as they swept through Italy routing out the Germans. They then gave succour and asylum to the fleeing Nazis and Fascisti who had an escape route to S America. Those S A countries receiving them are still bastions of Roman Catholicism.
Most of them having far from enviable human rights records. The isolated examples of Priests resisting oppression to care for their flock were so often reprimanded by the Church hierarchy
Oh yes Hypocrisy in abundance. Suffer little children to come unto me. It was, too often, Come unto me little children and suffer. If it wasn’t from the brutality of many Nuns and very often harsh treatment of Christian Brothers then many were subjected to the hedonistic predation of Pedophile Priests.
The Church, for many years, covering up these beastly practices. To think Jesus is supposed to have stated Hypocrisy was the greatest sin.