Since atheists have nothing more in common than an absence of belief in gods, they have no inclination to form charitable organizations on the basis of that alone. When atheists form charities, it's on the basis of something other than atheism. When atheists give to charities, it's for reasons unrelated to atheism. If anything, this might make them more charitable: they are giving because they feel it's right, not because they are going to weekly atheist meetings where an atheist leader is telling them to donate or Darwin will be mad at them.
An atheist realizes that this life is all we get. I think that knowledge has made me much more empathetic toward people in need than I was when I believed that the downtrodden in life would receive special rewards after death.
As I grew up, the good deeds done by my religious group were intended to "bring them to God." The assumption was that if they lived in poverty, sin was the cause, and once they were "saved," poverty would disappear. The particular group I grew up in remains very opposed to government or secular programs that help the poor.
As an example, a year or so before my mother died she saw a report that Bill Gates's foundation was involved in research to help AIDS victims. To her, he was rewarding sin and should be condemned, probably to Hell, though she would never say the word except in a prayer.
[original post]
How common is it for Christians to judge the value of "charity" based on whether or not they think their god would approve rather than based on whether or not it would actually help people, alleviate human suffering, or contribute to improved conditions for humans in the future? Frankly, I don't regard donations made on the basis of "this is what God wants" to be especially "charitable." Even if they happen to be helpful, that's hardly more than good fortune — the donations might as well exacerbate human suffering for all the connection to reality they have.
Charity is comparable to morality in the sense that actions performed simply on the basis of orders from some higher authority — be it a human authority figure or an alleged deity — don't really qualify as "moral" or "charitable." A person who saves me from drowning on the orders of another is not "good," just good at following orders. I'd certainly appreciate being saved, but I can't call them moral because they're just as likely to push me back in if they receive new orders. The same is true of someone who donates to a charity on the basis of orders.
The visibility of atheists’ charity may be diminished as well by the facts that:
1) Those religionists likely to spout such drivel against atheists are also likely to be giving and paying attention primarily to religious and ecumenical charities, while
2) Those atheists who are most visibly so are also likely to avoid giving to precisely those same charities.
When considering a charitable contribution to an organization, one of the first things I do is check whether that money will be used for proselytism or other religious activities; if so, I move on to some other group. As a result, an uninquisitive religious acquaintance might simply think me an uncharitable man as he sees me walk past the Salvation Army man at the mall.
In giving to charity or doing a “right” act helping another, the intend is more important then the act. If you are doing an act to buy your way into heaven, you missed the point of giving completly anyway. Giving in any way, action, thought, or charity is to help another person or animal for no other reason then that. Most of the time, religous giving is attached with strings, and regulations that are taking away rights – basically sugar-coated dictation of what they want another person to be like. Homeless shelters who require people to be a part of church services – programs to aid recovery from addictions, but you have to acknowledge a higher power, that is not giving to anyone, that is spreading the word of what they want us to believe. Charity should be without the strings attached.
Great post as always.
Last December, my wife and I went grocery shopping with my brother-in-law (a christian). On the way in, he dropped some change into the bell ringers bucket. He then complained, that he always has to walk around with a huge pocket full of change, because he worries what people might think if he walks by without giving. I thought this was strange, and very telling, that many christians don’t understand what their own bible says about giving. If you look at the many religious charities, with their brightly colored signs and t-shirts, it would seem that atheists have a better understanding, than they, what their god supposedly said about this issue.
I think Anthony Burgess makes a great point about this in A Clockwork Orange.
“Choice. The boy has no real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. Its insincerity was clearly to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.”
I like the ‘blue eyed white people’ analogy. I’ll remember that for the future!
My view is that I expect the government to do all that stuff for me – looking after the poor and disadvantaged is our national responsibility. Our nation has given millions in international aid and has very good social welfare programs at home. A candidate’s stance on social justice always influences my vote.
I donate regularly to Greenpeace, as I believe the poorest people in the world suffer most from environmental damage, as they live in the most marginal areas.
As far as I know, Medicins Sans Frontiers is a non religious group.
A quick scan of the Red Cross and CARE ‘about’ pages doesn’t mention god or religion at all – other than their impartiality to such. They might have started out as religious, but in the past EVERYTHING was permeated by religion, and these groups are clearly stepping away from any religious affiliation, at least superficially. I think someone would be hard pressed to argue that the Red Cross is a religious organization.
I should add, my government giving = me giving, since I’m a taxpayer. Stating the obvious for those who might not get the connection.
The term “religious charity” is an oxymoron.
As solitary phoenix points out, charitable acts by religious groups always come with strings attached.
Giving to receive something in return is not charity.