Religion and altruism

[Rhiannon]

In which case it doesn't make any difference what anyone does.

I remember this weird belief that Christians chose to follow Jesus because we knew how shitty we were, unlike others who didn't recognise it. Bear in mind I was a part of a fairly mainstream-to-liberal church.

Not very healthy when you think about it.

[ProfessorDavey]

'The plate' is seen as very bad form in churches these days - cash collections are usually for services attended by non- regulars and are often for charity.

I must admit that my experience recently tends to be RCC rather than Anglican but the visible, public giving aspect is very much alive and well and integral to the mass.

Sure it isn't a 'plate' but a bag, but this is handed round in a very visible and public way such that the giving is also very public. Sure no one actually sees what an individual givens but they do see that there is an act of giving. And actually even in cases where people given by direct debit (which my wife does) the church provides little slips so that there is still the opportunity to be seen to be 'giving' even if the actual giving was via electronic transfer at the beginning of the month.

So the point remains that the visible element of the giving (the being seen to give as well as actually giving) is alive. And this does seem to be a peculiarly religious (perhaps just christian) thing. I can't think of any other organisation I belong to, that relies on charitable donations/subscriptions, where this happens. Sure back in the old days you used to bring along your weekly 'subs' for cubs/scouts etc or for the football team or for my choir. But now that's all done by termly or annual subscription payment and there's no suggestion that anyone needs to see that you've done it (beyond the treasurer of course).

[Rhiannon]

I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.

[ProfessorDavey]

When I was on that side of the fence I remember the feeling that giving was a matter of love and gratitude. There was almost a drive to keep giving secret and unnoticed especially if done in a private capacity. In fact there was a rather damaging sub- context that all bad deeds, thoughts and attitudes come from within us but all the good we did was God working through us and not us at all.

But that isn't consistent with an approach which seems overtly (and unnecessarily) to publicise the giving, either through the public offering as discussed above, but also by branding charities according to a religion. That simply doesn't happen in the secular charitable world. Charities are names according to what they do, not who is doing the giving etc.

So in the secular world a 'Black women's refuge' charity would be helping Black women, not a charity run by black women (even if that were also the case. Yet in the christian world we constantly see charities branded as christian for reasons I struggle with behind being seen to be good. There are some astonishing examples, e.g. 'Catholic concern for animals' (I kid you not) - wtf - who on earth if you are running a charity helping animals in need do you need to brad it by a religion.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.

Sure, but that's really about making sure that as much money as possible is raised, and I guess it is part of the fun of the event.

[Rhiannon]

I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.

Sure, but that's really about making sure that as much money as possible is raised, and I guess it is part of the fun of the event.

'Fun' aside, I'm guessing that passing the plate/bag was and is about getting as much money as possible. Nothing is considered more important by the church than keeping itself going, although from its point of view it is serving God and not itself.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.

Sure, but that's really about making sure that as much money as possible is raised, and I guess it is part of the fun of the event.

'Fun' aside, I'm guessing that passing the plate/bag was and is about getting as much money as possible. Nothing is considered more important by the church than keeping itself going, although from its point of view it is serving God and not itself.

I think that would have worked with a plate where you could clearly see how much money someone put in and how much in total was on the plate, but not so with the bag, which I think is specifically designed to prevent anyone seeing how much anyone else gives, although clearly that they have given. And I suspect it is largely filled with slips indicating that donation has been made by direct debit anyhow.

I think the very public offering is and always has been an integral part of the process.

[Rhiannon]

When I was on that side of the fence I remember the feeling that giving was a matter of love and gratitude. There was almost a drive to keep giving secret and unnoticed especially if done in a private capacity. In fact there was a rather damaging sub- context that all bad deeds, thoughts and attitudes come from within us but all the good we did was God working through us and not us at all.

But that isn't consistent with an approach which seems overtly (and unnecessarily) to publicise the giving, either through the public offering as discussed above, but also by branding charities according to a religion. That simply doesn't happen in the secular charitable world. Charities are names according to what they do, not who is doing the giving etc.

So in the secular world a 'Black women's refuge' charity would be helping Black women, not a charity run by black women (even if that were also the case. Yet in the christian world we constantly see charities branded as christian for reasons I struggle with behind being seen to be good. There are some astonishing examples, e.g. 'Catholic concern for animals' (I kid you not) - wtf - who on earth if you are running a charity helping animals in need do you need to brad it by a religion.

There is an attitude among many Christians that people come first and animals don't matter so much. I'm guessing that this charity is flagging up that it's ok to be a Christian and put concern for animals high on your agenda.

Is it more irritating to give to a charity that doesn't have a Christian brand and then subsequently discover that they have a religious ethos? At least with Christians Against Poverty you know what you're getting by the name alone; not so The Children's Society or World Vision.

[Rhiannon]

I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.

Sure, but that's really about making sure that as much money as possible is raised, and I guess it is part of the fun of the event.

'Fun' aside, I'm guessing that passing the plate/bag was and is about getting as much money as possible. Nothing is considered more important by the church than keeping itself going, although from its point of view it is serving God and not itself.

I think that would have worked with a plate where you could clearly see how much money someone put in and how much in total was on the plate, but not so with the bag, which I think is specifically designed to prevent anyone seeing how much anyone else gives, although clearly that they have given. And I suspect it is largely filled with slips indicating that donation has been made by direct debit anyhow.

I think the very public offering is and always has been an integral part of the process.

And no doubt the direct debuts can be gift aided.

Passing a bag is to jog the conscience. Have I given enough? Could I give more? 

And certainly in Anglicanism the priest used to bless any offerings. Tricky with a spreadsheet on Windows. I think they just miss that bit out now.

[ProfessorDavey]

When I was on that side of the fence I remember the feeling that giving was a matter of love and gratitude. There was almost a drive to keep giving secret and unnoticed especially if done in a private capacity. In fact there was a rather damaging sub- context that all bad deeds, thoughts and attitudes come from within us but all the good we did was God working through us and not us at all.

But that isn't consistent with an approach which seems overtly (and unnecessarily) to publicise the giving, either through the public offering as discussed above, but also by branding charities according to a religion. That simply doesn't happen in the secular charitable world. Charities are names according to what they do, not who is doing the giving etc.

So in the secular world a 'Black women's refuge' charity would be helping Black women, not a charity run by black women (even if that were also the case. Yet in the christian world we constantly see charities branded as christian for reasons I struggle with behind being seen to be good. There are some astonishing examples, e.g. 'Catholic concern for animals' (I kid you not) - wtf - who on earth if you are running a charity helping animals in need do you need to brad it by a religion.

There is an attitude among many Christians that people come first and animals don't matter so much. I'm guessing that this charity is flagging up that it's ok to be a Christian and put concern for animals high on your agenda.

Is it more irritating to give to a charity that doesn't have a Christian brand and then subsequently discover that they have a religious ethos? At least with Christians Against Poverty you know what you're getting by the name alone; not so The Children's Society or World Vision.

I agree there is am issue with religious charities than now recognise that overt branding as religious may be off-putting to potential givers. But be in no doubt that when justifying what has been done with the money donated, e.g. through their annual report to the Charity Commission these under the counter religious charities will make sure everyone knows just how christian they are.

But I just don't understand the need for a charity to be 'religious' unless what it does specifically links to religion. To my mind a charity is about who you help, not about the motivation of the help-givers. As soon as you start to focus on the help-givers rather than the help-receivers then you have lost the plot in terms of what charity should be all about.

[Rhiannon]

Yes and no. Christian Aid is very good at harnessing the support of churches and individuals through its worship and study materials. Giving and faith become integrated. It's not a question of whether the help-givers are putting the focus on themselves or the needy, but God or the needy. That's where things can get tricky because of the tendency to think that somewhere down the line help has to mean conversion. And of course there is often - not always - a value judgement placed on what God does and does not approve of.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and no. Christian Aid is very good at harnessing the support of churches and individuals through its worship and study materials. Giving and faith become integrated. It's not a question of whether the help-givers are putting the focus on themselves or the needy, but God or the needy. That's where things can get tricky because of the tendency to think that somewhere down the line help has to mean conversion. And of course there is often - not always - a value judgement placed on what God does and does not approve of.

But that's part of the issue - why should it only be a religious charity that is worthy of the full support that a church can mobilise - why not Oxfam rather than Christian Aid, or Medicine Sans Frontier etc. And this is often the case, particularly in RCC where often they will only officially mobilise within the church to support their own RCC charities. So it is a kind of insular giving merry go round.

And I think this helps perpetuate the myth amongst some religious people that they do more, or even that really charity is only supported by the religious. If this view is regular reinforced when they see their own religious network working with religious charities with the very public support from the religious churchgoers. Yet the vast amount going on with non religious people and secular charities is far less visible to those people.

[Rhiannon]

The charity I'm most familiar with in this context is Christian Aid. They produce high quality, often quite challenging materials for worship and for individuals to use - for example one Christmas their advent materials for services and private reflection were on life as a Palestinian child in Bethlehem today. I think they see part of their purpose as reflecting on the whys if giving as well as what or how to give, and for them the context for that is Christian. Obviously churches could support secular charities (and IME many do, especially medical research and support ones) but it would be wrong for Oxfam to produce materials for use in Christian worship.

I never encountered an attitude that only the religious are charitable. I did find though that some felt only the religious try got why charity is important - to them it isn't just about people but about God.

[Bubbles]

I've come across the attitude that only charity done in Jesus's name counts.

It's in one of my old hymn books.

I think it's a c of e one.

[Samuel]

Thanks for the lnk Prof

I don't doubt the validity of the study at all, or its findings,  but I do wonder... Drawing statistical relationships is fine, and very interesting, but what is the controll group / data? I struggle with this whenever any claims are made for the roll of religious belief in having beneficial or limiting affect on a persons moral behaviour. If it's reduced to an individual level then how can we possibly know if a person would be 'better' with or without a religious faith? Based on anecdotal evidence we might expect a conversion too or from religion to have a similar effect, depending on the person.

The danger, I think, is in taking a statistical likelyhood and using it to form a generalised views on the value of religion. Reasons for participation in religion are far more complex than simply for moral betterment. I am excited by what this study reveals but a little uncertain about how relevant or meaningful it can be on its own. It would be good to see a compilation of all the various studies done on the impacts of religion, as I'm sure there must be loads - social, economic, psychological, educational... Sorry this was a bit rambling.

And listen, I am not a researching scientist and am happy to concede to your better informed views. These are just my thoughts.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'.   This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!

This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.

People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.

Cheers.

Sriram

   

[Owlswing]

Hi everyone,

People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'.   This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!

This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.

People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.

Cheers.

Sriram

 

I agree with your first two paragraphs, but the third . . . ? I'm not sure that this is true.

I think that when they grow up they THINK they know how to live and that thought will almost certainly be the result of their religious upbringing.

[Rhiannon]

Or rebelling against it.

[Sriram]

Of course, what I mean by 'grow up' is a little different from what you probably mean.  I am not referring to physical age. I am referring to spiritual maturity. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course, what I mean by 'grow up' is a little different from what you probably mean.  I am not referring to physical age. I am referring to spiritual maturity.

But why do they need religion.

It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.

Where?

School, buildings, football, speech, literature, where can you go to hide from religion.

Is there a place in this world where you can escape religion.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.

Where?

School, buildings, football, speech, literature, where can you go to hide from religion.

Is there a place in this world where you can escape religion.

Gonnagle.

For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives. Sure they might learn that religion exists in RE lessons at school but that is about knowledge rather than influencing their upbringing and their moral development.

They have no active involvement in any religion and nor do their families. Yet they are perfectly capable of developing into mature and moral adults. Religion is not necessary at all.

They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear Prof,

It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.

Where?

School, buildings, football, speech, literature, where can you go to hide from religion.

Is there a place in this world where you can escape religion.

Gonnagle.

For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives. Sure they might learn that religion exists in RE lessons at school but that is about knowledge rather than influencing their upbringing and their moral development.

They have no active involvement in any religion and nor do their families. Yet they are perfectly capable of developing into mature and moral adults. Religion is not necessary at all.

They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.

Try telling that to the likes of Ippy.

[Owlswing]

Dear Prof,

It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.

Where?

School, buildings, football, speech, literature, where can you go to hide from religion.

Is there a place in this world where you can escape religion.

Gonnagle.

For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives. Sure they might learn that religion exists in RE lessons at school but that is about knowledge rather than influencing their upbringing and their moral development.

They have no active involvement in any religion and nor do their families. Yet they are perfectly capable of developing into mature and moral adults. Religion is not necessary at all.

They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.

. . . religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.

This seems to be strange statement to make considering the contents of this Forum

I would also dispute your statement that "For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives".

[ippy]

Hi everyone,

People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'.   This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!

This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.

People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.

Cheers.

Sriram

 

People need religion till they grow up; why?

ippy