I was talking to my good ole' pops about things and the conversation turned to why we help out others when they're in need. He said something to the effect of "If it was proven that there was no God, then a significant portion of the aid to those in need would stop." I know that there are many religious based foundations, but I happen to believe that people give aid because of a true concern for those in need. But articles like this show that maybe this isn't the case - "My feeling is that God wants us to give back," says Hewitt, 55. "I don't think God just says arbitrarily, 'You win, you lose.' "
So I was just wondering, do people help sincerely or do they help just to score points with God? Or is it a combination of the both?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
If there is no God to help, there is only us to do it.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I would hate to think that people only help others for religious reasons. It's not that religion isn't a good reason to help people, but I'd like to think that people help each other because they think it's the right thing to do. But then, it could be that religion is one of the main sources of that feeling of right and wrong. Now I'm confused.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I believe anthropologists and sociologists have shown that humans of all cultures have a sense of fairness. In gift-giving games, we attempt to give back approximately what we got; in cooperation-defection games, we punish defectors even at a price to ourselves. (My source for this is my memory of New Scientist articles, so no links, sorry.)
I think, then, that even without religion, people would contribute, though the contribution may take different forms. For example, Norway, surely the most secular society in the world, gives the most development aid (as a percentage of GDP) of any nation. On the other hand, the US has a larger private charity contribution, certainly in absolute terms and I think also in percentages.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I agree with Sara. If there is no deity taking care of us, it is up to us to take care of ourselves and each other. I won't argue with the prediction that giving would decrease if everyone stopped believing in God, but I think it might motivate some people who are currently assuming that God will take care of things to give more.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote: I think it might motivate some people who are currently assuming that God will take care of things to give more.
I hadn't really thought about it like that. I guess that could balance out the people who are only trying to "score points" with God.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
There is a significant number of people for whom fear of punishment is the only reason to perform acts that are otherwise selfless. Whether the fear motivator be God, or social pressures, or something else, these people wouldn't donate a dime of their money or a minute of their time to help those in need if those pressures weren't there.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Also, the people who currently justify contributions by pointing to God might well find a different cause. This is, after all, a country where it's good business to be pious. The people who, in this culture, say "I think God wants us to give back" might as easily say "It is the right thing to do" in a different culture, and be lauded just as much.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Anybody "trying to score points" with God is scoring exactly zero. People help because they care about people. That's what makes us who we are. Loving God helps us love others, so religion plays a part to that extent. But you don't have to believe in God to care about others.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm agnostic, I don't believe in a god, an afterlife, or any set of universal morals. I have donated to the Red Cross for the Asian disaster fund. Why?
Because it seems obvious to me that helping others when you can is the right thing to do. Because I'm not there and can't help search, bandage, lift, cook, build, or carry things myself. Because the person I want to be does such things. Because others have helped me in times of trouble without expecting payback and I can do no less. Because trouble shared is trouble lessened.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: So I was just wondering, do people help sincerely or do they help just to score points with God? Or is it a combination of the both?
It's impossible to separate the two. You ownly get brownie points if you are sincerely serving others.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
So the "significant number of people for whom fear of punishment is the only reason to perform acts that are otherwise selfless" don't get the brownie points? Do these selfless acts not help them in any way?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sure it helps them. The best way to come to love somebody is to act ast though you love them -- to serve them.
But in reality, I don't believe in "brownie points". I believe that it doesn't matter so much what we've done, but what we've become. Of course, that is largely determined by the decisions we've made.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
If they're doing it because they fear punishment then it's not selfless. Where does the "significant number" come from? Is this the result of a "study"? Or is it just an assumption used to dismiss the motivation of those from religious backgrounds who help?
[ December 30, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Cashew ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
While I believe that being raised within a religion that values selflessness and stepping up when others are need has probably helped mold who I am, I like to believe I would be concerned and self-sacrificing regardless of my upbringing.
I have no way of knowing, of course. But considering that there are a lot of giving people who do not have religious ties and some really apathetic people who do, it seems safe to say that giving to people in need isn't based on religion.
Of course, one could argue that an inherent giving nature is part of human design. And there would be some God stuff in that discussion, prolly.
[ December 30, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
I don't believe that you "score points," so to speak, with God. But I believe that if God has blessed you and gives you the opportunity to help those less fortunate, then it would definately "lose points" (if you want to think of it like that) if you didn't help them.
So it's not necessarily help someone and God will like you more. (I don't think)
But I personally believe God has given me a lot, and I should share what he's given me. My bible tells me that God is love and that I should "love thy neighbour as thyself" and so, that's what I try to do. That's why I help people.
This doesn't mean if I didn't believe in God I would be a selfish uncaring person.. I would hope not. But my religion is a huge motivational factor for me.
[ December 30, 2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Tater ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I can't say it better than Sorenson wrote and Kennedy uttered:
quote:With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds; let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Knowing my self and my family, I can say with no doubt that I would be selfish if I didn't believe in God. I am not a nice person by nature. I try to be one because God told me to. It's not easy for me. I don't always like doing it. I certainly wouldn't if I didn't have to.
I'm not trying to score points with God, but I am trying to be obedient.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
God is like a parent. He prompts us to do what he and we know is right anyway. Sort of like a parent reminding you to tell your host you had a good time, or to thank your aunt for a gift. Maybe kids for a while do those things only to placate their parents, but the goal is for them to learn and connect with those feelings inside themselves of gratitude and appreciation of others.
Connecting with the inner best part of yourself, and exercising and strengthening it, will bring a lot of joy to you too, as well as those around you. So naturally parents want to encourage their children to be that way. In the same way, God encourages his children as well.
It's true that it doesn't really count until it's real, from the heart, and spontaneous, you know? And yet the best way to prompt and strengthen those true impulses (if they are buried beneath laziness or indifference) is to do it anyway, by rote, if needs be, or because of duty. Doing things out of duty is okay, as far as it goes. It's not a bad thing. But the real goal is to learn the art of spontaneously giving from the heart from pure love, just for the joy of it.
That art can be cultivated by the religious and nonreligious alike. It's possible that religious people may be exposed to more promptings, to more reminders that it's a good thing to do, and it's expected of them. That is all, though. Not all will follow those promptings, or ever progress from the "duty" stage, and many nonreligious people do give generously to those in need.
So it's not that without religion, nobody would ever help others.... it's just like if your parents never taught you to say thank you for gifts.... you still might learn that in other ways (including listening to the natural impulse inside you towards gratitude) but I guess it makes it a lot easier to learn if you have someone prompting you.
[ December 31, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:1 TAKE heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
I think those who give charitably to score points are failing to live up to the teachings of their own religion.
On the other hand, I'd like to reconsider what it means to help. Plenty of corrupt wealthy people give away millions of dollars but lack a feeling of brotherly love and charity (the definition of which is the pure love demonstrated by Christ) in their personal lives.
Learning to sacrifice, whether it be our money, our time, or our personal comfort is one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The "natural man" is selfish; by overcoming the natural tendencies of greed, laziness, and pride, (a neccessary step for everyone, not just the religious) we gain the character traits that make us compassionate and helpful. If God suddenly "went away," those who lived by these teachings would still be the type of people who put others' needs above their own.
Christ himself teaches that it is the attitude of compassion that we need to strive for, not the actual efficacy of our efforts:
quote:41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The "natural man" is selfish; by overcoming the natural tendencies of greed, laziness, and pride, (a neccessary step for everyone, not just the religious) we gain the character traits that make us compassionate and helpful.
I think that's what worries me about Christianity. By positing "natural man" as all of these wicked things, it seems some queer way to justify his actions.
How much would Christianity change if "natural man" understood responsibility and "aberrant man" were wicked?
Adam and Eve weren't predisposed to eating the apple, they had to be cajoled into doing it. Naturally, they were just fine, maybe a bit in the rube way, but just fine as people.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
"study"? Or is it just an assumption used to dismiss the motivation of those from religious backgrounds who help? ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)