The Problem of Charity for the non-Theist (Bill Gates founder of Microsoft)

[tdgesq]

The problem of evil is much written about here by atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists as a problem for Christianity and theism in general. It seems to me though that charity and self-sacrificial love present a dilemma to the non-theist. Can such a notion really make sense in the non-theistic worldview? Here is an example from the Haiti disaster:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s thoughts are with the people of Haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that struck on January 12, 2010. We have awarded three grants to respond to the immediate-, medium-, and long-term needs of those affected by the earthquake.

On January 14, the foundation provided a $1 million grant to Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which has experienced personnel and a stock of emergency supplies in Haiti. This grant will help cover CRS’s initial relief efforts, which include addressing the immediate shelter, food, water, sanitation, health and other needs of those affected by the quake. CRS will also continue on-the-ground assessment of the damage. Gates Foundation

Now it is well known that Bill Gates has publicly declared himself to be agnostic. Bill Gates. What explains, from a non-theistic viewpoint, this act of gift to a Catholic institution for the relief of suffering of a Catholic people whom Bill Gates has never met?

 

[flyingfish]

The problem of evil is much written about here by atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists as a problem for Christianity and theism in general. It seems to me though that charity and self-sacrificial love present a dilemma to the non-theist. Can such a notion really make sense in the non-theistic worldview? Here is an example from the Haiti disaster:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s thoughts are with the people of Haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that struck on January 12, 2010. We have awarded three grants to respond to the immediate-, medium-, and long-term needs of those affected by the earthquake.

On January 14, the foundation provided a $1 million grant to Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which has experienced personnel and a stock of emergency supplies in Haiti. This grant will help cover CRS’s initial relief efforts, which include addressing the immediate shelter, food, water, sanitation, health and other needs of those affected by the quake. CRS will also continue on-the-ground assessment of the damage. Gates Foundation

Now it is well known that Bill Gates has publicly declared himself to be agnostic. Bill Gates. What explains, from a non-theistic viewpoint, this act of gift to a Catholic institution for the relief of suffering of a Catholic people whom Bill Gates has never met?

Just because someone is an atheist or agnostic doesn’t mean they are not human.

We evolved in group settings, early humans lived in small groups/tribes with many relatives.

Helping out pays off both because it makes you more successful by virtue of making your group more successful, but also in the environment we evolved in your neighbor was likely related to you and shared your genes. In helping them, your genes were essentially helping themselves.

Maybe someone from Haiti is not your relative, but your nature doesn’t know that. If we evolved in a setting where people you knew about and saw were your relatives, it would make sense to evolve compassionate tendencies toward others. Now TV and other media makes us feel as though people far away are close to us.

That’s an explanation. As for why help? Because it’s our nature. Bill Gates by the way, is so wealthy that he doesn’t experience any negative consequences from giving huge sums of money. It only makes him feel better about himself.

The explanation I gave would work for self sacrificial donations as well.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What explains, from a non-theistic viewpoint, this act of gift to a Catholic institution for the relief of suffering of a Catholic people whom Bill Gates has never met?

It is a straightforward application of the atheist slogan, “Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.”

 

[AntiTheist]

What explains, from a non-theistic viewpoint, this act of gift to a Catholic institution for the relief of suffering of a Catholic people whom Bill Gates has never met?

Empathy.

 

[tdgesq]

Maybe someone from Haiti is not your relative, but your nature doesn’t know that. If we evolved in a setting where people you knew about and saw were your relatives, it would make sense to evolve compassionate tendencies toward others.

Of course we know that the nation state of Haiti is extremely poor economically and weak politically. From a natural selection standpoint it makes no sense to have compassionate tendencies. What you are really saying is that Bill Gates is fooled into believing that these are his relatives. Not even basic lifeforms are fooled in this way, much less one of the richest men in the world.

It is a straightforward application of the atheist slogan, “Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.”

Then why did he give the funds to a Catholic charity?

Empathy.

Correct. He empathized with black, poor, powerless, homeless children - people completely different from himself. The question is: Why?

 

[flyingfish]

Of course we know that the nation state of Haiti is extremely poor economically and weak politically. From a natural selection standpoint it makes no sense to have compassionate tendencies. What you are really saying is that Bill Gates is fooled into believing that these are his relatives. Not even basic lifeforms are fooled in this way, much less one of the richest men in the world.

It doesn’t have to be conscious.

Specifically, the instinct could be “help those around you who are in trouble.” Because those around us tended to be relatives, those of us who helped others ended up helping their relatives (without the conscious intention to do so), and since relatives share genes (perhaps those genes for helpfulness) the helpfulness genes succeeded and we have them now.

I’m saying that now “those around us” include people we hear about in the media, and that’s one reason why we’re moved to help them.

The other consideration is simply that groups of people do better than individuals, and it would make sense for genes that make you a good group member to succeed better than those that make you a bad group member. Helpfulness is one of them. Those are the genes we have now.

Empathy is our nature. Those without it are outliers, we call them sociopaths not atheists or agnostics.

 

[flyingfish]

Correct. He empathized with black, poor, powerless, homeless children - people completely different from himself. The question is: Why?

They’re still people. Human beings emphasize with animals even.

The only thing that would have surprised me is if Bill Gates didn’t give a lot of money to help Haitians, I think anyone with that much money who doesn’t give must be a sociopath.

Imagine you have more money than you can ever spend on yourself, even if you buy every conceivable luxury item. Then some disaster happens and children are dying, people are starving. Could you honestly live with yourself, and feel good about yourself if you did nothing? You’d have to be devoid of empathy not to help.

 

[tdgesq]

It doesn’t have to be conscious.

With all respect flyingfish, this is just a nice way of saying he was fooled. Had he really been as smart as you he would have realized that his gift wasn’t needed at all.

Specifically, the instinct could be “help those around you who are in trouble.” Because those around us tended to be relatives, those of us who helped others ended up helping their relatives (without the conscious intention to do so), and since relatives share genes (perhaps those genes for helpfulness) the helpfulness genes succeeded and we have them now.

Right, so Bill Gates is fooled into believing that he is really helping his relatives because of the elusive helpfulness gene. You would never allow a Christian to pass with this kind of explanation. You recognize the issue, but Bill Gates missed the memo. And yes, I realize the media connection and so does Bill Gates considering that he owns part of MSNBC.

The other consideration is simply that groups of people do better than individuals, and it would make sense for genes that make you a good group member to succeed better than those that make you a bad group member. Helpfulness is one of them. Those are the genes we have now.

With what group? Apparently with one that is on the edge of starvation and destruction. Please explain how this fits in with natural selection.

Empathy is our nature. Those without it are outliers, we call them sociopaths not atheists or agnostics.

Empathy is not our nature, at least according to Hobbes. So you would call somebody who refused to donate to Haitian disaster relief a sociopath? Obviously not. Empathy only makes sense in the world of brute facts when it would confer a benefit upon the donor. How is Bill Gates or his progeny benefited by this particular gift?

 

[flyingfish]

Please explain how this fits in with natural selection.

I don’t know how to phrase it any more clearly than I already have.

The general principle behind kin selection:

Formally, such genes should increase in frequency when

rB > C

where

r = the genetic relatedness of the recipient to the actor, often defined as the probability that a gene picked randomly from each at the same locus is identical by descent.

B = the additional reproductive benefit gained by the recipient of the altruistic act,

C = the reproductive cost to the individual of performing the act.

This inequality is known as Hamilton’s rule after W. D. Hamilton who published, in 1964, the first formal quantitative treatment of kin selection to deal with the evolution of apparently altruistic acts. Altruistic acts are those that benefit the recipient but harm the actor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton’s_rule#Hamilton.27s_rule

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality Some other general thoughts.

Evolution is not about an optimal behavior. Yes, optimally we would have a sense that would tell us exactly how closely someone is related to us, and we would help them on the basis of that etc.

But just like everything else about us that’s flawed, sub-optimal so is this. If a particular behavior works, it’s going to be selected for, even if it’s not perfect. In the conditions we evolved under (small groups of relatives) the general rule I mentioned worked.

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t know how to phrase it any more clearly than I already have.

You phrased it very clearly, and I very clearly rejected your arguments.

The general principle behind kin selection:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton’s_rule#Hamilton.27s_rule

Um, this only works in the following scenario: “Some organisms tend to exhibit strategies that favor the reproductive success of their relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction.” Guess what? Bill Gates knows that his relatives don’t live in Haiti.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality Some other general thoughts.

“Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial.” From your own link champ.

Evolution is not about an optimal behavior. Yes, optimally we would have a sense that would tell us exactly how closely someone is related to us, and we would help them on the basis of that etc.

Yeah, Bill Gates doesn’t know he isn’t related to Haitians. He is fooled, but you aren’t. You’ve got it figured out.

But just like everything else about us that’s flawed, sub-optimal so is this. If a particular behavior works, it’s going to be selected for, even if it’s not perfect. In the conditions we evolved under (small groups of relatives) the general rule I mentioned worked.

Yes, we are fooled like Bill Gates into giving money to Haitians, because we can’t discern the specific situation from the general rule. The general rule that we give to our relatives?

 

[edward_george]

To the original poster: this is not a problem of charity for Bill Gates, but a problem of hope for you. Why do you look at something which is very obviously a good thing, and yet try to find something bad in it? He could have not donated, and then we could have denounced him and others who were stingy with money that could have gone to relief efforts as uncharitable, unkind, evil, whatever. What this man has done is a good thing, whether he is an atheist or the Pope himself.

The Benedictines here at my college practice a kind of hospitality which has as its guiding light the idea that we should labor to see Christ in everyone. When I see Bill Gates give money to relief efforts (or to any of the other worthy causes he and his wife donate to), then it is easy to see Christ in him. How much have you donated to Haiti relief?

-ACEGC

 

[tdgesq]

To the original poster: this is not a problem of charity for Bill Gates, but a problem of hope for you. Why do you look at something which is very obviously a good thing, and yet try to find something bad in it? He could have not donated, and then we could have denounced him and others who were stingy with money that could have gone to relief efforts as uncharitable, unkind, evil, whatever. What this man has done is a good thing, whether he is an atheist or the Pope himself.

That is exactly my point. Bill Gates has done a great thing. A noble thing. Something that is inexplicable from the standpoint of the non-theist.

The Benedictines here at my college practice a kind of hospitality which has as its guiding light the idea that we should labor to see Christ in everyone. When I see Bill Gates give money to relief efforts (or to any of the other worthy causes he and his wife donate to), then it is easy to see Christ in him. How much have you donated to Haiti relief?

-ACEGC

I have donated to the Haiti effort, but not even close to the amount Bill Gates’ foundation has. But he hasn’t done it because of natural selection. He has done it because he is created in the image of God.

 

[flyingfish]

You phrased it very clearly, and I very clearly rejected your arguments.

However, much of what you say later demonstrates that you don’t understand the argument.

Not my argument by the way, a common one in evolutionary biology.

It seems like you’re more interested in talking about how inexplicable it is for a non-theist to do a good thing independently of God.

 

[tdgesq]

However, much of what you say later demonstrates that you don’t understand the argument.

What is it that I said later that demonstrates I don’t understand the argument? Be specific please.

Not my argument by the way, a common one in evolutionary biology.

You mean from Wiki? Sorry, but it isn’t your argument at all. How about you give me the one from evolutionary biology. The one you tried to use from Wiki sucks.

It seems like you’re more interested in talking about how inexplicable it is for a non-theist to do a good thing independently of God.

It is very understandable why a non-theist does good. It isn’t because of the absence of God. It is precisely because of God.

 

[flyingfish]

What is it that I said later that demonstrates I don’t understand the argument? Be specific please.

The points about Bill Gates being fooled, and knowing who his relatives are make me think that you not only don’t understand the argument, but natural selection in general. And I’m not trying to be insulting or anything of the sort.

If you’re really interested in understanding, check out this book mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10894&ttype=2

You don’t have to buy the book, there are a few sample chapters there you can read for free online that explain the argument. Specifically this: mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262101122chap1.pdf

 

[choy]

The problem of evil is much written about here by atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists as a problem for Christianity and theism in general. It seems to me though that charity and self-sacrificial love present a dilemma to the non-theist. Can such a notion really make sense in the non-theistic worldview? Here is an example from the Haiti disaster:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s thoughts are with the people of Haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that struck on January 12, 2010. We have awarded three grants to respond to the immediate-, medium-, and long-term needs of those affected by the earthquake.

On January 14, the foundation provided a $1 million grant to Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which has experienced personnel and a stock of emergency supplies in Haiti. This grant will help cover CRS’s initial relief efforts, which include addressing the immediate shelter, food, water, sanitation, health and other needs of those affected by the quake. CRS will also continue on-the-ground assessment of the damage. Gates Foundation

Now it is well known that Bill Gates has publicly declared himself to be agnostic. Bill Gates. What explains, from a non-theistic viewpoint, this act of gift to a Catholic institution for the relief of suffering of a Catholic people whom Bill Gates has never met?

tax exemptions

 

[Just_Lurking]

Then why did he give the funds to a Catholic charity?

To quote from your opening post:

On January 14, the foundation provided a $1 million grant to Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which has experienced personnel and a stock of emergency supplies in Haiti. This grant will help cover CRS’s initial relief efforts, which include addressing the immediate shelter, food, water, sanitation, health and other needs of those affected by the quake.

Now, if Bill gates had given money to CRS so that they could hire more people to pray for Haiti, that indeed would make no sense from a non-theist viewpoint.

 

[tdgesq]

The points about Bill Gates being fooled, and knowing who his relatives are make me think that you not only don’t understand the argument, but natural selection in general.

Ahh, the ubiquitous “you just don’t understand” argument. Believe it or not, I spent about 30 minutes reading the sample chapters of your book. I wish I was able to quote portions of it, but since it is in pdf I can’t conveniently. If this is considered science, or anything close to it by non-theists today, then it is demonstrably anti-intellectual. It is obvious to me now why you can’t (on your own) express what you’ve read.

tax exemptions

True, but it is the choice of charities that is the issue. There are plenty of charities Bill Gates could have given to get a charitable tax exemption.

Now, if Bill gates had given money to CRS so that they could hire more people to pray for Haiti, that indeed would make no sense from a non-theist viewpoint.

I guarantee that there was some praying going on amongst those people. So Gates paid for it, and he knew he would be paying for it. Seriously. Nobody expects payment for prayers, even though it may be allowed in certain situations. Your point escapes me. I don’t think you have one.

Regardless of the above objections, let’s consider the philosophy of the Gates Foundation:

Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life.

Any non-theists willing to present an explanatory basis for this position?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Your point escapes me. I don’t think you have one.

That’s fair, because your original objection escapes me as well. I think you must object to either or both of the following:

1. A non-theist in the U.S. having a goal to help people in Haiti.
2. A non-theist with the goal of helping people in Haiti paying a religious charity to perform a set of defined, practical tasks to achieve that goal.

If you object to (1), then what goals do you consider it allowable for a non-theist to have, considering he believes there is no God, no externally imposed purpose for his life, and no after-death consequences?

If you object to (2), then what actions do you think he should have taken instead to achieve his goal?

 

[aperture]

Ahh, the ubiquitous “you just don’t understand” argument. Believe it or not, I spent about 30 minutes reading the sample chapters of your book. I wish I was able to quote portions of it, but since it is in pdf I can’t conveniently. If this is considered science, or anything close to it by non-theists today, then it is demonstrably anti-intellectual. It is obvious to me now why you can’t (on your own) express what you’ve read.

True, but it is the choice of charities that is the issue. There are plenty of charities Bill Gates could have given to get a charitable tax exemption.

I guarantee that there was some praying going on amongst those people. So Gates paid for it, and he knew he would be paying for it. Seriously. Nobody expects payment for prayers, even though it may be allowed in certain situations. Your point escapes me. I don’t think you have one.

Regardless of the above objections, let’s consider the philosophy of the Gates Foundation:

Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life.

Any non-theists willing to present an explanatory basis for this position?

I don’t really see what you’re arguing against - that altruism is inexplicable through evolution?

Well, logically if a person is genetically predisposed to help those close to them (people who are often their kin), then they might have a better chance of survival (especially true for early humans.) Weigh this against an early human who loves being by himself and will not help others; how well will he fare in hunting or gathering food or finding a mate? Much more poorly than the pre-human with “altruistic” genes. Therefore, it’s reasonable that the altruistic humans came to dominate as natural selection progressed, since they were more likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore, that seems like an explanatory basis for someone wanting to help other people today, even if, like Bill Gates, they’re not religious.

And just because an organization has people that pray, that does not mean a non-religious people shouldn’t donate to them. Chances are Gates did a little cost-benefit analysis; maybe he factored in the inefficiency of praying (I’m working out of an atheist paradigm here) and still determined that CRS would give the most bang for his charitable buck. In other words, even discounting praying, CRS might be the most effective charity in Haiti, and so the best target for donations. It’s quite possible.