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

[jinminn]

This is a hilarious post.

tdgesq, you seem to be set on not accepting anything anyone gives you as a reason. Why post it in the first place?

Would you like to provide us with your own hypothesis to spare us from taking time out of our days to suggest any more to you?

Your question is flawed from the beginning. You assume that an agnostic or atheist should have no dealings with any person or organization that proclaims a religion. This is false. Ironically, it is religion that is so divisive. I can take what works from any number of belief systems rather than being constricted to any one of the particular ones who all say the have the truth. Religion is stuck having pretty intense ‘boundary lines’ between believers of other belief systems. It’s horrid actually.

I know of other atheists who provide to Christian organizations who do work for the sick and suffering with those funds. Why? Because those organizations work.

That’s at the heart of your flawed question. You’re hung up on the particular belief the work is being done in the name of whereas Bill Gates simply wishes to provide his money to an organization with the means and the history of caring for others.

You cannot grasp non-Jesus motivated empathy or care for fellow human beings. You are spitting out evolutionary misconceptions assuming that because of the mechanism through which natural selection works, we should be reduced to only operating via that mechanism alone. In other words, you would say that since evolution works via reproductive means to affect genetic content to make a species more adaptable to its environment, we should quit our day jobs and have intercourse with the best set of genes available. Hardly, my friend.

We’ve evolved consciousness, intellect, emotions, and the like. We are able to use them. Macaque monkeys, one of the species closely resembling humans in genetic content, has morality as well. Check HERE. Then take a look at THIS NBC transcript were simply upon instruction alone, a woman was willing to shock a man for answering a wrong test question with 300 volts. The machine was not actually electrified and was a setup, but the setup gave the illusion of being real, fully equipped with painful yells from the one being shocked. The test subject continued to increase the voltage nonetheless.

Anyway, I’m denying my own principle with which I started. Returning to it:

tdgesq, why don’t you lay out:

• your own hypothesis
• what you wish to accomplish with this thread
• what you would be satisfied with

 

[AntiTheist]

Is the claim here that an atheist would only give money to a Catholic charity because the atheist is really, deep down inside, motivated by god since there is no materialist explanation for such behavior?

Because if that’s the argument, that is so boneheadedly stupid that I don’t even know where to begin taking it apart.

It involves a false premise (evolution adequately explains altruism, and there is no reason that an atheist has to be biased against religious organizations that do good things in the world), and it’s circular in that it presumes its conclusion (it starts from the assumption that a god exists).

 

[tdgesq]

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.

I don’t object to either. I object to the explanations up to this point that attempt to account for this behavior, particularly the evolutionary explanations.

 

[tdgesq]

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

Not exactly. I am arguing that some charitable acts are inexplicable through evolution. While I can see why Gates would give to some charities to assist kin or those who may improve his position in life, and may even give to a Catholic charity in order to accomplish that, it is not a reasonably possible basis in the case of the Haiti donation. I also don’t see it as a reasonable explanation to donate to the Special Olympics.

 

[tdgesq]

This is a hilarious post.

Why do you think it’s hilarious?

tdgesq, you seem to be set on not accepting anything anyone gives you as a reason. Why post it in the first place?

I have not rejected all explanations, but I have rejected most. You need to reread the thread. And you don’t know or understand my motivations, so please refrain from speculating.

Would you like to provide us with your own hypothesis to spare us from taking time out of our days to suggest any more to you?

I’m not sure who “we” constitutes, but I did provide my hypothesis. Please reread the thread. Do you have an explanation for how Gate’s statement is consistent with evolutionary theory? Here it is again:

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.

I know of other atheists who provide to Christian organizations who do work for the sick and suffering with those funds. Why? Because those organizations work.

So do I. The question is why they care if these organizations work to give comfort to the weak, the disabled, the genetically inferior.

That’s at the heart of your flawed question. You’re hung up on the particular belief the work is being done in the name of whereas Bill Gates simply wishes to provide his money to an organization with the means and the history of caring for others.

Not at all. I’m glad Bill Gates gave his money to a religious charity that he doesn’t philosophically agree with to help with the suffering of an extremely poor and weak nation, the people of which he will likely never meet and who will never reciprocate. I just don’t think you have a good explanation for it.

You cannot grasp non-Jesus motivated empathy or care for fellow human beings. You are spitting out evolutionary misconceptions assuming that because of the mechanism through which natural selection works, we should be reduced to only operating via that mechanism alone.

I understand the difference between the alleged cause of empathy and the actual act of empathy, according to the theory anyway. I do not suffer from the misconceptions you claim.

Anyway, I’m denying my own principle with which I started. Returning to it:

tdgesq, why don’t you lay out:

• your own hypothesis
• what you wish to accomplish with this thread
• what you would be satisfied with

Your request is noted, but I will set my own agenda all the same. I asked some simple questions. I disagreed with the answers - because they weren’t good answers. I stated my hypothesis. I will be satisfied once I have a rational answer from a non-theist as to how these acts and statements from Bill Gates are consistent with their worldview.

 

[flyingfish]

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.

You don’t have to do this, but if you have the time I’d be curious to see you express the kin selection argument for altruism in your own words and why you find it anti-intellectual/unconvincing.

 

[tdgesq]

Is the claim here that an atheist would only give money to a Catholic charity because the atheist is really, deep down inside, motivated by god since there is no materialist explanation for such behavior?

No, please reread the original post and the stated purpose of the Gates Foundation. I do agree that there is no reasonable materialistic explanation for the gift to Haiti or the stated purpose of the foundation.

Because if that’s the argument, that is so boneheadedly stupid that I don’t even know where to begin taking it apart.

Well, it isn’t the argument. In terms of you taking of my arguments apart - I doubt it.

 

[aperture]

No, please reread the original post and the stated purpose of the Gates Foundation. I do agree that there is no reasonable materialistic explanation for the gift to Haiti or the stated purpose of the foundation.

Well, it isn’t the argument. In terms of you taking of my arguments apart - I doubt it.

What’s wrong with my argument?

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.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not exactly. I am arguing that some charitable acts are inexplicable through evolution. While I can see why Gates would give to some charities to assist kin or those who may improve his position in life, and may even give to a Catholic charity in order to accomplish that, it is not a reasonably possible basis in the case of the Haiti donation. I also don’t see it as a reasonable explanation to donate to the Special Olympics.

It stands to reason that if human beings are capable of altruism, feeling a desire to help get others out of trouble that would reduce their survival chances, that the species as a whole stands more chance of survival, no?

My personal opinion is that if charity boils down to a fawning profession to a deity rather than a genuine desire to help, the obsequious leer of the cad who only does good work to brown nose the CEO and further his own career, we are a sorry lot indeed…

 

[jinminn]

Why do you think it’s hilarious?

Because you seem a tad belligerent.

I have not rejected all explanations, but I have rejected most. You need to reread the thread. And you don’t know or understand my motivations, so please refrain from speculating.

I probably won’t reread the entire post. I skimmed and saw no evidence of you agreeing with anyone else. I admit I did not read it all.

Your original post does not really suggest a motivation, but seems to set up a question with a proposed tongue-in-cheek implication of no plausible answer, which many have suggested is wrong.

I’m not sure who “we” constitutes

Everyone responding with answers that you shoot down.

Do you have an explanation for how Gate’s statement is consistent with evolutionary theory?

Did you check my link on the Macaque monkey study? It’s HERE.
Summary:

• one monkey in one room, one monkey in an adjacent room separated by one-way mirrored glass. Monkeys are unrelated.
• one monkey has a chain which provides food and can see the monkey in the adjacent room through one-way glass
• when the chain is pulled one monkey receives food; the other is shocked
• after a few pulls of the chain, the monkey stops pulling the chain as it sees the shock administered to the other monkey
• monkeys in this experiment went as long as 2 weeks without food to avoid shocking a fellow monkey

I this is all the evidence that is required, is it not? Your explanation would perhaps point to a soul or ‘brotherhood in Christ’ scenario… something, anyway, suggesting that only humans are capable of empathy and altruism because of some god-implanted function/spirit/mind/soul/whatever.

This is not the case. We may not understand the why, but being able to point to non-humans displaying the same characteristics (i.e. benevolent actions to non-clan/non-family members) surely supports that it is what evolution has produced.

The best explanation of the facts, at present, may amount to: it just is.

I’m not familiar enough with the evolution of emotions, altruistic tendencies, etc. to give you the genetic mapping of where this trait first popped up. I’ve heard references to why this would have been beneficial in clans and early tribes and how this same trait applies to a ‘broader’ tribe due to the interconnectedness allowed via transportation and communication. Other than that I’m not sure what you would like.

We may be able to identify a ‘unselfish gene’ or some other mechanism. In the meantime, we have no better hypothesis than evolution which adequately explains the progression of life through the ages and therefore can reasonably conclude that this is a by-product.

Again, it seems like the clear answer that will be proposed is some sort of evolutionary basis… you, again, seem belligerent as any form of evolutionary explanation will be countered with, ‘But how does evolution account for this!’

How does evolution account for the existence of your eye? Your ears? Your senses? Why our breathing/eating tracts are too close and lead to choking? Why we have an appendix?

We could ask these questions all day long and still be unsatisfied, couldn’t we?

 

[tdgesq]

It stands to reason that if human beings are capable of altruism, feeling a desire to help get others out of trouble that would reduce their survival chances, that the species as a whole stands more chance of survival, no?

This is the group selection theory that the purpose of altruistic acts is to increase the population of the species as a whole. This doesn’t explain though why charitable gifts of food, water, and medicine meant to promote survival are given to overpopulated nations - Haiti being a prime example.

My personal opinion is that if charity boils down to a fawning profession to a deity rather than a genuine desire to help, the obsequious leer of the cad who only does good work to brown nose the CEO and further his own career, we are a sorry lot indeed…

We agree that these charitable actions stem from a genuine desire to help, whether it be a theist or non-theist. So the proposed motivation of brown-nosing God, while a pretty diversion and perhaps self-satisfying for you to state in some way, is not the issue. The issue is whether the non-theist has a reasonable explanation for the actions of somebody like Bill Gates - who gives means of survival to an overpopulated nation.

 

[aperture]

This is the group selection theory that the purpose of altruistic acts is to increase the population of the species as a whole. This doesn’t explain though why charitable gifts of food, water, and medicine meant to promote survival are given to overpopulated nations - Haiti being a prime example.

One explanation would be that overpopulation is a recent thing, evolutionarily speaking. For tens of thousands of years of natural selection, humans have benefited from helping one another; why would that suddenly change over a few centuries?

We agree that these charitable actions stem from a genuine desire to help, whether it be a theist or non-theist. So the proposed motivation of brown-nosing God, while a pretty diversion and perhaps self-satisfying for you to state in some way, is not the issue. The issue is whether the non-theist has a reasonable explanation for the actions of somebody like Bill Gates - who gives means of survival to an overpopulated nation.

Being a non-theist doesn’t necessarily mean that you operate by cold, cruel logic. You can still do apparently illogical things like help people survive in an already overpopulated nation; it just means that you don’t think there’s a God to care about it.

 

[jinminn]

Being a non-theist doesn’t necessarily mean that you operate by cold, cruel logic. You can still do apparently illogical things like help people survive in an already overpopulated nation; it just means that you don’t think there’s a God to care about it.

I would tend to agree. It would be interesting to be able to draw a nice clean line through ‘nature’ vs. ‘nurture’. My gut (absolutely could be wrong) would say that evolution may have led to tendencies that I’m not overtly aware of, at least without trying to pay attention.

On a small scale, imagine finding a bum who is hurt in a dark alley. My initial reaction is simply one of trying to make sure he’s alright, get proper help, etc. Will I think to myself, ‘Now, if I help him he’s probably just going to go on drinking himself into oblivion’? No.

Same for Haiti. I think the targeted population characteristic is the wrong one, namely overpopulation. What almost certainly is at the root of giving is the characteristic of being hurt, wounded, abandoned, homeless, without means and so on. I somewhat doubt Bill Gates was contemplating forecasts of Haiti’s continued over/underpopulation when writing that check.

 

[Jocko_VT]

This was an interesting thread, though bizarre–and I see quite old now. The original poster has a specific, incomplete understanding of what evolution is, and s/he refused to listen to others’ arguments if they didn’t limit themselves to that understanding. Of course, the answer is that humans are moral beings–empathy is part of being human. It’s the consequence of millions of years of evolution. Evolution didn’t result in a species capable of empathy only toward specific others, but toward others generally. The amazing thing is that humans aren’t more generous and empathetic and altruistic. For that to be explained, we have to look at society–Emmanual Levinas and Zygmunt Bauman and Ulrich Beck explain this well.

 

[valentino]

I believe a non theist could have a reason for giving.He enjoys sharing when he sees that more money won’t make him happier.He finds that helping poor underdeveloped countries feed their children makes him happier than buying an island somewhere with a yacht and another mansion.

 

[tdgesq]

This was an interesting thread, though bizarre–and I see quite old now. The original poster has a specific, incomplete understanding of what evolution is, and s/he refused to listen to others’ arguments if they didn’t limit themselves to that understanding.

Statements like this are quite easy to make without providing evidence or reasons. You are invited to provide both here, and I will seriously consider them. I won’t seriously consider conclusory statements like “you just don’t understand.” I will also dismiss attacks on my motivations.

Of course, the answer is that humans are moral beings–empathy is part of being human. It’s the consequence of millions of years of evolution. Evolution didn’t result in a species capable of empathy only toward specific others, but toward others generally. The amazing thing is that humans aren’t more generous and empathetic and altruistic. For that to be explained, we have to look at society–Emmanual Levinas and Zygmunt Bauman and Ulrich Beck explain this well.

You are welcome to explain your views here, but they must actually be explained.

I believe a non theist could have a reason for giving.He enjoys sharing when he sees that more money won’t make him happier.He finds that helping poor underdeveloped countries feed their children makes him happier than buying an island somewhere with a yacht and another mansion.

I agree with this completely. It does make him happier, and there is good reason it makes him happier. The question is: can the non-theist give an account for the kind of charitable behavior we see from Bill Gates?

 

[Jocko_VT]

It’s been explained several times, and you reject the explanation. You are insisting that your understanding of evolution is correct, and it’s wrong. Your incorrect understanding of evolution is at the core of this entire issue. I see no reason to explain once again so that you can simply reject once again.

People are people. And people are moral beings. Evolution not only can explain that, but does explain that. The literature on this is abundant and you either don’t know that literature or you reject it. You reject all explanations because you insist that you know everything there is to know already and that everyone else just doesn’t understand. There is no mystery why anyone would try to ease the pain and suffering of anyone else. What really needs explained is why people ignore the pain and suffering of other people!! A good explanation of that comes from people like Zygmunt Bauman.

 

[valentino]

Statements like this are quite easy to make without providing evidence or reasons. You are invited to provide both here, and I will seriously consider them. I won’t seriously consider conclusory statements like “you just don’t understand.” I will also dismiss attacks on my motivations.

You are welcome to explain your views here, but they must actually be explained.

I agree with this completely. It does make him happier, and there is good reason it makes him happier. The question is: can the non-theist give an account for the kind of charitable behavior we see from Bill Gates?

I think you are saying will God give him credit for his charitable actions.Please respond.

 

[Jocko_VT]

But, if you REALLY want to seriously talk about it, let’s start from the beginning. Restate what you want to know and I’ll respond. I don’t want to have to deal with critiquing all the previous dialogue–but we ca start new.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I guess I can do this, can’t I?

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?

Now it is well known that Bill Gates has publicly declared himself to be agnostic. 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?

First, why is it a dilemma? Charity and self-sacrificial love as opposed to what? What would make sense to you from a “non-theistic worldview” in this particular example (i.e., what SHOULD Gates have done were he to follow your idea of a non-theistic worldview)? It seems you’re starting with a certain set of presuppositions which themselves are without a foundation–so what is the foundation and what exactly are those presuppositions? I think you’re commenting on the nature of man without providing evidence for your assertions (I think–maybe I’m misreading), so what are the assumptions that are going into your question in the first place?

Concerning your second question, is it that Bill Gates used a Catholic institution or that it’s “a* Catholic *people” he’s helping or that he’s never met them? You’ve actually put a lot into that one sentence, so please parse out for me exactly what your question is.