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

[Jocko_VT]

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

“The question is: can the non-theist give an account for the kind of charitable behavior we see from Bill Gates?”

So, to reiterate, you need to explain your questions, just as your require that others explain themselves. What’s to be accounted for? Why must certain behaviors be accounted for yet others needn’t be accounted for specifically by non-theists? How does one account for all the people, wealthy and no-so-wealthy, who did *not *exhibit “the kind of charitable behavior we see from Bill Gates”? It seems like you are setting yourself above everyone else–you get to make unfounded and unexpressed assumptions yet no one else does. Let’s start on a level playing field here. What do you really want to know?

 

[fhansen]

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.

By definition I don’t believe that an act of helping out that ultimately makes me more successful could qualify as an act of charity, from a Catholic perspective at least. IOW, for love to truly be love it must transcend reasons motivated by self-gain. But when we associate love with an evolved beneficial trait, I think the term is pretty much rendered meaningless.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I think everyone here is over complicating the issue. Catholics are instructed in the new testament to give to charity anonymously, in secret, not to “blow a trumpet” before you, so that the “heavenly Father” who exists in secret may reward you in secret.

The full passage for instructions pertaining to donating to the poor/needy are found in Matthew 6:2

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.”

These are the words of the Causa Sui, the infinite ruler and creator of the universe.

We can therefore logically deduce that atheists, agnostics, and other non-catholics, etc only give to the poor to be honored by men. Not out of any real concern or charity, but rather, purposes of self-glorification. Of course this deduction will be attacked by nonbelievers and there will be claims of “you have no proof”…but to believe otherwise is to contradict what God said when he was in the flesh.

Lastly, I’d point out that 1 million dollars isn’t that much money for microsoft and does not indicate any real concern or “empathy”. It was merely a publicity stunt. Wealthy people are expected to give to charity via social ettiquette. If Bill Gates had given nothing at all, then he was be accused of greed, some people may even boycott his microsoft and buy ipads, and ultimately his company would suffer. So he gave the minimum amount. He didn’t really have a choice in the matter. ALso Keep in mind that donations to charity are tax deductible, and wealthy people hate seeing their money squandered by the government.

So that 1 million donation by Microsoft looks great for the company (at minimal cost and tax deducted) and may even serve to improve sales or pop the stock up half a percent.

Yes I am a highly cynical person. Sorry. I believe all people are wicked.

 

[fhansen]

I think everyone here is over complicating the issue. Catholics are instructed in the new testament to give to charity anonymously, in secret, not to “blow a trumpet” before you, so that the “heavenly Father” who exists in secret may reward you in secret.

The full passage for instructions pertaining to donating to the poor/needy are found in Matthew 6:2

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.”

These are the words of the Causa Sui, the infinite ruler and creator of the universe.

We can therefore logically deduce that atheists, agnostics, and other non-catholics, etc only give to the poor to be honored by men. Not out of any real concern or charity, but rather, purposes of self-glorification. Of course this deduction will be attacked by nonbelievers and there will be claims of “you have no proof”…but to believe otherwise is to contradict what God said when he was in the flesh.

Lastly, I’d point out that 1 million dollars isn’t that much money for microsoft and does not indicate any real concern or “empathy”. It was merely a publicity stunt. Wealthy people are expected to give to charity via social ettiquette. If Bill Gates had given nothing at all, then he was be accused of greed, some people may even boycott his microsoft and buy ipads, and ultimately his company would suffer. So he gave the minimum amount. He didn’t really have a choice in the matter. ALso Keep in mind that donations to charity are tax deductible, and wealthy people hate seeing their money squandered by the government.

So that 1 million donation by Microsoft looks great for the company (at minimal cost and tax deducted) and may even serve to improve sales or pop the stock up half a percent.

Yes I am a highly cynical person. Sorry. I believe all people are wicked.

Well, I’d say the notion that all people are wicked is more Calvinistic than Catholic. I think if we look at the story of the Good Samaritan we have an example of charity existing within man’s heart regardless of his religious affiliation-or lack of one. And, since we’ll be judged according to the greatest commandments- our love for God and neighbor- I don’t think we should dismiss the actions of “outsiders” out of hand as being wrongly motivated in any case. Another parable, of the two sons in Matt 21:28-32, is also relevant, IMO, where one son agrees to do his fathers’ work but doesn’t actually do it while the other son says “no” and then goes ahead and does it anyway.

 

[Jocko_VT]

We can therefore logically deduce that atheists, agnostics, and other non-catholics, etc only give to the poor to be honored by men. Not out of any real concern or charity, but rather, purposes of self-glorification. Of course this deduction will be attacked by nonbelievers and there will be claims of “you have no proof”…but to believe otherwise is to contradict what God said when he was in the flesh.

You can’t “logically deduce” anything of the sort, at least about “non-catholics.” You can assume it, but it’s no deduction, and it’s not logical.

Furthermore, your assumption fails to account for the non-catholic who who does good anonymously.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

You can’t “logically deduce” anything of the sort, at least about “non-catholics.” You can assume it, but it’s no deduction, and it’s not logical.

Furthermore, your assumption fails to account for the non-catholic who who does good anonymously.

For a non-catholic there is always a reason, and a **selfish **one at that, for remaining anonymous while doing good. The same applies to a non-catholic who announces that he is doing good and demands praise for “good deed, selfishness, and philanthropy.” You would have a very very difficult time proving otherwise. Like a logical proof or formal argument to defend your position.

---

You are capable of making the deduction yourself even if you have minimal training in formal logic. Logic and reasoning skills are what is mainly measured on IQ tests…

The logical deduction I made was from Matthew 6:2 in the New Testament and is not the conclusion of my own, but what is being said by Jesus. You do not have to believe that the New Testament is true in order to agree that I made a logical deduction from the text.

As for the guy who said the idea of everyone being wicked is “calvinistic”. Please don’t compare me to heretics, I am slightly offended. Jesus calls his own disciples “wicked” when he talks about answering prayer. Look it up in a bible concordance. It’s just a universal principle in all forms of christianity–the doctrine of original sin. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Man is a wicked creature in need of redemption from a savior. General Christianity 101.

 

[Jocko_VT]

The logical deduction I made was from Matthew 6:2 in the New Testament and is not the conclusion of my own, but what is being said by Jesus. You do not have to believe that the New Testament is true in order to agree that I made a logical deduction from the text.

You’re right, I do not have to believe to agree. My disagreement has nothing to do with belief, though. Your logic is faulty. Your quote referred to hypocrites–not to non-believers or non-orthodox believers. Your deduction could only be extended to the catholics who demand praise and sound the trumpets when they do good deeds. The verse says nothing of the non-believer or of the non-orthodox believer at all, let alone regarding giving to the poor, etc.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

You’re right, I do not have to believe to agree. My disagreement has nothing to do with belief, though. Your logic is faulty. Your quote referred to hypocrites–not to non-believers or non-orthodox believers. Your deduction could only be extended to the catholics who demand praise and sound the trumpets when they do good deeds. The verse says nothing of the non-believer or of the non-orthodox believer at all, let alone regarding giving to the poor, etc.

The way you worded your first response, it sounded as if you were attacking me personally, as if the conclusion I espoused in my first post in this thread were my own. My apologies.

I agree that I’m right, but I disagree that my logic is faulty. I believe Jesus, in the book of Matthew, is attempting to teach a philosophy, or moral guidelines, that excludes all forms of hypocrisy.

Do you have any formal training in analyzing a text, document, or work of literature? If so, then you would know the difference between implicit and explicit logical deductions. Just in case you don’t know: an explicit deduction is something that is actually stated in the text. An implicit deduction is a truth that is implied; conveyed, but yet not actually stated by a piece of writing; inferred.

Jesus is implicitly stating that there are 2 types of people: those who attempt to follow the moral instruction listed from the sermon on the mount in the book of Matthew, and everyone else. I’ll list them.

1. Followers of Jesus, his disciples
2. everybody else

The word “hypocrites” is synonymous with “everybody else” or “nonbelievers”.

Is that clear? Is that fair? Is that logical even if it offends you? Is that what Jesus is saying?

 

[Jocko_VT]

I don’t have training of the sort you’re referring to. I don’t think it’s relevant in this instance–If you were going to stretch beyond the apparent language in your first post, you should have said so and spelled it out at the time.

You’re basing your logic on your particular interpretation. I don’t agree with your interpretation, but then, I’m not hell bent on condemning others with words like “hypocrite.” What’s more, without having to reference a text, I know for a fact that you’re wrong, because I know of atheists who do good for no other reason than to do good. Morality doesn’t come from a book, after all–we both agree on that, I’m guessing.

But, if you’re correct in your interpretation, the “logical conclusion” must be that the Bible is incorrect. We already knew it wasn’t to be taken literally, though. You have no reason to conclude that non-catholics are selfish.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the original post.

 

[Jocko_VT]

dostoyevskyfan:

I should also note that non-belief/non-theism/non-orthodoxy do not equate to hypocrisy. I agree that the passage is hitting at hypocrisy, and at much else further on (worship for show instead of out of sincerity), but I don’t agree that it’s calling non-followers of Christ hypocrites. In fact, what he’s saying is that believers, in particular, must be sincere in their behaviors. He’s speaking to the church, specifically.

What’s up with the “Is that clear? Is that fair?” and the “I agree that I’m right…”? You come off very badly. I keep trying to believe you’re not trying to be a self-righteous jerk, but much of what you say comes off that way. Is that your intention? Are you trying to get into an intellectual pissing match, and then are you resorting to your own exquisite training in textual analysis as if that means you don’t have to make an argument and everyone should just believe what you say even when it makes no sense? Are you being presumptuous regarding my own qualifications?

 

[fhansen]

For a non-catholic there is always a reason, and a **selfish **one at that, for remaining anonymous while doing good. The same applies to a non-catholic who announces that he is doing good and demands praise for “good deed, selfishness, and philanthropy.” You would have a very very difficult time proving otherwise. Like a logical proof or formal argument to defend your position.

---

You are capable of making the deduction yourself even if you have minimal training in formal logic. Logic and reasoning skills are what is mainly measured on IQ tests…

The logical deduction I made was from Matthew 6:2 in the New Testament and is not the conclusion of my own, but what is being said by Jesus. You do not have to believe that the New Testament is true in order to agree that I made a logical deduction from the text.

As for the guy who said the idea of everyone being wicked is “calvinistic”. Please don’t compare me to heretics, I am slightly offended. Jesus calls his own disciples “wicked” when he talks about answering prayer. Look it up in a bible concordance. It’s just a universal principle in all forms of christianity–the doctrine of original sin. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Man is a wicked creature in need of redemption from a savior. General Christianity 101.

While I don’t have great faith in human nature either, and while we should know we all need a savior, Jesus as well as St Paul acknowledges that Gentiles may act according to Gods’ will in various ways at various times. I wasn’t calling anyone heretical but there’s a fine but important distinction between the total depravity model espoused by Calvinists and the wounded and weakened nature as taught by the CC. In the former, man is completely incapable of doing any good. In the latter Gods’ image isn’t totality blotted out in man, we’re still capable of choosing the good at times, but we’ll never be reconciled with God or come into full alignment with His will without the grace won at Calvary.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

dostoyevskyfan:

I should also note that non-belief/non-theism/non-orthodoxy do not equate to hypocrisy. I agree that the passage is hitting at hypocrisy, and at much else further on (worship for show instead of out of sincerity), but I don’t agree that it’s calling non-followers of Christ hypocrites. In fact, what he’s saying is that believers, in particular, must be sincere in their behaviors. He’s speaking to the church, specifically.

he’s speaking to the entire world. From atop a mountain.

He constructed a philosophical system, unprecedented in human history, and radically different from any other moral system in that it is completely devoid of any and all hypocrisy. It is the only one of it’s kind.

Either you follow (or attempt to follow with honest effort in my case) a moral philosophy devoid of hypocrisy or you are a de facto hypocrite. You can’t be both. That is called the law of noncontradiction in logic.

Your rebuttal is limited to:

1. Outright rejection of logic
2. Presentation of another moral system devoid of all hypocrsy.

Note that saying “I subscribe to no moral system and therefore am not a hypocrite.” is not a valid answer because u are alive and forced to make moral choices daily.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Cont’. If there is no consistency in the moral choices you are forced to make on a day to day basis…well then that’s the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[tdgesq]

It’s been explained several times, and you reject the explanation.

Correct.

You are insisting that your understanding of evolution is correct, and it’s wrong.

Then explain why it is 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.

Well, you were the one who resurrected my thread that is over a year old. If all you have to offer are the same explanations that were given previously then you are right, I will simply reject them again.

People are people.

A tautology. An inauspicious beginning.

And people are moral beings. Evolution not only can explain that, but does explain that.

Then please explain how.

The literature on this is abundant and you either don’t know that literature or you reject it.

I 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.

I have never insisted that I know everything, and I don’t believe that I do know everything. Please provide a quotation from me in this thread where I have stated that; otherwise, admit that you’ve misrepresented me.

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.

Then please give a summary of his explanation. Links are always welcome.

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.

You don’t need to look at the previous dialogue, although you obviously already have. All you need to do is look at the OP and respond.

I guess I can do this, can’t I?

Yes, you may.

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?

There are too many questions here to answer, and most of them are rhetorical. The previous posters understood my question, and so do you I think. My motivations are not relevant. I asked a question that everybody else so far seems to understand.

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.

The question does assume some facts. They are all true. Gates did give the money to a Catholic charity to distribute. Approximately 80% of Haiti’s population professes to be Catholic. Gates has not met the people to whom his charitable giving will benefit. I don’t believe he has even traveled to Haiti.

So, to reiterate, you need to explain your questions, just as your require that others explain themselves. What’s to be accounted for? Why must certain behaviors be accounted for yet others needn’t be accounted for specifically by non-theists? How does one account for all the people, wealthy and no-so-wealthy, who did *not *exhibit “the kind of charitable behavior we see from Bill Gates”? It seems like you are setting yourself above everyone else–you get to make unfounded and unexpressed assumptions yet no one else does. Let’s start on a level playing field here. What do you really want to know?

I have explained the facts that are part of the question. If you believe I have made assumptions that are unwarranted, then you may point out what they are and give reasons for why they are unwarranted. I do not believe I am setting myself above anybody else. I asked a simple question that everyone until you seems to understand. What I really want to know is the answer to my question in the O.P.

 

[tdgesq]

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

I don’t know whether God will view his actions as righteous or not, but I think He will. My reasons for that are somewhat complicated and probably subject to dispute. What I was getting at is that Gates’ decision will make him happier because he is upholding the natural moral law that dictates what will make man ultimately fulfilled. I do not believe these laws are or can be explained by the various theories of naturalistic evolution that I have seen. There me be some I haven’t seen that are explanatory of actions like those taken by Gates. I don’t know what they may be though.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Your rebuttal is limited to:

1. Outright rejection of logic
2. Presentation of another moral system devoid of all hypocrsy.

Note that saying “I subscribe to no moral system and therefore am not a hypocrite.” is not a valid answer because u are alive and forced to make moral choices daily.

No. Your logic is unsound. I needn’t present a moral system. It’s your moral system that is in question. I do not see people as inherently evil. You do. I see people as inherently moral, and immorality as a consequence of socialization. I don’t care if you agree with me. You came in here with inane arguments that you need to defend. I don’t need to justify my rejection of your arguments.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Correct.

Then explain why it is wrong.

Well, you were the one who resurrected my thread that is over a year old. If all you have to offer are the same explanations that were given previously then you are right, I will simply reject them again.

A tautology. An inauspicious beginning.

Then please explain how.

I reject it.

I have never insisted that I know everything, and I don’t believe that I do know everything. Please provide a quotation from me in this thread where I have stated that; otherwise, admit that you’ve misrepresented me.

Then please give a summary of his explanation. Links are always welcome.

You don’t need to look at the previous dialogue, although you obviously already have. All you need to do is look at the OP and respond.

Yes, you may.

There are too many questions here to answer, and most of them are rhetorical. The previous posters understood my question, and so do you I think. My motivations are not relevant. I asked a question that everybody else so far seems to understand.

The question does assume some facts. They are all true. Gates did give the money to a Catholic charity to distribute. Approximately 80% of Haiti’s population professes to be Catholic. Gates has not met the people to whom his charitable giving will benefit. I don’t believe he has even traveled to Haiti.

I have explained the facts that are part of the question. If you believe I have made assumptions that are unwarranted, then you may point out what they are and give reasons for why they are unwarranted. I do not believe I am setting myself above anybody else. I asked a simple question that everyone until you seems to understand. What I really want to know is the answer to my question in the O.P.

You’ve dodged everything. I’ve asked no rhetorical questions. If you want to have a real conversation, start by answering my questions. Then, we can move forward. Otherwise, just say so, and I will move on. My initial post in this thread has covered everything so far–you’re not serious; you’re not willing to think because you think you have all the answers. Again, if you want to talk about this, let’s start over. Answer my questions so we can move forward.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Lol @ thread.

If such questions need to be asked with an undertone that implies it’s irrational for atheists to be charitable then:

1. You’ve missed the point in the Bible, in Romans where it clearly states that the distinction between good and evil is wrought into every man, it’s an innate understanding, presumably, being charitable is a part of that “good” aspect, to rectify something that has gone wrong.
2. You yourself are being charitable simply because you believe it’s being asked of you, which means you’ll probably have to do a bit more evaluation in to your own faith and a bit of self-reflection before questioning Bill Gates.
3. A lot of you have a self-righteous belligerent attittude that’s despicable, and is probably the model of Christianity atheists and agnostics see, heck I’d be ashamed to be Catholic next to some of you, you aren’t endowed with any special gifts just because you’re Catholic anymore than the Jews were endowed with some magical ability, it simply means you have more responsibility to act in a righteous way, and some of you’ve added the “self” in front of that.
4. Finally (and I’m repeating myself), being charitable is not a virtue that’s exclusive for any such religion, just because you automatically picture Mother Theresa when someone says charity or Christian missionaries, doesn’t make you charitable personally because you happen to have a gold membership in the Church. In fact, if I had to demonstrate it graphically, just by reading some of the comments, the level of charity has been steadily in decline.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I have explained the facts that are part of the question. If you believe I have made assumptions that are unwarranted, then you may point out what they are and give reasons for why they are unwarranted. I do not believe I am setting myself above anybody else. I asked a simple question that everyone until you seems to understand. What I really want to know is the answer to my question in the O.P.

No. You tell me what the assumptions are. That’s how it works. If you can’t tell me, then you’re not serious. What are your assumptions? Answer the questions I’ve already asked. Otherwise, you’re not actually serious. You just want to flex some flaccid intellectual muscle. Well, here I am!! You want to debate this topic? Let’s do it!! If you want to cower away from it, that’s fine with me. No problem. Otherwise, restate your question or answer my questions about the O.P.

 

[tdgesq]

Lol @ thread.

If such questions need to be asked with an undertone that implies it’s irrational for atheists to be charitable then: