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

[tdgesq]

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.

My assumptions about what? I’m willing to answer if it is relevant to this thread. The question in the OP stands. I did confirm the facts assumed in the question. If you want more confirmation, I am willing to provide it. You are the one who decided it was worth responding to the thread. If it was only because you don’t like the question then I’m afraid I can’t help you. I’ve analyzed the O.P. again. It is a coherent question. If you can’t answer it as stands then I guess there isn’t anything more to discuss.

 

[Jocko_VT]

My assumptions about what? I’m willing to answer if it is relevant to this thread. The question in the OP stands. I did confirm the facts assumed in the question. If you want more confirmation, I am willing to provide it. You are the one who decided it was worth responding to the thread. If it was only because you don’t like the question then I’m afraid I can’t help you. I’ve analyzed the O.P. again. It is a coherent question. If you can’t answer it as stands then I guess there isn’t anything more to discuss.

You’ve dodged again. You’re not serious about your interest in the question you’ve asked. The only thing you want is confirmation of your assumptions (which are likely false) rather than a discussion about a viable answer to your question. Answer the questions I’ve asked, and we can move forward. I just want clarification on your question. Once you answer those, I’ll know how to approach the answer to your question.

 

[tdgesq]

You’ve dodged again. You’re not serious about your interest in the question you’ve asked. The only thing you want is confirmation of your assumptions (which are likely false) rather than a discussion about a viable answer to your question. Answer the questions I’ve asked, and we can move forward. I just want clarification on your question. Once you answer those, I’ll know how to approach the answer to your question.

There is no intent to dodge your questions. If you believe assumptions have been made - state them, and I will answer the question so long as it is relevant to this discussion. Please state the questions in a concise and non-rhetorical manner. They will be answered.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

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.

1.outright rejection of logic

good day sir. Have a happy life and a festive funeral. I hope you achieve happiness above all else.

 

[Jocko_VT]

1.outright rejection of logic

good day sir. Have a happy life and a festive funeral. I hope you achieve happiness above all else.

You are arrogant and self-righteous. Go on and blow your trumpet. You’re receiving what you deserve.

 

[Jocko_VT]

There is no intent to dodge your questions. If you believe assumptions have been made - state them, and I will answer the question so long as it is relevant to this discussion. Please state the questions in a concise and non-rhetorical manner. They will be answered.

Once again:

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? You have to explain them. No one else can.

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?

 

[Spock]

The problem seems to be the desire to reduce the social behavior to bio-evolution and not to socio-evolution. Many times people make this and similar mistakes when they attempt a reductionist explanation. One cannot simply attempt to reduce complex events to simplistic foundations - like asking the question: “how can morality be reduced to the electro-chemical interactions of atoms in the brain?”.

The social behavior of altruism is perfectly explained by taking both of our “sides” into account: namely we both individuals and social beings. Even if someone is a very selfish person, he can understand that acting selfishly all the times is counterproductive. No special training is required to comprehend that balancing our personal needs with the needs of other around us is mutually beneficial. This commonly developed principle is crystallized in the two forms of the golden rule:

1. Do not hurt others, since you do not wish to be hurt yourself and
2. Do help others, since you might need help yourself.

These basic principles have been developed in all societies in some form, since time immemorial. They are purely secular, and based on the simple concept of reciprocity.

Going back to the actual question of the OP: unfortunately most people see only the direct, immediate consequences of their actions, they only view their immediate family or tribe as their “neighbor”. They are concerned with immediate quid-pro-quo, but are unable to consider the “big picture”. They do not understand that our “neighbors” are not just those who are literally in our immediate vicinity or related to us by “blood”.

This is expressed in the Bible, too, but one does not need the Bible to reach the same conclusion. The OP’s question is short-sighted. We are all neighbors, some closer, some further away. There is no “special” explanation needed for helping those who are not directly related to us. We all benefit from mutually helping each other. And absolutely no “supernatural” explanation is needed. The concept of reciprocity explains it all for you. Of course one needs to be able to contemplate the whole picture.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

The point of the thread is that it is rational for atheists to be charitable, just not on the basis they offer.

What basis is this?

I agree with you. That is exactly why atheists act the way they do.

That’s a bad thing because?

I don’t question Bill Gates decision. I think it is based upon the truth of Romans that you just cited. I don’t believe atheists have a good explanation for it though.

You believe they don’t have a good explanation as far as you know, that’s about it. Honestly, have you attempted to search for atheist perspectives on charity, and are you some kind of expert on the matter? I know I’m not, and I certainly haven’t searched the whole wide world for it.

I am willing to take charitable correction. If you have some suggestions how I can be more charitable on this thread, please p.m. me.

You can simply be more charitable by being open-minded and not implying that atheists have some difficulty being charitable to a full extent simply because they don’t believe in a God. And I say that not towards you personally because in my earlier post I did not target you personally, I read the comments but did not look at who posted them, I saw what I perceived to be a common view that was trying to create a dichotomy between charity and non-belief.

Also, I was more pointing out the fact that it was hypocritical to be in a thread about charity making wide sweeping generalizations about atheists to all involved without making note of any individual posters. I don’t know whether you’ve been uncharitable or not, like I said earlier, I didn’t target any specific poster.

 

[valentino]

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.

I think you exactly right.Naturaal law dictates he’ll derive more pleasure from helping others than spending in on himself.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

I think you exactly right.Naturaal law dictates he’ll derive more pleasure from helping others than spending in on himself.

True but it wont ultimately fulfill his desire for happiness.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

True but it wont ultimately fulfill his desire for happiness.

Ultimately, that’s not even the point of this thread.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Ultimately, that’s not even the point of this thread.

No way, really!?

From what I can tell this thread never had a point to begin with nor a leg to stand on and it wont until we can get Bill Gates to come on over to CAF and tell us the reasons for why he did what he did.

 

[meltzerboy]

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?

Leaving aside the reasons for helping behavior given by social psychologists and evolutionary psychologists, let’s just say we are all human and thus have the capacity for empathy, caring, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and love. Being an agnostic or atheist doesn’t change that. Not that agnostics and atheists always behave in a loving way, but neither do theists all the time. I don’t believe people such as Bill Gates help others based merely on cold, cruel, crass, calculating logic. They have emotions the same as anyone else. Besides, Gates self-identifies as an agnostic who questions the existence of G-d, not a non-believer.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

No way, really!?

From what I can tell this thread never had a point to begin with nor a leg to stand on and it wont until we can get Bill Gates to come on over to CAF and tell us the reasons for why he did what he did.

We don’t need Bill Gates to sort it out, his act of charity was an example to support an issue, that being the need/want to do charity if you have no belief, that’s what I perceived was the larger point, and it being in the philosophy section it stands to reason that it would be the correct call, otherwise it could have just been in the “world news” section.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

We don’t need Bill Gates to sort it out, his act of charity was an example to support an issue, that being the need/want to do charity if you have no belief, that’s what I perceived was the larger point, and it being in the philosophy section it stands to reason that it would be the correct call, otherwise it could have just been in the “world news” section.

Let me see if I understand what your getting at. Your saying that we do not need Bill Gates (name removed by moderator)ut to understand the real reason for why he donated money to a charity because you assume that all donations given to charity are done so because the person has a desire to help others because there is a moral law that all humans follow to a certain degree. You propose then that because Bill Gates does not adhere to any particular belief system/God then his donation to a charity is therefore “evidence” (because you assume all donations are motivated by the desire to help others) that there is a natural moral law that all humans follow and that the existance of this law is a contradicition to his disbelif or lack of belief in a God?

The conclusion thereore being that Gods existance is necessary in order to explain the existance of a moral law and that if you do not believe in a God regardless of the evidence that a moral law exists (and which you follow regardless of your disbelief or lack of belief in God e.g, Bill Gates donation to charity) then you are living a contradiction? Is that what the OP is getting at?

 

[Jocko_VT]

Since tdgesq seems unwilling to defend himself, I’ll try to lure the rabbit out of the hole.

I’m sticking with the Gates analogy, though I recognize–and everyone must–that Gates provides a useful example, while the real subject is non-believers. So, when we ask why Gates would do this or that, we’re really asking why a non-believer would do this or that. Correct me if I’m wrong.

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?

Why would it *not *make sense? What’s the dilemma? No dilemma has been presented. You’re requiring an explanation for humans behaving the way humans behave. Why is an explanation specifically by non-theists necessary? Why is it a dilemma? How does it not make sense specifically "in the non-theistic worldview? There is no dilemma. Is it a dilemma for fish that they swim in the water? No, that’s what fish do.

These are not rhetorical questions. They demand answers you have yet to provide.

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

From any viewpoint:

1. If one desires to provide “immediate shelter, food, water, sanitation, health and other needs of those” in Haiti, it is rational for the gift to go to an organization that “has experienced personnel and a stock of emergency supplies in Haiti.” It would make little sense to set up a new and separate organization, replicating important infrastructure, when the expense and time required to do so would more profitably be put into funding an established organization. Thus, why would Gates *not *give money to the CRS for this purpose? Also, not a rhetorical question.
2. That they are “a Catholic people” is irrelevant to any good and moral person. Only a hateful person would refuse help to those with immediate needs of “shelter, food, water, sanitation, health and other needs.” The funds were provided for the “relief of suffering of a…people,” and that’s really the *only *thing that matters. So, why would Gates *not *give money for the relief of suffering? Also, not a rhetorical question.
3. That Gates has never met them is also irrelevant. In late-modern life, the suffering of people around the world is made quite evident through the use of highly advanced media. The Hatian plight was sharply focused on in the American media. Why would Gates *not *give money for the relief of suffering of people he doesn’t know? Also, not a rhetorical question.

Perhaps if my questions could be answered, we could come closer to an answer to your questions. That assumes you really want answers, though–thus far, you don’t seem to. Short of that, your questions are meaningless, because they are based on assumptions and presuppositions that you refuse to reveal–which I am trying to drag out of you with my questions–and which are necessary to understand if actual answers to your questions are to be offered. It’s your presuppositions that need dealt with.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Why would it *not *make sense? What’s the dilemma? No dilemma has been presented. You’re requiring an explanation for humans behaving the way humans behave. Why is an explanation specifically by non-theists necessary? Why is it a dilemma? How does it not make sense specifically "in the non-theistic worldview? There is no dilemma. Is it a dilemma for fish that they swim in the water? No, that’s what fish do.

These are not rhetorical questions. They demand answers you have yet to provide.

I believe the OP is saying (and he/she can correct me if I’m wrong) that the self sacrifice (moral actions) practiced by a nontheist are a contradiction to the nontheists reality since the existance of a moral law and the practice of morality would be redundant if a God did not exist.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I believe the OP is saying (and he/she can correct me if I’m wrong) that the self sacrifice (moral actions) practiced by a nontheist are a contradiction to the nontheists reality since the existance of a moral law and the practice of morality would be redundant if a God did not exist.

Is redundant the right word? That confuses me a little.

But, let me put what you’re saying into my language and see if that helps you understand where I’m coming from and why I’m having trouble with the OP’s unspoken presuppositions:

You (or the OP) are saying that non-theists acting like human beings is a contradiction because non-theists do not believe that acting like human beings is a consequence of the existence of a magical being. Is that correct?

The basis for this is your assertion (or the OP’s assertion) that “moral law” and “morality” are somehow separate from human beings rather than being in their very nature. Is this correct?

 

[fhansen]

I believe the OP is saying (and he/she can correct me if I’m wrong) that the self sacrifice (moral actions) practiced by a nontheist are a contradiction to the nontheists reality since the existance of a moral law and the practice of morality would be redundant if a God did not exist.

But I think an alternative position would come from considering that the natural law is not altogether dead in or inaccessible to man as a result of the fall. If a non-theist were to try to defend or explain his actions to himself or others, it may be more difficult for him to do so. But his good actions, themselves, can still come from the fact that he’s made in Gods image and is obedient to some degree or another to the law God’s placed in his heart. This is consistent with Romans 2:14-15, IMO.

 

[Jocko_VT]

But I think an alternative position would come from considering that the natural law is not altogether dead in or inaccessible to man as a result of the fall. If a non-theist were to try to defend or explain his actions to himself or others, it may be more difficult for him to do so. But his good actions, themselves, can still come from the fact that he’s made in Gods image and is obedient to some degree or another to the law God’s placed in his heart. This is consistent with Romans 2:14-15, IMO.

I think this points to the same problem with the OP. The OP wants to call non-theists out because they supposedly can’t explain their morality without reference to God–one way or another. The non-theist obviously can’t invoke god to explain his/her morality, and if we take morality and separate from the individual–make it separate from being human–then there’s a dilemma. The problem here is the presupposition that morality is separate from being human. It’s not defensible. I agree that the assertion that humans are inherently moral animals is largely indefensible too. But, the dilemma is not for non-theists, in particular. There’s a question–why are people moral? Theists almost inevitable turn to a godidit explanation. Many non-theists will argue that that’s just what humans are. Many of those non-theists will resort to natural selection to explain why non-theists are that way. Regardless, until you get past the initial presupposition–that humans are or are not inherently moral, or that morality is separate from humanity–then you needn’t move on to other explanations, because the explanations are built on the initial presupposition.

If the OP believes morality is separate from humanity, then by default there’s no possible non-theistic explanation for morality.