Whilst numerous studies have found an association between religious attendance and donations, there are many indicating that no association (including via non-monetary means), or even an inverse correlation, exists. Certain studies indicate that much depends on the context in which the question is asked, rather than your assertion of some undefined atheist ‘tribal identity’. Patterns of philanthropy are ‘substantially’ less monochromatic than the way in which you present them.
Equally, your statement that religious people tend to be happier, is unsupported by a wide number of studies (i.e. Lewis et al. 2000 (.pdf); O’Connor et al. 2003; Robins et al. 2008; etc.) due in large part to contradictory methodological approaches, and even a basic coherent theory for happiness itself.
Hardly. Communism in Western Europe was as much a response to fascism as it was first-impulse movement.
Many of the Cambridge Five (spies) felt this way, for example - they weren’t necessarily atheists, just antifascists, and helping the communists was seen as the most obvious means to defeat fascism. Kim Philby, for example, was a devout Christian.
My grandfather has nothing against any kind of patriarchal institutions; he’s tried to claim that the reason grandmother grabbed back control of the family’s monetary resources several months after they moved to Pamplona (she’d been in charge of it since he’d gone to the war, but relinquished it for that move) was, not that he had been burning their savings (“my daughter’s inheritance,” in her words), but “Basque matriarcal notions”. In his case, he hates being told what to do and specially what not to do. Things like “do not stick your dick in women who aren’t your wife” are particularly jarring.
So on the one hand, we have forty or so studies that say what I claim, vs. three from you that examine only the relation between religious practice and secular philanthropy.
This study begins
This one concludes, not that religion and happiness are not associated, but that
Self-reported happiness is not a very reliable or significant data point. I think there’s a lot of pressure in some religious groups to project oneself as happy whether it’s true or not.
I suspect that most care is given to the homeless by the government, which is (in the US) a secular organization. If all churches and so on closed doors, I’m not sure it would even make a particularly large vacancy to be filled in the basic “keeping people alive and kicking” sense.
My other grandfather would have said he was, the reason this other grandfather took up arms against the government was that he viewed the situation as an attack on his religion which was by no means being slowed down by the government (he had no problem with other people practicing whichever religion or lack thereof they fancied, but took umbrage at the notion of not being allowed to practice his). Me, in the case of Gramps I think he was participating in the merry destruction of people and institutions he saw as a barrier to his wishes, he also considered that he did it at little personal risk (he certainly wasn’t happy to get “volunteered” to go to the real war). I can’t speak for other people.
Shodan, whilst you excel at selectively quoting from sources to justify your assertions, and a failure of basic addition in comparing the cites provided in the literature review, people who read the papers in full, might recognise they indicate a more nuanced reality, than the one you present as undeniable fact.
For example you quote,
Whilst conveniently excising the following sentence of the paper,
Similarly when quoted in full,
Concludes,
Deliberately misrepresenting the literature undermines the likelihood that you might present a meaningful, or even accurate, answer.
In any case Shodan suggests a bit of a tangential question, which I would like to ask more broadly:
Independent of whether or not you believe in any religion or have any theistic or atheistic leanings, is there or has there been any adaptive advantage to having religious faith, selecting at either the individual or tribal level?
Of course the mere fact that virtually every society has or at least has had religious belief systems argues that it must be adaptive …
One must acknowledge that we are tribal creatures no matter what, and that religion is not a cause of tribalism so much as a result of it. Given that, a shared belief system did allow the sense of tribe to expand beyond true kinships into very broad fictive kinships that are currently worldwide in distribution. Societies were only possible as a result of that. Of course a tribe that is too inclusive breaks down as human nature seems to need for us to have someone to label as the out-group, the other, to exclude and to be against. Too big of a religion is doomed to splinter.
Those who do not profess belief and adopt the rules (that presumably benefit the tribe/society as a whole at some potential cost to the individual would be punished, possibly killed or expulsed - an thereby at a selective disadvantage. The tribe that has a strong belief system has greater loyalty of its membership and has members that will engage in what the group considers “pro-social” activities.
Of course in so far as religion has impeded scientific advancements it has been maladaptive and in so far as it has worsened the tendency to have tribal conflicts, in particular taking on losing battles in the name of religious principles, it is maladaptive as well.
All that said I believe that religion has been adaptive at an evolutionary and anthropologic timescale, but that the future must lie in a secular value system that all religigious and areligious groups can ascribe to without disavowing their own individual belief (or non-belief) systems. Only then can we hope to a community of communities.
My soap box pontification exhausted are there other takes on the question?
The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee - while not atheist, is Unitarian - half of all UUs identify as humanist, atheist, or some other “non-theist” or “theist lite” (like agnosticism, Deism, non-theist Buddhist…)
[moderating]
I thing the GQ portion of this thread has been as answered as it’s going to get, so I’m moving the thread over to Great Debates rather than trying to push it back on track.
[/moderating]
According to Richard Dawkins (saw him talk, but I think he also mentioned it in his latest book), registering an atheist or agnostic-identified charity is near impossible.
I’d be happy with just non-religious charities, though I do give to some of them. I don’t like the idea of my money going to developing countries with strings attached. And while I drop a few bucks in the Salvation Army pots because I feel bad for the freezing bell ringers, these are the same people who told my college class that atheists, Jews and gay people are going to Hell. For the most part, I prefer to donate my time. I tend not to wear my tee with ‘God’ crossed out, though.