Are theists likely to be more altruistic than atheists?

[Alpha]

My opinion on altruism has changed recently. Where once I would consider my current views jaded and cynical, I know consider them reasonable. I think that there is no such thing as true altruism. That is, every time you give something of yourself to someone else without expecting a favour in return, the benefit you get still exceeds the help you're giving. The benefit may be just knowing that you've helped someone. That's a nice feeling, and donating money is essentially 'paying' someone in a bad situation to make you feel better for helping them get out of that situation, or at least cushioning their fall somewhat.

I thought about this on the way home today. I think everyone essentially wants to feel that altruistic inner goodness from time to time, and does nice things without getting, expecting or even wanting anything tangible in return. We donate money, we volunteer, we listen. Sometimes we receive it, but when we give it, we generally don't expect anything back. Everyone gets a kick from that unless they're a right ****. But there's some maximum level above which you're not prepared to give of yourself. I imagine that none of us here would be willing to donate every worldly possession you have for the poor, even though most of us have probably done something to help a poor person at some point. There's some altruistic trade-off---an efficient supply of altruism from each person that is enough to give us a nice kick but beyond which the cost to ourselves is greater than the inherent benefit of giving. So we stop giving at this efficient level. That's fine, I think we all do this.

However if you were religious, and you believed that when you help someone in a crap place, you're essentially getting spiritual reward in addition to that 'nice guy kick', would you be willing to give more? The eventual benefit you get from being altruistic is, according to your beliefs, greater than if you did not have those beliefs. So you give more.

I couldn't really work out if this made sense in the ten minutes I spent thinking about it. So what do you think? Do you agree with me about the nature of altruism? And should we expect that theists are more altruistic than atheists? Is there evidence one way or another?

[Taco-Calamitous]

How would you measure whether someone is truly being altruistic, or if they are secretly getting something out of it that they aren't telling you about? Even if it's some kind of self-gratification. This is an abstract idea that doesn't have any way to come to a conclusive, absolute answer. There's no way to actually measure it, and it basically comes down to opinions and prejudices. Personally, I'd say it comes down to the individual, and not on what he or she chooses to believe in (or not.) You could say that based on our faith, christian people SHOULD be more altruistic, but are we? Only God knows our hearts. Or if you prefer, "no one knows" Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

EDIT: No, it was theoretical. Maybe. I dunno.

[Rowan]

My opinion on altruism has changed recently. Where once I would consider my current views jaded and cynical, I know consider them reasonable. I think that there is no such thing as true altruism. That is, every time you give something of yourself to someone else without expecting a favour in return, the benefit you get still exceeds the help you're giving.

However if you were religious, and you believed that when you help someone in a crap place, you're essentially getting spiritual reward in addition to that 'nice guy kick', would you be willing to give more? The eventual benefit you get from being altruistic is, according to your beliefs, greater than if you did not have those beliefs. So you give more.

Then its not really alturism. Its defined as doing something without getting anything in return/at a persons expense. Having said that, I dont think alturism exists.

I couldn't really work out if this made sense in the ten minutes I spent thinking about it. So what do you think? Do you agree with me about the nature of altruism? And should we expect that theists are more altruistic than atheists? Is there evidence one way or another?

Whilst the case for literally everyone who does something selfless is that they end up feeling better about themselves and thus, getting something out of it, this is furthar amplified by religious belief in the sense that the glory they obtain (which is reserved for god) is an added extra. Therefor, they do these good deeds not because they get nothing out of it, but rather because it benefits them spiritually and therfor gives them MORE of a reason to do it, than atheists. Atheists dont believe in the metaphysical spiritual self, so theres actually less benefit from performing an act of alturism if you are an atheist; making the atheist morally superior in that reguard.

[Alpha]

If altruism were measured in pennies dropped in buckets per person, wouldn't it mean less altruism on behalf of atheists? When they behave altruistically, they get less of an inner pay-back than a theist (who I contend gets the same 'nice guy kick', but also anticipation of a spiritual reward*). I don't think that makes the atheist's altruism morally superior, because I think everyone's altruism is equal. I just think that because they have less of a payback, they are probably going to give less: their 'supply' of altruism is lower, as the 'price' they get for giving it is lower... it lacks that 'spiritual bonus' that the theist thinks they are going to get. As you say, there's no such thing as true altruism.

* Although it's arguable that the theist can't expect a spiritual reward for being altruistic, for the moment that they act 'selflessly' in anticipation of that reward, they are no longer acting selflessly. It's a strange circle.

Meanwhile agnostics just stare at the bucket for a while not sure how to react.

[Odin1199]

Yes, theists believe in possibility of positive outcome, continuation of their dreams and existence, while atheists accept doom and get to idolize every minute of their lives like some desperate fanatics, only to feel emptiness and misery creep inside with every new passing year.

[Rowan]

If altruism were measured in pennies dropped in buckets per person, wouldn't it mean less altruism on behalf of atheists? When they behave altruistically, they get less of an inner pay-back. I don't think that makes their altrusim morally superior, because I think everyone's altruism is equal. I just think that because they have less of a payback, they are probably going to give less: their 'supply' of altruism is lower, as the 'price' they get for giving it is lower... it lacks that 'spiritual bonus' that the theist thinks they are going to get. As you say, there's no such thing as true altruism.

Ahh I see what you mean. Well I guess it all comes down to perspective.

The spiritual bonus lacks for atheists, therefor atheists do less.
The spirirual bonus amplifies for theists, so the benefit and reason to do good becomes more incentive.

The problem is that alturism is being portrayed better by the atheist. Whilst the rewards are lacking, S/he still performs selfless acts. The theist will expect a spiritual reward. Does the end justify the means? Whilst the atheist does less, the intentions are more pure and true to alturism than theistic alturism, despite theists contributions exceeding atheists.

couldnt think of an analogy right now, I may come back with one later.

Yes, theists believe in possibility of positive outcome, continuation of their dreams and existence, while atheists accept doom and get to idolize every minute of their lives like some desperate fanatics, only to feel emptiness and misery creep inside with every new passing year.

2/10

[Odin1199]

So what do you disagree with? Atheists cherish every passing day more and therefore feel happier? Is that what you're trying to say?

What I really think is that noone is really a true atheist. Every person, no matter what religious or antireligious or spiritual orientation still believes in a possibility of continuing his/her existence. Basically, hard to tell, though imo atheists are less optimistic.

[Rowan]

So what do you disagree with? Atheists cherish every passing day more and therefore feel happier? Is that what you're trying to say?

Im trying to say that everyone has a point of view, and even though I dont believe in a god, I happen to believe in other things. My life isn't full of emptiness and misery. I dont need to believe in a god to be happy. I'd rather not see this thread closed either so lets play nice.

What I really think is that noone is really a true atheist. Every person, no matter what religious or antireligious or spiritual orientation still believes in a possibility of continuing his/her existence. Basically, hard to tell, though imo atheists are less optimistic.

In my opinion, everyone is an atheist. Some people just go 1 god furthar.

[Odin1199]

Well you believe in something, then you're not an atheist, but a spiritualist. I'm kind of like that as well. Atheists imo believe only in existence as a physical phenomenon without any spiritual aspects. No mind, soul, afterlife, reincarnation, etc.

[Rowan]

I am the kind of person that looks at the facts, then draws conclusions. Not looking at a conclusion, then searching for facts to support it. That seems like the logical way of thinking in my perspective. I know a lot of people will disagree with me on that. Hope the thread isn't derailed, but I figured it was all relevant since you snuck atheism and theism in the title.

[Alpha]

I swear to [God]/[nothing] (insert as appropriate) that if there is another post that discusses atheism vs. theism in a general sense without mentioning altruism, I will close the thread. My own thread. Go play in Reddit's sand pit.

[Odin1199]

What I think is no matter whether you are a theists or atheist, inner paycheck from doing something good is still pride and self gratification. Theists get more of that paycheck, because they choose to reward themselves more.

[che]

Imo, none of it really matters because the very second you start to compare how altruistic you are, you are defeating the purpose. Regardless of religion. So yeah, no one is truly altruistic, myself included.

If you say... people who do selfless acts (charity, donations, etc) and think of it as there is a public leaderboard somewhere and they have the most points aren't as altruistic...Well sure. But maybe they have done more "good" than you, or have been more helpful. So what is the value of being the most honest, selfless person, vs being the biggest billionaire who gives 2% of his salary (still more than the most selfless person), but doesn't give jack all about anyone at all, he just wants his/her good publicity and tax cut? Is that true altruism? Or is that something else?

I think everyone out there is Aladdin, when he's about to chomp into that loaf of bread and then gives half of it to his pleading accomplice, Abu. Up until a certain point where it becomes survival. He knows he's eating half of that loaf still, and more tomorrow.

I want to be agnostic, and I was previously. I am now somewhere in-between. What I believe conflicts with the fact that I know I could be wrong. (Just putting this down for comparitive reasons amongsts theists/nontheists in the thread)I really dig altruism as a quality, but there's so many more factors than just that one trait.

[Heartless Angel]

My opinion on altruism has changed recently. Where once I would consider my current views jaded and cynical, I know consider them reasonable. I think that there is no such thing as true altruism. That is, every time you give something of yourself to someone else without expecting a favour in return, the benefit you get still exceeds the help you're giving. The benefit may be just knowing that you've helped someone. That's a nice feeling, and donating money is essentially 'paying' someone in a bad situation to make you feel better for helping them get out of that situation, or at least cushioning their fall somewhat.

I've argued the same thing here more than once. Human nature is inherently egoistic, that's just how we're wired. Everything we do, in some way lends to the pursuit of something you can find on the simple psychological hierarchy of needs. Morality is a part of that hierarchy, so people doing things that appear altruistic for the sake of some moral obligation, are in fact acting egoistically. People who feel good, are satisfying emotional needs, and therefore acting egoistically. People who ive to charity for tax breaks, also obviously egoistic. At no point does anybody truly help another person at their own expense, they're merely purchasing a non-tangible commodity, happiness.

I thought about this on the way home today. I think everyone essentially wants to feel that altruistic inner goodness from time to time, and does nice things without getting, expecting or even wanting anything tangible in return. We donate money, we volunteer, we listen. Sometimes we receive it, but when we give it, we generally don't expect anything back. Everyone gets a kick from that unless they're a right ****. But there's some maximum level above which you're not prepared to give of yourself. I imagine that none of us here would be willing to donate every worldly possession you have for the poor, even though most of us have probably done something to help a poor person at some point. There's some altruistic trade-off---an efficient supply of altruism from each person that is enough to give us a nice kick but beyond which the cost to ourselves is greater than the inherent benefit of giving. So we stop giving at this efficient level. That's fine, I think we all do this.

Even in the attempt we get our return, even if the hobo on the street with a cup full of coins doesn't offer a thank you, a person can walk away feeling that they did good, they purchased a small measure of happiness with their pocket change. Where most people lose the idea of egoism and mistake actions for altruistic, is that they can't understand that not all profit is silver and gold, the intangible also has real measurable value. The measure can be seen readily, in what a person is, and is not willing to give. If I feel happy putting a dollar in the collection buckets outside the store at Christmas, and I then proceed to put a dollar in, we can know that the value of that happiness exceeded one dollar. If i only had tens on me, and opted not to donate any, we can know that that happiness was worth less than 10$. Had I given a 10, I would not have felt happy enough to justify giving it, I would have payed too much for the happiness, and been disappointed with my purchase. The same applies even when the apparent altruistic act doesn't involve monetary donation, time is also a precious commodity. So is effort. If one isn't donating time or energy to help those less fortunate, it is merely because they placed more value on that time and energy than they did the happiness they would have received from aiding the person they might have helped.

However if you were religious, and you believed that when you help someone in a crap place, you're essentially getting spiritual reward in addition to that 'nice guy kick', would you be willing to give more? The eventual benefit you get from being altruistic is, according to your beliefs, greater than if you did not have those beliefs. So you give more.

As for how this ties into religion, while there are certainly theiests who are no more altrustic for their beliefs, there would, overall theoretically be some increase in the apparent level of altruism in the class of theists as a whole, this is because, several of them see an ethical obligation, or an additional reward for their charity. They place more value on what they receive in return. I think of it like commercials on TV. Buy it now, and get a second one FREEE! Or Buy it now, and get this additional product for free! An atheist is someone who watches the commercial and says, "Well, I don't really give a **** about the free gift, so I'm paying 20$ for the product. The product is not worth 20$ to me, I'm not going to buy this.", meanwhile our theist thinks the free gift is the most amazing thing they've ever seen, and thinks it's worth at least 10$ itself, now they're only paying 10$ for the product itself, and 10$ for something else they wanted. That's a much better price, so they're going to be more likely to dial the number and shell out 20$ than I am, when I was only interested in the product itself. In terms of purchasing happiness through charity, theists are more likely to care about the, "But wait, there's more!", towards the end of the sales pitch, so overall, they'll buy more often than an atheist will.

[OnOneRyder]

I think when people truly do good simply for the sake of it and nothing more, theistic affirmations are irrelevant. Those who do it for self-gratification are members of both camps for a variety of reasons. I think what it would boil down to is literally the numbers belonging to each camp. Does theism provide incentive to be altruistic, you bet. Is it often heeded literally with no personal gain, doubtful.

Well you believe in something, then you're not an atheist, but a spiritualist. I'm kind of like that as well. Atheists imo believe only in existence as a physical phenomenon without any spiritual aspects. No mind, soul, afterlife, reincarnation, etc.

They can believe in a variety of those things and still be an atheist, they'd simply believe those to be a natural aspect of our universe.

[Sinister]

To the proposition that atheists are less likely to be altruistic than theists(or less likely by certain degrees), I would like to categorically disagree in the strongest terms. To create such a simplifying and marginalizing generalization as this over such unrelated labels is manifestly unfair and demonstrably disprovable. I am Christian/Taoist, or so I have stylized myself in the past. So, thus is my personal outlook on Altruism known to all? Because I am Taoist or Christian, or both? Does that mean you can trust me to go out of my way to help you in any fashion? Altruism is indefinable by such labels.

Although I disagree with atheists over a major divisive issue of existence and reality, I would NEVER impugn their humanity nor think more of them(depending on my position) by assuming/declaring/intimating they were "less altruistic", "more altruistic" or not at all altruistic. Nor would I assume anything about their life-choices unless it was offered to me. Altruism is a life decision that has over-arching factors that affect many facets of a person and vice versa. It comes down to more than simply a question of theology or religious beliefs. Altruism, or the lack thereof, does not make a person better or worse than anyone else and cannot be traceable to any vaunted virtue or presupposed feature of any single metaphysical position. Even the term "altruism" is wide open for interpretation.

In summation...this thread passes around way too wide a brush for me to be expected to "stay inside the lines." People do things. It's a scientific fact. As to why or where it comes from, that's less than scientific at the moment.

EDIT:
I have become aware that my reply might be prevaricating and possibly perceived as over-harsh. Ceteris paribus, I do not believe there is a significant correlation between religious beliefs and altruism. I would also like to affix a disclaimer to the effect that I mean no ill will to the thread, OP or people whom disagree with the above rant. Also... **** the police.

-Sin

[RagnaToad]

Discussing the nature of altruism is irrelevant in my opinion. Obviously sometimes people will do things not because they care, but because how it is perceived. That doesn't devalue the worth of their actions, it only devalues their intentions or how 'good' of a person they are. But their money or help is as useful as a person who is being genuinely altruistic, although maybe this is besides the point Alpha was trying to make.

On the religion aspect:
I do not believe religion makes people behave more altruistically necessarily. If a religious person does something altruistically, and he mentions his religion as his motive, that does not mean it actually is his motive. He could easily have done the same and behave altruistically without his religion. But he thinks that because he is part of a religion of which (parts of) the rules match his own morals, that must mean without the religion he would not do this. This is false. He is making himself look bad, basically pointing out that he would be a bad person without having found the religion. He is also ignoring the fact that he is making a moral judgment himself, because he does not accept or live 100% by all the rules of his religion, thus proving that there is some moral judgment inside of him outside of the religion.

Also, if religion wishes to take credit for the good things done in its name, it should also take credit for the lack of good things done in its name. (Let's ignore the really bad things that have been done in its name for the time being.) If someone's religion drives his behaviour, and not the morals he himself values personally, then this should also account for everything the religious person does.

I will argue that a religious text (like any piece of literature, art, entertainment, philosophy, conversation, meditation) can be an inspiration for an individual to consider certain morals or elements of society. But, as mentioned in the previous sentence, this could be done by a less authoritarian, obligated type of source. Also as mentioned before, the fact that a person's morals happen to coincide with the parts of a religion he agrees with can hardly be called coincidental. This again is the result of a person taking inspiration from something that, although it may have actually influenced his thinking, is being used to somehow justify his behaviour or opinion that he might have adopted without the religion in the first place. I do believe that there are people who have become better people because of their exposure to religion when they needed an incentive to change their behaviour or rethink their moral values. But the danger of claiming divine superiority over other people's morals remains somewhat dangerous to me. And one can question if these occurrences of moral insight through religion outweigh the bigotry and hatefulness that people act upon and justify through their religion.

Take a look at history. Many of the morals that we consider to be normal in society today like treating all races/ethnicities equally, treating women well, not having slaves, treating animals well are relatively new, and religion is not new at all. So if religion is to be thanked for the 'good' of today, it is also to be blamed (not unrighfully so, as it has been used to justify the exact opposite of those modern morals I mentioned frequently in the past) for the lack of those morals in all the centuries from the beginning of religion till now.

To conclude:
The issue if religion makes the world a better place is an interesting one, and I've thought and read about this a great deal. In my opinion, it doesn't. There are people who do good and claim their religion as their sole motivation. But this does not mean religion is the driving force behind their morals. I also feel that claiming divine justification for one's own actions is a dangerous endeavour.


Maybe I went off track a little, but it's a complex issue.