Altruism

We should also discuss how 'better than others' works. Crackerbox is trying to emphasize that a Christian who is altruistic is not actually 'better than' anyone else from a Christian perspective.

From a secular perspective? Damned right they're better. The person who limits their consumption or who even alters her consumption in order to make the world a better place is actually a better person than the one who does not.

The environmentalist who holidays nearby instead of flying, in order to reduce their fossil fuel impact to global warming? The vegetarian whose motivations lie mostly around animal cruelty? The person who underconsumes Friday beers so they can write a cheque for malaria nets?

Smugness or not, they're better people to have in a global community. They're acting on the motivation to make things better. After that, it's merely a matter of education about where they can have the greatest impact.

We live in a world where a $10 net can prevent a kid from not getting malaria for about a year. Or it can upgrade your salad at the restaurant with your friends to a giant pasta dish with soda. One of those makes the world a much better place.

This whole "oh, they're just driven out of pride" thing doesn't matter if this criticism comes out of a place that causes me to give less than they do.
 
Is it really possible to quantify altruism in this way, though?

I'm simply not comfortable with it.

If anyone so much as smiles at another person in a friendly way, then I'd give them a thumbs up and a well-done certificate.
 
Well, you can quantify in an ordinal or a nominal way. This is an ordinal rating system, and I'm damned okay with using it.
 
Who is trying to "divorce altruism from Christianity"? As in almost all religions, altruism is encouraged among the adherents of Christian sects and pretty much everyone knows it.

As to presuming that altruism is "beneficial to Christianity", that seems self evident. Frankly I don't see how anyone could presume anything else.

The amount of the people who are aided by Christian altruism, who then attend church, much less become members, is rather insignificant, Tim. The act of altruism doesn't persuade them whatsoever.

Do others notice? Yes. There is a small segment who realizes that some Christians who perform altruism are noteworthy. They like that the spirituality is practical and given to helping the suffering. Again, this is a small segment of new attendees to churches. These are those who notice Christians and churches aiding an organization, but not those who directly benefitted from the altruism. They might be fellow volunteers or someone who saw a news clip of an event.

Christian altruism is done out of DUTY and humility, not to get members. It's definitely not good deeds to earn a way into Heaven as that's contrary to Scripture (Grace alone is a fundamental aspect of practially all Christian branches and denominations).
 
The amount of the people who are aided by Christian altruism, who then attend church, much less become members, is rather insignificant, Tim. The act of altruism doesn't persuade them whatsoever.

Do others notice? Yes. There is a small segment who realizes that some Christians who perform altruism are noteworthy. They like that the spirituality is practical and given to helping the suffering. Again, this is a small segment of new attendees to churches. These are those who notice Christians and churches aiding an organization, but not those who directly benefitted from the altruism. They might be fellow volunteers or someone who saw a news clip of an event.

Christian altruism is done out of DUTY and humility, not to get members. It's definitely not good deeds to earn a way into Heaven as that's contrary to Scripture (Grace alone is a fundamental aspect of practially all Christian branches and denominations).

If I ever said that "beneficial to Christianity" is synonymous with "generates membership" I take it back...but I strongly doubt that I did.

Is 'but we do good works' a significant (and in my opinion reasonably valid) argument for churches being allowed to maintain their tax exempt status? Absolutely. Altruism benefits Christianity.

Is "wait, he's a priest" something one would expect to deter even the most hardened street thug? Yes, it is. That too is rooted in the association between religious organizations and altruism. Altruism benefits Christianity.

Beyond two examples tend to bore readers, but I have more.

This rotates back to what El Mach said. Ultimately the source of motivation that drives the behavior is of little consequence. If a misguided Christian thinks they are buying their way into heaven with good works, then great. Good works get done. If the society princess gives to charity because she fears being ostracized at the debutante ball, then great. Charity is funded.

I don't point out the reasoning driving these people in an effort to stop their behavior. I appreciate their behavior. It's just that I can almost always be counted on to come down in favor of self-awareness.
 
Churches got their nonprofit status earlier because of the preponderance of Christianity in the USA. We live in a post-Christian society now, and despite whatever money is spent on domestic missions, the nonprofit status is tentative today. The loss of Christian domestic missionary work would be extremely destructive to the American economy as well as to the urban areas, so I doubt that it happens by being reneged upon by politicians even with the atheist movement to so disable it.

However the increasing demands upon Christianity to conform to USA liberal attitudes regarding homosexual marriage alone might cause Christians to withdraw their nonprofit status themselves. There's talk of this.

If we look at what national spiritual organizations spend on international missionary work, then while one can make the case that leads to obvious membership in Africa and Asia, these are largely not self-supporting. As such, it's about money from America being used to support those missions, and doing so for decades or more. Again, this doesn't benefit the American churches but is done out of altruism.

If this practice were to stop, then very significant humanitarian aid would cease and many people would die of disease, polluted water, hunger, etc. Schools and colleges would close internationally too.
 
Must be a Canadian thing. I've lived all across the US and had my door knocked on...what...thirty or forty times a year on average, for forty years I can remember...

Never has anyone shoved something in my face, or been anything other than reasonably courteous.

Of course I don't go off the handle at the mere mention of religion either, so your mileage may vary.
Is that before or after you ceased to own any doors? (just going by your statement in the tax thread that you are homeless) It's hard for people to knock on what you no longer have, unless you're also counting times when they knock on your girlfriend's door or walk up to you on the street and start in.

I don't "go off the handle at the mere mention of religion." I do get annoyed at your insistence on equating science with religion, when you have been told repeatedly that science is not a religion.

It might surprise you to know that I own several bibles and a copy of the Book of Mormon (yeah, got it from a couple of guys who came to the door one day). And yes, I've read most of the Old Testament and part of the New Testament. The Book of Mormon has remained unread, yet for some reason it's been dragged around with me for several moves. I also have a couple of really old books in Swedish - one is a bible and the other looks like a book of prayers - not sure, as I don't read Swedish very well. But they belonged to my great-grandmother and are over 100 years old, so I keep them.

All of the cultural anthropology papers I wrote in college were on various religion-based topics, as well as a cultural geography paper. So don't mistake my annoyance at some of your posting habits and some of the negative interactions I've had with religious people in my life for flipping out at the "mere mention" of religion.

I will never find people who go door to door to spread their faith as normal. To me it's weird and/or crazy, no offense to resident Mormons and other people who did such things. I just can't relate to it.

"Hi, have I told you yet what I believe?" - Dude, like, send me an email instead or something, then at least you won't be bugging me when I'm trying to watch my English Premier League or trying to sleep in. I don't really care what you believe either, thanks. I mean, I do, but you don't need to really tell me, it's not that interesting really.

Mind you the only time this happened to me was on a Saturday morning and I got woken up by these weirdos, so I might be slightly biased.
The internet is really handy for people to tell other people what they believe. We're all doing this right now. :)

Just try to think of that the next time some little kid is at your door offering you a "Watchtower" magazine, with a parent nodding in the background. :pat: :cringe:
I have never blamed the kids. I am quite sure they'd rather be doing a lot of other things than getting dressed up in clothes that most people would only wear at a wedding or other church service, and slogging around a neighborhood getting doors shut in their faces. Kids should be allowed to have fun on Saturdays, not getting dressed up as a live prop for adults with inappropriate social boundaries.

Well, it only happened to me once, and it wasn't a huge deal - so I wasn't holding back really - I wrote down exactly how I feel about it pretty much.

It's also hard to get upset at proper looking dudes wearing such gentleman-like attire, speaking in soft and very agreeable tones. The people who show up at my door trying to sell stuff are usually a lot more annoying. One guy put his foot in the door when I was trying to close it - I had to get out there, find his supervisor walking up and down my street, and yelled at him. That would never happen with one of these "C'mon let me tell you about all the things that I believe" people.
At that point they are trespassing.

I tend to not get mad at them. In the end, they're honestly trying to make the world a better place. I reserve my anger for those who intentionally make the world a worse place, for their own benefit.

Now, I'm not interested in conversion, but I'm interested in conversation. And, I like making the world a better place too. If they come at me with the Ten Commandments, I come back at them with Jesus's two laws as being vastly superior. If they're Mormons, I happily say 'hi' to them since I can suspect they're on mission.

Now, I'd rather they work towards different charity efforts, but I won't begrudge them their intent. There are too many anti-altruistism people out there, too many purely selfish people as well
Thing is, how does doorknocking make the world a better place? I know where the local church is, plus most of the other dozens we have here. If I want to know more, I can just call them and ask or attend a service.

It just seems rather comical, if not a bit smug. Again, no offense to anyone who does/did this, I'm just trying to be honest.
Some people do come across as smug, but the whole practice itself is more arrogant than smug. The "I'm going to invade your personal space to tell you that you're risking your soul if you don't believe the same things I believe" attitude and then actually standing there and arguing after being told "not interested" and "please leave" is very arrogant.

I can answer that. Its more straightforward than you might think. Witnesses go out in an "assigned territory" that corresponds to their assigned "congregation" (or church if you will). Similar to how you have a local public school that you must attend based on where you live, they have a local branch where they must attend services. And where you go out knocking on doors is similar or identical to that area, with occasional overlap.

So if you get a lot of people coming to your house it is probably because there is a large (or multiple) "Kingdom Hall(s)" near you. If you never see anyone, then you probably live in "unassigned territory" meaning there is no Kingdom Hall anywhere near you, or the one in your area has such a huge amount of ground to cover (or so few members) that they never make it to you.
Do they maintain a "do not call/ring this address' doorbell" list? They should, if they're sincere about being considerate of other people. It's crazy, what some people have done to get off the list. One person I know told them she's a witch. In my case, they didn't bother me for two years after I told them I was studying the Navajo religion (true; that was my then-current anthropology paper I was working on, and it's not my problem if they took it more seriously than I intended).

I don't know about the finding converts aspect, but I will say that I would be much more easily induced into going door to door in southern California than in southwestern Ontario myself. In summers I go door to door selling garage door maintenance, which I would probably not do in most other places I've lived either.
Well, at least fixing garage doors is doing something useful, and hopefully your sales pitch and material doesn't include anything about faith and "science believers."

In some scenarios, the objective truth is discernible (or at least predictable). It may be smug for my friends to express concern before I inject heroin for the first time, but it likely isn't. Their position and concerns are warranted. And honestly, if the JWs are correct, then their position isn't smug. It depends on how reality actually is.
Thing is, we have verifiable evidence that injecting heroin is at least harmful, and could be fatal. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone has ever gone to hell for not believing in some particular brand of religion.

I'm amused that some see my discussion of my Christian faith as disallowed in a topic on altruism. I've shown it's a core belief within Christianity. Not only that, but do we put such restrictions on atheists? Are they not allowed to discuss their faith in atheism within any topic?
Unless a moderator PM'd you, it wasn't disallowed. But I do find it annoying to have bible verses thrown in my face in bold blue text. It comes across as preaching.

Are nonbelievers prepared to take up the slack if Christians stop doing works of altruism?
Are Christians the only religious people who volunteer? That's what you appear to be saying.

I've been volunteering in some capacity for ~40 years, whether on behalf of one of those "feed the kids" charities, or something local. And whatever my motives, none of them have involved racking up brownie points to get into the afterlife of my choice.

Finally I'm bewildered that people who believe that GOD is only a human construct (a god) would then be afraid of an imaginary being. If GOD and Christianity doesn't matter, then why bothering complaining about literally nothing? Isn't that supremely weird? Why not be like the irreligious who shrug their shoulders and work along side us in altruism albeit a secular way. Bridges have been built between the irreligious and believers of several faiths. Together we can do more altruistic acts through synergy.
:rolleyes:

You just don't get it. It's not fear of an imaginary being. That's for the people who proudly proclaim themselves as "God-fearing." It's when this stuff is allowed into government and schools and medicine and social programs and dictates women's rights and whether or not kids will be punished or shamed for not wanting to pray in school, is what is disturbing.

There are some organizations in your country actively working to dumb down the science curriculum in your schools, to eliminate such basics as evolution because it clashes with what they're taught in church. There's even some bizarre organization called "Christians Against Dinosaurs" ranting about paleontologists making fake fossils, burying them, and then digging them up to get "millions of dollars" in grant money, and they want dinosaurs out of the science curriculum. I have no idea if these people are sincere or just trolling the rest of the internet, but considering some of the other weird things I've read and heard, it wouldn't surprise me if some of them aren't sincere believers in some "dinosaur conspiracy."

In fact, I've found many people are much more willing to donate time than money. Now, this is excellent if the skills they have are of good value. It's even okay in that it's better-than-nothing. I sometimes wonder if proselytizing fits into this category.
I can't afford to donate money. I need that money to pay the rent, utilities, food for myself and my cats, and other things. But my time? Sure, I've got lots of time, and if what is needed is something I can do, I'm willing to do it. If Kerry Wood Nature Centre had had to pay me to work in the bookstore there and give after hours astronomy talks to kids' groups and to the public, it would have been a heck of a lot more money than I'd have been able to donate to the place and not volunteered there. So yeah, I think my efforts there were good value and of help to the community. I enjoyed my time there, learned a lot, gained some job skills, and gave back to the community.
 
Is that before or after you ceased to own any doors? (just going by your statement in the tax thread that you are homeless) It's hard for people to knock on what you no longer have, unless you're also counting times when they knock on your girlfriend's door or walk up to you on the street and start in.

I don't "go off the handle at the mere mention of religion." I do get annoyed at your insistence on equating science with religion, when you have been told repeatedly that science is not a religion.

I answer doors for a number of people, including my girlfriend when I'm around. She doesn't like to be bothered and finds people knocking on her door to be intrusive so I take care of it for her. It's part of my charm.

On the garage door service thing...my pitch involves little known truths regarding the general case of garage door warranties, which falls clearly into sharing knowledge of a dubious and uncertain nature since I do not in any way know the specifics of their garage door's warranty status, but creates cause for concern. It also involves a degree of...perhaps exaggeration would be an appropriate word although it somewhat exaggerates the reality so let's use...overstatement...of the genuine tangible benefits to be expected from the maintenance in question beyond the alleviation of the risk to their warranty.

In short, it is the same standard stick and carrot material of every marketing pitch, including the church's pitch, the school board's pitch, and the science believer's pitch. Since it is rooted in 'knowledge the buyer was previously unaware of' it is totally impractical to suggest that there is a 'wait for the buyer to look you up' alternative.

If someone doesn't want the information and/or service and informs me as such with any reasonable degree of courtesy I move right along to the next case. If someone goes off on a tangent about how their front porch is their 'personal space' and they consider my mere presence to be an affront I generally will respond poorly...of course I am not fettered by any pretense of being religious, or altruistic, so that may get surprisingly ugly should they be particularly insistent about it.
 
If someone goes off on a tangent about how their front porch is their 'personal space' and they consider my mere presence to be an affront I generally will respond poorly...
:rolleyes:

It's not unreasonable to be annoyed with a doorknocker who won't leave after being told "not interested." That applies to salespeople, JWs, or guys who keep saying, "But I'm a MINISTER! Don't you trust ministers?"

Well, no. Not after the 5th time I've said I'm not interested in the videotape he was selling and he still refused to shut up and leave. I had to threaten to call the cops before he finally did go (since refusing to leave someone's property when asked is trespassing).

You'll note I didn't include the Mormons in the above list of annoyances. That's because I generally find them to be polite, earnest, interesting, and occasionally entertaining. The occasions when I found them annoying were when a) A pair of them followed me for several blocks downtown and homed in when I stopped to wait for the bus (no, they were not also waiting for the bus); b) A pair of them who I interviewed for the municipal census insisted on walking along with me on my route and tried to accompany me to the door of my next address; c) When my college sociology instructor got very perturbed at my low score on the importance of religion in my daily life - he called me into his office and offered to loan me the Book of Mormon and explain it to me. That could have landed him in trouble if I'd reported him.
 
:rolleyes:

It's not unreasonable to be annoyed with a doorknocker who won't leave after being told "not interested." That applies to salespeople, JWs, or guys who keep saying, "But I'm a MINISTER! Don't you trust ministers?"

Well, no. Not after the 5th time I've said I'm not interested in the videotape he was selling and he still refused to shut up and leave. I had to threaten to call the cops before he finally did go (since refusing to leave someone's property when asked is trespassing).

You'll note I didn't include the Mormons in the above list of annoyances. That's because I generally find them to be polite, earnest, interesting, and occasionally entertaining. The occasions when I found them annoying were when a) A pair of them followed me for several blocks downtown and homed in when I stopped to wait for the bus (no, they were not also waiting for the bus); b) A pair of them who I interviewed for the municipal census insisted on walking along with me on my route and tried to accompany me to the door of my next address; c) When my college sociology instructor got very perturbed at my low score on the importance of religion in my daily life - he called me into his office and offered to loan me the Book of Mormon and explain it to me. That could have landed him in trouble if I'd reported him.

Among the many places I've lived is Idaho, so I am no stranger to Mormons at the door. I found them to be pretty typical of doorknockers myself...which is to say basically as you described.

There is nothing to be gained by hanging around and annoying someone, and that is a pretty commonly known fact of door knocking. If they don't leave when you tell them "not interested" and this is a frequent result spread over multiple door knockers that also seems to be pretty unique to you (which by responses from other forum members the many times the subject has come up it seems to be)...then one has to wonder how you are going about getting the point across.

I suggest improving your technique.

I mean, door knockers are generally polite...except to Valka...and leave when you say not interested...except when Valka says it unless she threatens police action...is a pretty remarkable set of data.
 
There is nothing to be gained by hanging around and annoying someone, and that is a pretty commonly known fact of door knocking. If they don't leave when you tell them "not interested" and this is a frequent result spread over multiple door knockers that also seems to be pretty unique to you (which by responses from other forum members the many times the subject has come up it seems to be)...then one has to wonder how you are going about getting the point across.

I suggest improving your technique.

I mean, door knockers are generally polite...except to Valka...and leave when you say not interested...except when Valka says it unless she threatens police action...is a pretty remarkable set of data.
You should recall from previous interactions here that I live in a bible belt. Most of the people around here can't wrap their minds around atheism, and think there must be something fundamentally wrong with someone who says "I'm not interested" when they come uninvited and want to tell you all about their brand of religion. I didn't get upset with the ones who just said "okay" and left without further words. The ones I got upset with were the ones who kept yapping and wouldn't take "I'm not interested" as their cue to leave. The ones I got really upset with were the ones who had to be TOLD to leave. As for the one I threatened with police action, he would not shut up, he would not leave, and his constant "I'm a MINISTER!" (yeah, so what?) was becoming aggressive. The fact is, I was there and remember quite well what happened. You were not there, and have no basis on which to assume I was the one with the problem. I didn't just open the door and immediately tell him to GTHO my porch. That came after several minutes of trying to get him to leave.
 
That's my point. I find as a general rule that anyone who wants to stand on a porch talking to a closed door is mostly harmless, so perhaps you should try just closing the door and going back to whatever you were doing. :dunno: Just a thought.
 
That's my point. I find as a general rule that anyone who wants to stand on a porch talking to a closed door is mostly harmless, so perhaps you should try just closing the door and going back to whatever you were doing. :dunno: Just a thought.
Thing is, some people don't even get the idea that a closed door means they should go away. And sometimes they turn out to not be harmless. This guy was setting off my "this guy is trouble" instincts, so I wanted to be sure he was gone.
 
:lol:

Okay, so we have graduated from 'they don't go away when I say I'm not interested' to 'they might not go away if I go inside and shut the door'. :dunno: The reason you have such a different experience than others remains a mystery.

I can't really imagine that Red Deer is in a significantly different bible belt than Idaho Falls or Abeline, so I can't really see that being the most likely hypothesis.
 
:lol:

Okay, so we have graduated from 'they don't go away when I say I'm not interested' to 'they might not go away if I go inside and shut the door'. :dunno: The reason you have such a different experience than others remains a mystery.
Obviously the others in this thread are not as short-tempered as I am when it comes to annoying/obnoxious people intruding on my time. There are some situations in which I am actually a much more patient individual than most people. But this isn't one of them.
 
I am not ashamed of the Gospel. I will discuss GOD in every topic as GOD is at the core of my beliefs. Nothing anyone says will halt that practice. It's no different than the constant barrage of atheists that I see all of the time.

If you don't like it, too bad.

That's the core of being a Christian, and it affects every aspect of our lives. It certainly is pertinent to altruism.

A rant about evolution and some odd Christians who disbelieve in it, has nothing to do with altruism. But in typical atheist fashion, it pops up and we're all subjected to it, so if I must deal with that nonsense, then if I mention pertinent Biblical verses, you must put up with my own beliefs that relate to the subject. I have seldom seen an atheist taken to task for wild tangents about Christianity that have zip to do with the topic.

Some statistics from philantropy.com:
https://philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973
Spoiler :
The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.

Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.

About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.

“If your goal is to connect with donors, it’s clear that one of the things that matters to them is their religious orientation,” says Shawn Landres, Jumpstart’s chief executive and a co-author of the report.

The study of more than 4,800 American households, which covers members of five major religious denominations and people who are unaffiliated with any faith, was derived from two national surveys on giving compiled this year and analyzed by Jumpstart, a nonprofit research group, and researchers at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. The report used data from two surveys: the National Study of American Religious Giving and the National Study of American Jewish Giving.

Among the findings:

• Giving rates among black Protestants, evangelical Protestants, Jews, mainline Protestants—which include Episcopalians, members of the United Methodist Church, Presbyterians, and some Lutherans—and Roman Catholics were about the same. However, while roughly half of all members of the other faith groups contribute to religious congregations, only 37 percent of Jews did the same.

• American households donated a median $375 to congregations, $150 to religiously identified nonprofits, and $250 to secular charities in 2012.

• Black Protestants, followed by Roman Catholics and Jews, were the most likely to give out of the desire to help the needy.

• The three most popular charitable causes for all households regardless of religious affiliation were, in descending order: basic social services, “combined purpose” organizations (like United Way), and health care.

The study also looked at how much money went not only to congregations but also to charities with religious identities but secular missions. It shows that religious giving is sweeping: Forty-one percent of all charitable gifts from households last year went to congregations, while 32 percent went to other nonprofits with a religious identity and 27 percent went to secular charities. The results of that piece of the study have an 8 percent margin of error.


Over and over, spiritualy inclined folks give over and above more in time, talent, and treasure for both spiritual and secular nonprofits. That's been confirmed in numerous studies.

There are some significant atheists who donate through their foundations, but atheists simply do not volunteer, donate their talents, nor their funds in any way close to spiritual folks.

The phenomena has been studied for years by nonprofits to try to figure out what kind of marketing would be necessary to penetrate that atheist market.

http://business.time.com/2012/08/21/how-religious-affiliation-affects-charitable-giving/
Spoiler :
Just as America is often divided between red and blue and rich and poor, a new study shows a similar gap between Americans who give more generously to charity and those who don’t. But the study says almost as much about Americans’ religious participation as it does our willingness to give.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy released a fascinating survey this week on how (and how much) America donates to charitable organizations. One of the most interesting findings shows that those who tend to give the most live in more religious areas. A substantial portion of giving in the U.S., you see, comes in the form of tithing to churches. When religion is taken out of the equation, the charitable landscape alters considerably.

(MORE: Seriously? Bank Fees Shoot Up Again)

Topping the journal’s list of most generous states is Utah. Four of Utah’s cities headed up the list of U.S. metropolitan areas when it comes to percentage of discretionary income given to charity. Households in Provo, Utah, give away the most as a percentage — 13.9% of discretionary income. For the state as a whole, 10.6% of Utah’s discretionary income goes to charity, well ahead of second-place Mississippi at 7.2%.

The state’s giving nature largely comes from its sizable Mormon population, a faith that heavily emphasizes tithing of at least 10%. Research shows that close to 90% of Mormons say they tithe regularly. (Remember when news broke that Mitt Romney gave millions to the Mormon church over the last several years?)

I think you'd find by looking at direct marketing studies on philantropy you'd see Mormons, Jews, Christians, and Muslim as the top givers. Atheists are so far down the list as to be a real puzzler for nonprofits. The irreligious give far more.

Philantropy statistics groups look at regions of the country, ethnicity, political beliefs, etc in order to develop proper marketing materials using key phrases that seem to get higher donations. There's a science involved to charitable giving in order to support the altruism in the field and to estimate just how much a group can theoretically accomplish.

http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/41/religiosity-and-charity-volunteering
Spoiler :
Religiosity is positively related to charitable giving and volunteerism. Individuals with higher levels of religiosity are more likely to engage in both organized volunteering and informal acts of compassion and, on average, give charitable donations more frequently and at higher levels.

Church Attendance and Volunteerism. Frequent church attendance is associated with the likelihood of volunteering. On average, individuals who reported a high frequency of church attendance, as measured on a six-point scale ranging from “never” to “more than once a week,” were more likely to engage in volunteer activities than those who reported a low frequency of church attendance, regardless of race.1
Religious Commitment and Charitable Giving. The strength of religious commitment is related to the tendency to donate to charities. Individuals who reported a high level of religious commitment were, on average, more likely to report high levels of overall charitable giving than those who reported low levels of religious commitment.2
Church Attendance and Informal Acts of Compassion. Greater church attendance is associated with a greater likelihood of performing informal acts of compassion. All other things being equal, compared to their more secular peers, religious respondents (those who attended religious service once a week or more) were more likely to help out with the homeless, give blood, and exhibit civility and honesty. 3
Church Attendance and Charitable Donations. The level of religious service attendance Summary Religiosity is positively related to charitable giving and volunteerism. Individuals with higher levels of religiosity are more likely to engage in both organized volunteering and informal acts of compassion and, on average, give charitable donations more frequently and at higher levels. is related to charitable giving. On average, individuals who reported attending religious services once a week or more were 25 percent more likely to give to charitable causes than those who reported attending religious services less than a few times a year.4
National Levels of Church Attendance and Volunteerism. Country-level religious devotion, measured by church attendance, is related to country-level rates of volunteer activity. Citizens of the most secular country were, on average, four times less likely to engage in volunteerism than citizens of the most religious country.5
Salience of Religious Belief and Volunteerism. On average, individuals who place a greater importance on religious beliefs are more likely to volunteer. Compared with peers who reported that they did not think that religious beliefs mattered as long as one was a good person, individuals who said that religious beliefs were important were 19 percentage points more likely to volunteer (51 percent vs. 32 percent).6


Nonprofits look at those three components of giving, not just money, for the time spent volunteer is extremely valuable, and those with particular talents like physicians and accountants add such a large benefit, as does someone who takes off a year to work as leader within a nonprofit, that could seldom be paid. Many nonprofits just squeek by on paying their bills each month and try to get as much of the funds into the hands of their targeted population instead.

Because of all of that, there are also statistics on nonprofits that measure how much goes to support staffing, and anyone donating should look at this in order to support the most helpful nonprofits. Often these are Catholic Charities since nuns donate their time. These often have higher that 90% of the money given to help the poor.
 
Anyway...

I want to get to the nitty gritty of altruism. (Whether it's an intrinsic part of whatever faith system or none.)

Question number 10.

10a. If a person gains anything at all by an altruistic act, is that act no longer considered altruistic?

10b. If a person hopes to be altruistic, does that mean they must not enjoy whatever it is they are doing altruistically?

10c. Must a truly altruistic person positively despise being altruistic, then?

11. Aren't people pretty rubbish at doing things they don't enjoy?
 
Back
Top Bottom