Militant atheists' monocausal crap
The two studies produced so far:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-542-...009001-eng.pdf
PDF Page 25:
The amount cited is $1,038 to $295.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/6577
Here's another one:
http://www.independentsector.org/upl...V01keyfind.pdf
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-542-...009001-eng.pdf
PDF Page 25:
Canadians who are religiously active are more likely than other Canadians to be donors and tend to give more when they donate. Much of the money that they donate goes to religious organizations; but, they also contribute significant amounts to non-religious organizations.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/6577
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
http://www.independentsector.org/upl...V01keyfind.pdf
Households with people who attend religious services on a regular basis, at least once a month (54% of the respondents) gave more than twice as much annually as those who were not regular attendees ($2,151 and $867, respectively).
The two studies produced so far:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-542-...009001-eng.pdf
PDF Page 25:
The amount cited is $1,038 to $295.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/6577
Here's another one:
http://www.independentsector.org/upl...V01keyfind.pdf
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-542-...009001-eng.pdf
PDF Page 25:
The amount cited is $1,038 to $295.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/6577
Here's another one:
http://www.independentsector.org/upl...V01keyfind.pdf
There are a number of flaws in this analysis.
Firstly, it appears to compare the proportion of giving amongst regular religious participants against others. Hence nonbelievers are lumped in with all those who are nominally religious but can’t be bothered attending services regularly, as well as with those who don’t profess any religion but neither have any strong philosophy or system of ethics – they are too caught up in materialism. A valid comparison would be between regular church attenders and people who have a similar level of commitment to some secular value system, such as belonging to a humanist or atheist group. I would be surprised if such a comparison showed a significant difference between the levels of giving.
Secondly, does the giving counted for religious groups include giving to that religious group (eg via the offertory collection) or time spent on church committees or performing church roles? That should be removed from the calculation as those activities do not benefit anybody outside the church group and hence should be considered as a de facto membership fee.
Thirdly, a proper statistical analysis should control for age and socio-economic status. People who are older and/or more wealthy are more likely to have both the time and money to donate. It may also be the case that the proportion of regular church attendees is higher amongst older people, in which case the higher proportion of giving amongst regular church attendees may be because they are older, rather than because they are religious.
Firstly, it appears to compare the proportion of giving amongst regular religious participants against others. Hence nonbelievers are lumped in with all those who are nominally religious but can’t be bothered attending services regularly, as well as with those who don’t profess any religion but neither have any strong philosophy or system of ethics – they are too caught up in materialism. A valid comparison would be between regular church attenders and people who have a similar level of commitment to some secular value system, such as belonging to a humanist or atheist group. I would be surprised if such a comparison showed a significant difference between the levels of giving.
Secondly, does the giving counted for religious groups include giving to that religious group (eg via the offertory collection) or time spent on church committees or performing church roles? That should be removed from the calculation as those activities do not benefit anybody outside the church group and hence should be considered as a de facto membership fee.
Thirdly, a proper statistical analysis should control for age and socio-economic status. People who are older and/or more wealthy are more likely to have both the time and money to donate. It may also be the case that the proportion of regular church attendees is higher amongst older people, in which case the higher proportion of giving amongst regular church attendees may be because they are older, rather than because they are religious.
First, quote your source:
http://rationaldreaming.com/2010/04/...non-believers/
This matters because it seems to be criticizing specific methodological issues related to just one of the three articles.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/6577
This is a question of self-identification versus self-reported actions. The definitions of the groups were given in the earlier part of the study:
I think it's an interesting question to ask, but I wouldn't really call it a "flaw" in the discussion. The question is merely a different one than the one being addressed.
This is similar to zumby's objection, except stated worse. Calling donations to a religious organization a "de facto membership fee" is wrong on many levels. It's not a fixed amount, and it's not something that has any direct consequences (or even theological consequences) for not paying. It's not like you get barred from church if they find you don't give.
Also, if I volunteer in the church's food pantry it doesn't count, but if I volunteer at some other food pantry it does? This sets up a very false dichotomy of the idea of service.
This is addressed in the article:
So while there is and old/young split, it is not reflected in the income.
It is also known that the poor give proportionally more than the rich:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/ma...ln-t.html?_r=1
This doesn't speak to absolute quantities of dollars given, but it does challenge the underlying argument being made.
http://rationaldreaming.com/2010/04/...non-believers/
This matters because it seems to be criticizing specific methodological issues related to just one of the three articles.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...w/article/6577
Firstly, it appears to compare the proportion of giving amongst regular religious participants against others. Hence nonbelievers are lumped in with all those who are nominally religious but can’t be bothered attending services regularly, as well as with those who don’t profess any religion but neither have any strong philosophy or system of ethics...
Originally Posted by Brooks
I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as “religious” are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call “secular” report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample).
Secondly, does the giving counted for religious groups include giving to that religious group (eg via the offertory collection) or time spent on church committees or performing church roles? That should be removed from the calculation as those activities do not benefit anybody outside the church group and hence should be considered as a de facto membership fee.
Also, if I volunteer in the church's food pantry it doesn't count, but if I volunteer at some other food pantry it does? This sets up a very false dichotomy of the idea of service.
Thirdly, a proper statistical analysis should control for age and socio-economic status. People who are older and/or more wealthy are more likely to have both the time and money to donate. It may also be the case that the proportion of regular church attendees is higher amongst older people, in which case the higher proportion of giving amongst regular church attendees may be because they are older, rather than because they are religious.
Originally Posted by Brooks
Socioeconomically, the religious and secular groups are similar in some ways and different in others. For example, there is little difference between the groups in income (both have average household incomes around $49,000) or education level (20 percent of each group holds a college degree). On the other hand, the secular group is disproportionately male (49 percent to 32 percent), unmarried (58 percent to 40 percent), and young (42 to 49 years old, on average).
It is also known that the poor give proportionally more than the rich:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/ma...ln-t.html?_r=1
In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.
This situation is perplexing if you think of it in terms of dollars and cents: the poor, you would assume, don’t have resources to spare, and the personal sacrifice of giving is disproportionately large. The rich do have money to spend. Those who itemize receive a hefty tax break to make charitable donations, a deduction that grows more valuable the higher they are on the income scale. And the well-off are presumed to have at least a certain sense of noblesse oblige. Americans pride themselves on their philanthropic tradition, and on the role of private charity, which is much more developed here than it is in Europe, where the expectation is that the government will care for the poor.
But in the larger context of “the psychological culture of wealth versus poverty,” says Paul K. Piff, a Ph.D. candidate in social psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, the paradox makes sense.
This situation is perplexing if you think of it in terms of dollars and cents: the poor, you would assume, don’t have resources to spare, and the personal sacrifice of giving is disproportionately large. The rich do have money to spend. Those who itemize receive a hefty tax break to make charitable donations, a deduction that grows more valuable the higher they are on the income scale. And the well-off are presumed to have at least a certain sense of noblesse oblige. Americans pride themselves on their philanthropic tradition, and on the role of private charity, which is much more developed here than it is in Europe, where the expectation is that the government will care for the poor.
But in the larger context of “the psychological culture of wealth versus poverty,” says Paul K. Piff, a Ph.D. candidate in social psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, the paradox makes sense.
This is similar to zumby's objection, except stated worse. Calling donations to a religious organization a "de facto membership fee" is wrong on many levels. It's not a fixed amount, and it's not something that has any direct consequences (or even theological consequences) for not paying. It's not like you get barred from church if they find you don't give.
But anyways, I don't have much of a horse in this contest. I took it as obvious that people going to church regularly are going to be more likely to donate money to their church. And I took it as well know that a large portion of churches offer some form of charitable service or other.
I'm prepared to believe it, I mean I guess if I'm going to go ahead and say that religion causes people to do bad things that they otherwise wouldn't, it seems reasonable that it also causes them to do good things as well.
This is my usual experience if I go to my Mom's church (United, a liberal Canadian denomination). The point is that there are social pressures, and I would submit that this counts as a consequence.
But I also don't think that it's that common for most independent churches. I've never been audited by my church, and I've never been directly pressured by anyone to put money in the offering plate. (I actually give through my online bill-pay service, so as far as anyone who is watching me in the pews at church, I'm a total free-loader.) I also know pastors who request budget/giving reports with names removed so that it takes away the sense of bias towards the bigger donors.
Spoiler:
This thread is severely lacking Splendour lately
And other posters need to stop denying Hitchens said religion poisons everything. Those were his exact words.
Yes, and I just explained the sense in which he means that byline which is explained in more length than just three words. Now you can disagree with the sense in which he means this, if you will, but what you are saying is not a contradiction to the sense that he means this. Sorry.
Look, I suspect Hitchens knew damned well that religion doesn't poison everything, but he wanted to say something outrageous and polemical to sell books. But that's exactly what OP is pointing to. You can't try to obtain the rhetorical simplicity of the straw man argument and then hide behind the fallacy when someone points out that your rhetorically simple claim is stupid.
If you do a good deed because you believe it’ll help get you into heaven or whatnot, then you’re not doing good for goodness’ sake. So goodness is poisoned by introducing an ulterior motive to the deed. I think that’s what he means.
I'm just quoting this for zumby's benefit.
The data is pretty clear that religious people give more than non-religious people. If you (zumby) want to cut out a particular sub-category of donations and make some sort of argument, that's fine. But you're the one who needs to define what you're measuring and then produce data to make the case. Until then you're pretty much just babbling in a mindless defense of atheistic giving.
The data is pretty clear that religious people give more than non-religious people. If you (zumby) want to cut out a particular sub-category of donations and make some sort of argument, that's fine. But you're the one who needs to define what you're measuring and then produce data to make the case. Until then you're pretty much just babbling in a mindless defense of atheistic giving.
Originally Posted by lawdude
religion increases significantly the amount of private aid to poor people.
I happily agree that some churches spend some proportion of their donations on the poor. However, I stand by the proportion being 'murky' as no-one has provided any data to clarify.
You have conceded there isn't a dollar for dollar correspondence between the amount given that helps the poor when donating to a church vs donating to a specific humanitarian charity. My point is that, if one wants to play a game of moral arithmetic, one needs to be doing the math correctly.
Taking churches out of the equation to make a neutral comparison, if we use the same thought process currently being used to tie together Lawdudes statement with the studies cited, someone who donates $100 to a trade union is doing three times more to help the poor than someone who donates $33 to Amnesty International. I'm sure you can see that this is nonsense.
The data supports the claim that religious people give more money to the broad spectrum of charities and NPOs, not that religious people give more money to the poor. This is the beginning and the end of my point.
Hope this helps.
In fact, just to save you doing a long obfuscating post let me boil it down to a single question:
Q: Please show how much aid is given to the poor from a) religious donations b) non-religious donations, using the data cited.
Given that we both know you can't answer this using data in these studies it follows that my point - that these studies don't neccessarily show that religion increases aid to the poor - is valid.
FWIW, I agree with Mr Beer that I don't have a problem with the idea that the religious are more charitable (one should certainly hope so, given their propensity to claim moral superiority) I just don't accept that "giving to the poor" and "donating to the broad spectrum of charities and NPOs" are the same thing.
Q: Please show how much aid is given to the poor from a) religious donations b) non-religious donations, using the data cited.
Given that we both know you can't answer this using data in these studies it follows that my point - that these studies don't neccessarily show that religion increases aid to the poor - is valid.
FWIW, I agree with Mr Beer that I don't have a problem with the idea that the religious are more charitable (one should certainly hope so, given their propensity to claim moral superiority) I just don't accept that "giving to the poor" and "donating to the broad spectrum of charities and NPOs" are the same thing.
Okay. I was discussing within this context:
I maintain that the article contains the false implication, and that it nullifies your usage of that as a reasonable source of information on the topic.
Right now, the evidence is clear that religious people give more in general than non-religious people. If you don't think it extends, fine. But I think you're doing precisely what I'm saying here, and you're on the side who needs to actually produce an argument showing that you're right.
Can't find the actual study but an article & response is posted here
If you (zumby) want to cut out a particular sub-category of donations and make some sort of argument, that's fine. But you're the one who needs to define what you're measuring and then produce data to make the case. Until then you're pretty much just babbling in a mindless defense of atheistic giving.
My argument was that the Canadian study didn't bear out Lawdude's claim. I've since dug down into the data and shown that my point is valid. The fact that the article I linked to, which makes a similar criticism, makes a factual error doesn't invalidate my argument.
To keep things clear for those who haven't followed all the links, the article I linked to claims that charities designated as "Religion" do NO humanitarian charity work. This is wrong. In fact, some of these charities do an unspecified amount humanitarian charity work. But the problem runs a little deeper than just the "Religion" NPOs, as the study also includes things like business unions etc which are obviously not what we are talking about when discussing aid to the poor.
Therefore, as Aaron says, it's clear from this study that the religious give more money to charities and NPOs, but says absolutely nothing about how much is given to the poor.
To keep things clear for those who haven't followed all the links, the article I linked to claims that charities designated as "Religion" do NO humanitarian charity work. This is wrong. In fact, some of these charities do an unspecified amount humanitarian charity work. But the problem runs a little deeper than just the "Religion" NPOs, as the study also includes things like business unions etc which are obviously not what we are talking about when discussing aid to the poor.
Therefore, as Aaron says, it's clear from this study that the religious give more money to charities and NPOs, but says absolutely nothing about how much is given to the poor.
I'm a little surprised by this, but I also know it's not totally unheard of. For example, I've heard (unconfirmed) statements that the LDS church does financial audits of its members. So I believe things like this happen. And there is a bit of "social pressure" insofar as there is an expectation that you would give if you're a member of the church. Some churches also have membership classes where you sign pledges to do things ("As a member, I will give 10% of my income..."), though in many cases "it's between you and God" and they don't actually intend to come after you if you don't give your full pledged amount (they don't ever ask you what your income is, so they can't hold you to anything).
But I also don't think that it's that common for most independent churches. I've never been audited by my church, and I've never been directly pressured by anyone to put money in the offering plate. (I actually give through my online bill-pay service, so as far as anyone who is watching me in the pews at church, I'm a total free-loader.) I also know pastors who request budget/giving reports with names removed so that it takes away the sense of bias towards the bigger donors.
But I also don't think that it's that common for most independent churches. I've never been audited by my church, and I've never been directly pressured by anyone to put money in the offering plate. (I actually give through my online bill-pay service, so as far as anyone who is watching me in the pews at church, I'm a total free-loader.) I also know pastors who request budget/giving reports with names removed so that it takes away the sense of bias towards the bigger donors.
If I say "politics poisons everything", and someone points out all the good things that politicans did, and I reply "that's not what I meant", it seems to me that's a fatuous defense. Hitchens deliberately portrayed religion as not just false, but evil. He clearly wanted to hold it responsible for 9/11, for instance, or the Crusades. But in fact religion is not evil. It doesn't poison everything. And if his view was that it didn't always posison everything, he should not have said that it did.
Look, I suspect Hitchens knew damned well that religion doesn't poison everything, but he wanted to say something outrageous and polemical to sell books. But that's exactly what OP is pointing to. You can't try to obtain the rhetorical simplicity of the straw man argument and then hide behind the fallacy when someone points out that your rhetorically simple claim is stupid.
Look, I suspect Hitchens knew damned well that religion doesn't poison everything, but he wanted to say something outrageous and polemical to sell books. But that's exactly what OP is pointing to. You can't try to obtain the rhetorical simplicity of the straw man argument and then hide behind the fallacy when someone points out that your rhetorically simple claim is stupid.
Now you can disagree with the sense in which hitchens means his point. Heck, you can even think that "religion poisons everything" is not an appropriate label for the way he means it. The only stupid thing to do is to impose YOUR meaning on these three words NOT HITCHENS' meaning, and then reject the strawman you created.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...giving&f=false
Table 7.1 on page 112
Average amount contributed annually by households to nonreligious charities by members/non-members of religious organizations
Table 7.1 on page 112
Average amount contributed annually by households to nonreligious charities by members/non-members of religious organizations
Code:
1989 1991 1993 1995 Members 278 265 242 257 Nonmembers 255 190 189 208
But lawdude didn't even bring up that study. You did.
Not really, unless you're making a very BAD definition by rejecting anything that has in-group benefit. I don't see your analysis (reproduced below) as carrying any weight in this conversation:
I've since dug down into the data and shown that my point is valid.
The JHCNSP report on charities in Canada lets us drill down a bit further and see that, of those charities who are in the 'Religion' category, 27% primarily benefit the members of that charity and 78% primarily service the local neighbourhood/town/city, as opposed to the wider province, national or international level.
Which is why I asked if he had a source. I mentioned the Canada study 'in passing' if you like.
Not really, unless you're making a very BAD definition by rejecting anything that has in-group benefit. I don't see your analysis (reproduced below) as carrying any weight in this conversation:
Then please answer this:
The question above stands for this data too.
The claim I asked for data on is "religion increases significantly the amount of private aid to poor people". So far, none has been provided. I mean, **** it, I'll say that I think the claim is probably true, but there has been no data that demonstrates it to be true.
Not really, unless you're making a very BAD definition by rejecting anything that has in-group benefit. I don't see your analysis (reproduced below) as carrying any weight in this conversation:
Q: Please show how much aid is given to the poor from a) religious donations b) non-religious donations, using the data cited.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...giving&f=false
Table 7.1 on page 112
Average amount contributed annually by households to nonreligious charities by members/non-members of religious organizations
Table 7.1 on page 112
Average amount contributed annually by households to nonreligious charities by members/non-members of religious organizations
Code:
1989 1991 1993 1995 Members 278 265 242 257 Nonmembers 255 190 189 208
The claim I asked for data on is "religion increases significantly the amount of private aid to poor people". So far, none has been provided. I mean, **** it, I'll say that I think the claim is probably true, but there has been no data that demonstrates it to be true.
The data you require to be convinced is simply not available. Deal with it. So if you want to be stubborn about it, I'll not bother trying to convince you anymore.
But I suggest that you look up directories of soup kitchens in urban places and take a look at what you see. Here's one for Brooklyn:
http://brooklyn.com/modules.php?name=Food_Pantries
Tell me how many of those you think are not associated with a religious organization of some sort.
Edit: Based on this conversation, I would suspect that you're from a demographic that doesn't actually have that much direct interaction with the local poor in urban settings. Your focus on the international aid organizations suggests that you're primarily helping "at a distance" and not helping in more personal and tangible ways. This might be something worth pursuing for your own benefit (oh, and the benefit of those you end up helping).
The data you require to be convinced is simply not available.
But I suggest that you look up directories of soup kitchens in urban places and take a look at what you see. Here's one for Brooklyn:
http://brooklyn.com/modules.php?name=Food_Pantries
Tell me how many of those you think are not associated with a religious organization of some sort.
Edit: Based on this conversation, I would suspect that you're from a demographic that doesn't actually have that much direct interaction with the local poor in urban settings. Your focus on the international aid organizations suggests that you're primarily helping "at a distance" and not helping in more personal and tangible ways. This might be something worth pursuing for your own benefit (oh, and the benefit of those you end up helping).
You'll notice that in Splendours thread here I've tacitly said that the study asdf posted (showing that religious people are less likely to list compassion as a motivating factor for charity) does NOT constitute proof of that claim. Would I like it to be true? Sure. Doesn't mean I'll accept it as proof? **** no.
(Also, why do you *WANT* it to be true? Do you have a desire "to claim moral superiority"?)
Not many? Do you see how this is data that actually supports Lawdude's claim while the Canadian study and the right-wing thinktank study you posted do not?
1) You don't need proof to believe something, but you need to be aware of when your beliefs are not supported by evidence. This whole tedious exchange really boils down to
Lawdude: Religion increases significantly the amount of private aid to poor people.
Zumby: Source?
Aaron W: The data you require to be convinced is simply not available.
Complaining about asking for evidence is only to be expected from a Christian, but even so, this weird rant about skepticism is laughable.
2) This is lol. You accuse me of only accepting evidence that supports my atheism then, when I point out that this is demonstrably not the case, you adopt the position of trying to make out that I'm trying to big myself up when all I'm doing is refuting your point. Lovely stuff.
3) Sure, a directory isn't hard data, but given that the data I've asked for specifically relates to 'helping the poor' it follows that a list of places that help the poor is somewhat more convincing than studies which include all NPOs as one entity.
Lawdude: Religion increases significantly the amount of private aid to poor people.
Zumby: Source?
Aaron W: The data you require to be convinced is simply not available.
Complaining about asking for evidence is only to be expected from a Christian, but even so, this weird rant about skepticism is laughable.
2) This is lol. You accuse me of only accepting evidence that supports my atheism then, when I point out that this is demonstrably not the case, you adopt the position of trying to make out that I'm trying to big myself up when all I'm doing is refuting your point. Lovely stuff.
3) Sure, a directory isn't hard data, but given that the data I've asked for specifically relates to 'helping the poor' it follows that a list of places that help the poor is somewhat more convincing than studies which include all NPOs as one entity.
1) You don't need proof to believe something, but you need to be aware of when your beliefs are not supported by evidence. This whole tedious exchange really boils down to
Lawdude: Religion increases significantly the amount of private aid to poor people.
Zumby: Source?
Aaron W: The data you require to be convinced is simply not available.
Complaining about asking for evidence is only to be expected from a Christian, but even so, this weird rant about skepticism is laughable.
Lawdude: Religion increases significantly the amount of private aid to poor people.
Zumby: Source?
Aaron W: The data you require to be convinced is simply not available.
Complaining about asking for evidence is only to be expected from a Christian, but even so, this weird rant about skepticism is laughable.
Your sense of understanding is now completely useless as you've got the following phrases in play (which all mean different things):
* Probably true
* Believed to be true
* Convinced that it's true
* Demonstrated to be true
Until you clarify the standard that you're *ACTUALLY* looking for, this is all gibberish. You've also got a pretty tenuous hold on your concept of "evidence" but that's an entirely different conversation.
2) This is lol. You accuse me of only accepting evidence that supports my atheism then, when I point out that this is demonstrably not the case, you adopt the position of trying to make out that I'm trying to big myself up when all I'm doing is refuting your point. Lovely stuff.
3) Sure, a directory isn't hard data, but given that the data I've asked for specifically relates to 'helping the poor' it follows that a list of places that help the poor is somewhat more convincing than studies which include all NPOs as one entity.
Lawdude: Religion increases significantly the amount of private aid to poor people.
*Zumby: I'm insulted because this reflects poorly on me. This can't be true.
Everyone else: It sure looks that way to us.
Zumby: Crap. I'm wrong. But I can't admit it.
* Alternatively: Religious people suck and can't do anything good. This must be false.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE