Pages: [1] 2 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Atheist do-gooders (Read 10654 times)
|
|
Lynn
|
At the 2005 Porc-Fest, at the atheist meeting, of the many topics we touched on was the idea of building community among the atheists in a way similar to the organized religions. I haven't found the forum topic that I thought would be forthcoming, so I am either proposing the new topic or looking for the missing post. If you know which it is, please tell me  I am looking for other atheists involved in various volunteer activities in their local community, or that want to create such a community within FSP. I think that we can encourage each other and locate other like-minded inviduals through these communications. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Morey
|
Hi Lynn! Sorry, I forgot about this. Thanks for making a new post.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LeRuineur6
|
I am looking for other atheists involved in various volunteer activities in their local community...
I'm an atheist "do-gooder" working on many volunteer activities in New Hampshire, and there are even more on the New Hampshire Underground: http://www.nhfree.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please donate $5 to $10 per month to the Liberty Scholarship Fund!"Noncooperation is intended to pave the way to real, honorable, and voluntary cooperation based on mutual respect and trust." -Gandhi
|
|
|
|
varrin
|
Y'all, I don't intend to start a flame war or anyhting like that, but I've always been curious as to the long-term motivation for atheists to... do good (eerr whatever that means). I have heard several explanations, none of which seem to satisfy my curiosity. If I may, I'd like to expand my theory just a bit... I believe the all people, all the time, act in a manner that they *perceive* to be in their best interest. People consciously and/or unconsciously weigh the net benefit of every apparent choice and select the one which maximizes their net benefit (or minimizes their net detriment) over the course of their percieved lifetime (including, for those who believe in such things, any form of afterlife). Here are some rational explanations for otherwise seemingly irrational behavior given this belief: 1: The suicide bomber elects to risk (in fact intends to end) his own life to destroy some object(s) or people. This brings a higher perceived net benefit than other options (including living or mere suicide) in that it brings the promise of great reward after death. 2: Mother Theresa spends a lifetime in the streets of Calcutta because she believes her reward lies in heaven and she sees the face of Jesus in ever person she serves (presumably bringing her emotional fulfillment on the spot). This is (was) her perceived maximum benefit. 3: A theif beleives she has nothing to lose and/or will not get caught stealing and there is no long term negative consequence for stealing that outweighs the consequence of not stealing (i.e. going hungry, not having some 'thing', or missing out on the 'rush' of the heist). 4: Politicians lie in order to become elected to office believing they will not be caught and/or nobody will care in the long run. Those who do believe the benefit of getting elected outweighs the potential consequence either short term or long (including after death) term. In fact, this appears to be routinely reinforced by voters. I don't think I've encountered an example of honest to goodness altruism in my lifetime. We've probably discussed altruism in other forum threads sufficiently. But this leaves me wondering, what motivation do atheists have for 'doing good'? Now, I can recognize (measure) reasons for many good things. However, I can't comprehend how an atheist would do: 1: Something that brings no expected emotional, physical or mental benefit in this lifetime, and 2: Something that sacrifices better expected emotional, physical or mental benefits Furthermore, I have a difficult time (though I don't find it truly impossible) understanding what emotional benefit comes from doing good that brings only that emotional benefit. Within the atheist world view (keep in mind, we're not talking agnostic here), I don't find the rationale to experience the positive emotions that from pleasing some god and/or complying with some practiced religious or legal code. Indeed, I find the truest atheism to be the harsh Randian compassionless version, not the do-gooder version. Yet I find countless (especially here in the FSP) self-proclaimed atheists who fail to comply with that perfectly sensible model. Don't get me wrong... I'm not complaining!!!  I'm just curious... I do have some theories (which would be unpoopular to many atheists) but I wonder if anyone here wants to take a stab at their answer to this dilemma... V- |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.
|
|
|
|
Rocketman
|
Lynn and Morey: Do-gooders or not, I hope we can create some sort of atheist/freethinker group. I very much enjoyed our Sunday morning atheist gathering, and the discussion stimulated my thinking in a number of directions. Morey, I think we decided it was your job to get this started, right?  8) I don't know how to start things, sadly, but I hope one day I will learn... Incidentally, I was surprised that most folks didn't seem to know much about deism. Here's a little snippet from deism.org: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei
Deism (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority.Â
Deism is a free-thought philosophy, much like Agnosticism, Atheism or Pantheism in that it rejects the dogmas and superstitions of religion in favor of individual reason and empirical observation of the universe. Deism differs from these other free-thought philosophies in that it sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. The word "God" is used to describe this creator, not to be confused with the "Biblegod."
Deism notes that we as humans are endowed with the power of reason and an indomitable spirit. It follows that we are intended to exercise them. Therefore, skepticism and doubt are not "sins" but rather natural expressions of God's gift of reason.Â
Because skepticism and doubt are not sins, Deists view with extreme suspicion any efforts by other humans to claim divine authority, such as claiming to be a "prophet" or citing "sacred scripture" said to be written by alleged prophets (as in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.). Placing faith in scriptures, prophets, priests, churches, "holy" figures, or traditions is surrendering your personal reason to another source. Usually, this other source has far less interest in "the state of your soul" as the accumulation of wealth and political power.Â
With scripture and revelation removed, all that remains to know God is personal reason and observation of the universe. Essentially, this is getting to know the artist by studying the artwork. The only "Word of God" is the universe itself.Â
Deism has had many famous advocates throughout history, particularly during the Age of Enlightenment. Some of the most famous American examples were many of the Founding Fathers of America. Contrary to the assertions of Christian Fundamentalists today, America was not founded on Christian ideals. "Nature's God", as invoked by the Declaration of Independence, is a reference to Deism. There is also some good reading at deism.com, including some essays by Thomas Paine. Varrin: At the atheist gathering we decided to boot all the Christians out of the FSP. Sorry, pal.   Actually, I spent ten or fifteen minutes trying to compose an intelligible response to your question, and I figured I'd better stop before I got too dizzy. I'll get back to it soon... I don't suppose you could clarify the question? I mean, are you really asking altruistic atheists to explain their altruism to a Christian egoist?   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
5/13/06: I'M HOME!!!!!!!!! #401!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Pat K
|
Holy Crap Varrin, Now you went and did it.  This should end up being a very long paged forum, I hope every one will be as friendly in it as possable. Well first off I can't speak for any atheist but myself. Being an atheist just means I don't believe in a god. It does not mean that I can not see(think) that there are very few ways men can live together on this planet. One is a constant bloody brutal struggle of the Strong over the less strong, That has been the the dominate way, for much of our time on the planet. The other is to be as rational as possable and cooperative with each other despite our difference's. This is why I believe in Liberty, if you have true Liberty it does not matter if you believe in one god no god or 10 gods, it will not affect me."it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg" Lets see I do not want to ramble on so I guess your question is when I do something nice or helpfull for another person and am not expecting any thing in return why do it? Well first of all I wont be doing anything for nothing if it is going to be hurtfull to me or mine. So with that out of the equation, why even do things that are not? Well why not, if it costs little to help some one first of all I will probably learn something, this is a benefit to me. Second of all it will probably make that person happy if just for a min. and I like to see folks happy it gives me a good feeling. Some people might not value that much, I do. Life is short, lots of it is unpleasant, getting as much good feeling time in as possable is a good thing, for me. I seem to be rambling putting this to paper ain't easy. Things I do are not out of a weakness or pity but from my strength, to any one who is willing to accept as such. I don't know why you would think that sharing learning, good spirits and good times with others in cooperation is not enough reward. Thats all for now will have to try to think how to splain this better. Since this topic is already a flame war ready to ignite let me add some fuel for combustion, Although I think there is much to be learned from Rand and I am glad to have found her books and philosophy. I think the some big-O- Objectivists are religious= They are hard core Calvinists who have just removed a god and substituted themselves or Rand in it's place. I may now have to move to an unknown location in the witness protection program, thanks allot Varrin. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Look... I get it. I got Obama's point. It was "technically" correct. But it doesn't change the fact that it was a totally dochebag, dickwad thing to say to people who have done great things and deserve a pat on the back and not to be knocked down a peg just to serve his political agenda. -Dale
Jason Osborne "Fighting for reduction of government" is kind of like smashing your dick in a car door to reduce the pain of smashing your dick in the car door, and then getting pissed at the folks who don't want to smash their dicks in car doors as if it is their fault that your dick hurts.
"I don't recommend looking towards a government building if you don't want to see indecent behavior." --Russell Kanning
|
|
|
|
pstudier
|
Read "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod. I believe that most people are genetically programmed to cooperate in a social world.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rocketman
|
Flame War?  I was just joking, Patk -- I like Varrin, and enjoyed being challenged by his question.  Sorry if my post was interpreted as hostile.  I quite like the sort of Christians I've met in the FSP -- they have no interest in trying to govern me.  pstudier: Ten-four on the Axelrod book. A real eye-opener, especially the section on trench warfare in WWI. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
5/13/06: I'M HOME!!!!!!!!! #401!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Pat K
|
I did not mean you Rocket, I just meant there is a good chance of one starting. Hard not to like Varrin, even if he is a skinny Christian, trouble maker. Yep almost all the folks in the FSP seem to be good natured, you do your thing and I will do mine people. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Look... I get it. I got Obama's point. It was "technically" correct. But it doesn't change the fact that it was a totally dochebag, dickwad thing to say to people who have done great things and deserve a pat on the back and not to be knocked down a peg just to serve his political agenda. -Dale
Jason Osborne "Fighting for reduction of government" is kind of like smashing your dick in a car door to reduce the pain of smashing your dick in the car door, and then getting pissed at the folks who don't want to smash their dicks in car doors as if it is their fault that your dick hurts.
"I don't recommend looking towards a government building if you don't want to see indecent behavior." --Russell Kanning
|
|
|
|
Otosan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The perfect slave is the slave who thinks that he is free."
- [Unknown]
Taxes are the extra money we give the government to do good things! (2nd grade Social Studies book)
|
|
|
|
svillee
|
I don't intend to start a flame war or anyhting like that, but I've always been curious as to the long-term motivation for atheists to... do good (eerr whatever that means). I have heard several explanations, none of which seem to satisfy my curiosity.
I would go along with pstudier on this, i.e., cooperation is a deeply ingrained part of human nature, quite independent of religion. If I see someone who is in temporary need of assistance, I feel a desire to help out, because I recognize that I might be in a similar situation someday, and I would want someone to help me out. It's basically the golden rule, not even really a conscious decision -- just an instinctive thing. Lynn, forming a group to get involved in local volunteer activities is a wonderful idea. But I'm not sure atheists need to segregate themselves. There are plenty of organizations that recruit volunteers, and generally they don't care what religion (if any) you belong to, as long as you're willing to help out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jonathani1
|
Actually, I spent ten or fifteen minutes trying to compose an intelligible response to your question, and I figured I'd better stop before I got too dizzy. I'll get back to it soon... I don't suppose you could clarify the question? I mean, are you really asking altruistic atheists to explain their altruism to a Christian egoist?  Excellent quote, Rocketman.  If I can chime in with a Christian perspective. I think that the most dishonest Christians are the ones who claim they do charity for 'unselfish' reasons. Often their real motivations are hidden, even from themselves. When they are finally revealed they can look pretty ugly, petty, and patronizing. I think that the best good works or 'charity' are done with a fierce, selfish enjoyment. The best givers are those who most enjoy the effects of their giving. The bible warns against giving simply for the commendation of others, and rightly so. Peer praise is the lowest level of reward for a deed well done. We're supposed to get a whole lot more out of the effects of goodness than a concealed ego boost. Those painters who design their works for critics and reviewers make art that is ephemeral and shallow. The best paintings are created by artists who are most rewarded by seeing beautiful colors and images on canvas. The best do-gooders are those who enjoy most the human landscape in which they live. These philanthropists paint with money in much the same way others paint with oils. They ignore the critics and focus instead on the effects of their art. As God did after creation, they look on their work and deem it enjoyable, even 'good'. Is this selfish? I think so. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Green
|
Read "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod. I believe that most people are genetically programmed to cooperate in a social world.Â
For an anti-state variation on this, read "Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution", by Peter Kropotkin "In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense -- not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay." -- Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
|
|
|
|
varrin
|
I mean, are you really asking altruistic atheists to explain their altruism to a Christian egoist? Well... yeah, I suppose so Keep in mind the context that I'm quite convinced that (what I'd call 'true') altruism doesn't exist. Here's an example from PatK: Well why not, if it costs little to help some one first of all I will probably learn something, this is a benefit to me. Second of all it will probably make that person happy if just for a min. and I like to see folks happy it gives me a good feeling.
So here's the element: Costs little, reaps education and warm fuzzies from seeing someone else happy. So clearly in this example, the cost benefit analysis is cost v.s. education and warm fuzzies. Sounds like PatK fits the mold perfectly The concept of genetic programming raises some interesting questions, too. This line of reasoning ultimately leads to the conclusion that nature is smarter than man (which may well be the view held by many atheists???). I haven't invested any time in it, but at first glance I'm have a bit of difficulty wrapping my brain around increased survival chances for people having warm fuzzies and/or education from giving when there's no other near-term net benefit to the giver. If we're programmed genetically, the atheistic evolutionist would have to believe that programming happened solely via natural selection. Hmmmm... BTW, I'm not trying to pronounce some sort of value judgment on atheist givers. In fact, I'm happy to see anyone give. Giving is an excellent principle... I'm just trying to figure out what the underlying motives are... Assuming maximizing net benefit is, in fact, happening (I'm sure it is), what are the costs and benefits that are being measured. My suspicion is that the costs are calculated as small to moderate and the benefits are primarily emotional satisfaction from some form of empathy and/or happiness over the promotion of closely held ideology (libertarianism, in our case). Am I in the ballpark? V- |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.
|
|
|
|
Rocketman
|
Varrin,
Definitely in the ballpark, I think. Let's see, how should I put this...
Altruism: I think altruistic motives play a role in many decisions, but are rarely if ever the sole motivation. Most choices in life are based on multiple considerations, not just one. For example, in what order would you rank the following actions?
a) one which will result in x amount of good for yourself, but may harm others.
b) one which will result in x amount of good for yourself, and will have no effect on others.
c) one which will result in x amount of good for yourself, and will also benefit others.
If "pure egoism" is your only motivation, you'd have to say all three are equally desirable actions. If "pure altruism" is your only motivation, you would only choose action c. In reality, we would all choose both b and c, and most of us would have to weigh the specific variables before choosing a. What I'm trying to prove is that we all, regardless of our official ethical (or religious) self-designations, always-already balance egoistic and altruistic motives in the making of many decisions.
*********************************************************************************************************
Changing gears...
I think we all want to live in a better world. A world where people do nice things for each other would be a better world than one where all individuals act without regard for the needs of others (I'm thinking of Swift's Yahoo "civilization" as an example of this). Therefore, we ought to try to help each other out when it ain't too much trouble.Â
By "world" I don't necessarily mean the whole planet -- it could mean that, but most of us are more concerned with our own families, then our own communities, then perhaps our own state, then country, and by the time we reach the level of "world," it's hopelessly abstract. When I say "I want to make the world a better place, I probably mean I want to make my world a better place, and that's an important disctinction.
Okay, maybe I'm onto something... what do I want my world, the world of my experience, to be like? I want people to respect each other and each other's property. In fact, that's all I would require. We'd all be so much better off if society could construct itself on this one basic principle. However, there will always be tragedies and misfortunes. Getting rid of most government would reduce their frequency and severity, but I'm afraid misfortune will never be in short supply. This is why I think communities are so important. In a community, people are likely to interact with each other on numerous occasions. If you assist a neighbor in a time of need (for Axelrod readers and others familiar with the prisoner's dilemma, I'd call this cooperation -- failing to assist would be defection), the neighbor will be inclined to return the favor, or at least, would be less inclined to transgress against you. If you help your neighbor and he is ingrateful or refuses to help you in a similar situation, this damages the neighbor's moral credibility with the entire community. This is why swindlers and freeloaders concentrate themselves in big cities and/or bounce around from town to town. Also, when tragedy strikes your family, it's best not to be overdrawn at the kindness bank -- if you never help others, you'd better make sure you never need help yourself. That ain't how I want to live.
So, back to the religion part: to me, mandatory sharing and even mandatory niceness are despicable whether they are mandated by gods or governments. I think people should understand on a purely rational basis that voluntary cooperation is good policy, and when churches (or governments) come along and say "you have to help your neighbor or burn in hell (or prison)," they undermine the essence of voluntary cooperation, and I don't think we can have another Age of Enlightenment without dramatically reducing the anti-rational impact of both forms of coercion.
I could also add that for atheists, who are not terribly well-respected by the religious majority, committing random acts of kindness might be a way of demonstrating that atheists (or at least, these particular atheist do-gooders) can in fact be good neighbors. In fact, since atheists view life on earth as the only life we'll ever have, I'd say they're often more motivated than Christians to improve this world. Some Christians seem to be looking forward to Armageddon, and that to me is the scariest thing to me about religion. If people believe their deity is going to blow the whole place up sooner than later, why fix it? And besides, life on earth is only a drop in the ocean compared to eternity with God, so why bother with earth? Fortunately, not all Christians think that way, but enough do to frighten me...
So, how am I doing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
5/13/06: I'M HOME!!!!!!!!! #401!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
