Bowling for Atheists: Haiti Proves that Nonbelievers Care Too
On Friday, January 15, I received in email from Richard Dawkins explaining that his Executive Director Elizabeth Cornwell has organized a campaign to raise money on behalf of the victims of the Haitian earthquake-induced tragedy, and he wanted to know if the Skeptics Society would like to participate, which of course I unhesitatingly agreed.
The campaign is called Non-Believers Giving Aid and is set up through PayPal. Richard Dawkins has generously offered to cover all the PayPal fees (up to $10,000) and the Skeptics Society got things started off with a bang with a $1000 donation. Within minutes of it’s launch on Saturday morning, tens of thousands of dollars started pouring in as members of the other participating groups (Sam Harris’ The Reason Project, The James Randi Educational Foundation, Atheist United, Atheist Alliance International, and many others) jumped in without hesitation. (All monies go to Doctors without Borders and the International Red Cross—you choose.)
In less than half a day we passed the $50,000 mark, $100,000 in less than 24 hours, $175,000 by Sunday morning, and over a quarter of a million dollars by sunup Monday morning, and still climbing as I post this commentary. We’ll easily surpass a million dollars within days. Not a bad showing! But beyond the aid needed by the Haitians, why does this matter? Why do I need to brag about our generosity? Because people tend to believe that religious people are more generous than nonreligious people, and so it is important that we show our true colors now. As I noted for the press release issued by Dawkins’ foundation: “It’s all well and good to say that we nonbelievers are just as moral as believers (we are, but that’s a philosophical point)—actions count more than words and real donations are where the theoretical rubber meets the practical road. This is our time to pony up and show the world our true character.” And pony up nonbelievers did, in spades.
Where do people get this idea that nonbelievers are not as generous? In 2006 the Syracuse University professor and conservative commentator Arthur C. Brooks published Who Really Cares, in which he claimed that when it comes to charitable giving and volunteering, numerous quantitative measures debunk the myth of “bleeding heart liberals” and “heartless conservatives.” Conservatives donate 30 percent more money than liberals (even when controlled for income), give more blood and log more volunteer hours. He also presented data showing that religious people are four times more generous than secularists to all charities, 10 percent more munificent to non-religious charities, and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. Those raised in intact and religious families are more charitable than those who are not.
Why such a striking difference? One answer may be found in the theory of “social capital,” defined by Robert Putnam in his 2000 book Bowling Alone as “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” In their analysis of data from the World Values Survey, for example, Harvard University professor Pippa Norris and University of Michigan professor Ronald Inglehart (in their 2004 book Sacred and Secular), found a positive correlation between “religious participation” and membership in “non-religious community associations,” including women’s, youth, peace, social welfare, human rights, and environmental conservation groups (and, apparently, bowling leagues). “By providing community meeting places, linking neighbors together, and fostering altruism, in many (but not all) faiths, religious institutions seem to bolster the ties of belonging to civic life.”
In other words, we all have the capacity to be generous and giving, as long as we belong to social groups who encourage the better angels of our natures. That is social capital that generates economic capital, and nonbelievers are just as generous as believers. Call it bowling for atheists!
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] Richard Dawkins initiativ “Non-believers giving aid“. Inte för att den inte gör gott (kampanjen fungerar otroligt bra) utan för att han inte förstår att han i och med sitt initiativ visar på Guds existens. Från [...]
I’ve often gotten stuck in the middle of a debate about if atheists “believe” in charity and if so… why?
This just goes to show that charity needs no faith to drive it, only a little encouragement. You’ve inspired my better angel.
As a life-long atheist and someone who has long admired Richard Dawkins I am amazed that he has lent his support to Non-Believers Giving Aid: a religion-free way to help disaster. To restrict donations to those charities that are without religious connections is repugnant. Surely the most important thing is to give money to the organisations that can do the most good on the ground, I don’t care if it is the nursing wing of the Taliban if they can relieve suffering.
We don’t need to compete in the compassion stakes even the religious charities don’t do that. If you want to give atheism a bad name this is surely the way to do it.
It does have a bit of a “me too”, public relations sort of aroma, doesn’t it?
In response to another comment. See in context »The Center for Inquiry, the largest secular humanist and skeptic organization in the world had launched a similar effort on January 14 with 100% of the funds going to Doctors Without Borders: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/share_opens_fund_for_haiti_quake_relief/
“By providing community meeting places, linking neighbors together, and fostering altruism, in many (but not all) faiths, religious institutions seem to bolster the ties of belonging to civic life.” Any parent of a child in a parochial school can tell you this is absolutely the case and not the only benefit. Can atheist teach their children those fundamentals? Yes, but it is difficult to pursue that goal alone. Either way, you have to live your example. Btw, I will pray that all our donations are used wisely to benefit all Haitians.
How do you justify praying for help for a people just decimated by an “act of God?” Or are your prayers for the people helping the people decimated? Because that seems a little presumptuous too.
In response to another comment. See in context »Even if the earthquake was, in fact, an act of wrath by an angry God to punish the Haitian people, we’re still supposed to pray for them.
We don’t love people like we love ice cream. Love in a Christian context is having a genuine concern for the wellbeing of others, regardless of their circumstances.
In response to another comment. See in context »The verses quoted make no sense in this context. Haitians are not your enemies, and they have not persecuted you. If you believe, as the verse says, your heavenly father to be perfect, and your heavenly father chose to send disaster to those people, then who are you to attempt to sway God’s favor? You’re basically telling God you think the plan is imperfect, and that your idea is better.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The verses quoted make no sense in this context. Haitians are not your enemies, and they have not persecuted you.”
I think, perhaps, you’ve made the common mistake of focusing on one verse and missing the point of the whole passage. We’re called to pray for everyone in need, regardless of their circumstances.
“If you believe, as the verse says, your heavenly father to be perfect, and your heavenly father chose to send disaster to those people, then who are you to attempt to sway God’s favor? You’re basically telling God you think the plan is imperfect, and that your idea is better.”
Your comment appears to presuppose that we’re praying for something in particular. Is that true, and if so, what is it you think we’re praying for?
In response to another comment. See in context »While I fall into the group that believe as the funds developers, I question the need to promote how much money can be raised by this growing segment of the population. I assume the “look at us’ mentality of the article is what I feel is not needed. Promotion of thought provoking ideas does not need a cheer leading type stance from those whom actively push the ideas underlying these beliefs. To me, the needs of the Haitian people should not be exploited in an effort to illustrate that compassion really does not need an all powerful deity to be practiced.
The earthquake was an act of nature and I was being a little cheeky mentioning prayer on a skeptic website. The reason prayer helps people is they choose to have faith.
>>> I will pray that all our donations are used wisely to benefit all Haitians.
>>>The reason prayer helps people is they choose to have faith.
So prayer helps you with your choice to have faith that the money is used wisely?
In response to another comment. See in context »“So prayer helps you with your choice to have faith that the money is used wisely?” Yes, prayer helps me. Perhaps you think all Christians are alike and “presumptuous” is another word for judgmental. I am a Catholic but ecumenical in the sense that I believe all paths lead to God and that includes atheism.
In response to another comment. See in context »“…I believe all paths lead to God and that includes atheism.”
If this view is true, then how does one reconcile it with these two passages?
Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. The person who confesses the Son has the Father also. [1 John 2:23]
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, replied, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man – by what means this man was healed let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.” [Acts 4:8-12]
In response to another comment. See in context »Chris, I presume you believe in the literal translation of the bible. I do not but I have faith that God is there and that we will be all together at the end of time. I appreciate those who struggle with the idea of God. In many ways atheist have the capacity for a stronger faith because it comes from tenacious reflection. The truth is that God is in charge and not our interpretation.
In response to another comment. See in context »@ ChrisAvery
The point of that passage is to love your enemies: it says so right at the top of the passage. The only reference to prayer was to those who persecute you. So where am I mistaken we’re to pray for everyone in need? Nothing to that effect is in that passage.
Also MaryStack, who I was originally commenting to, said specifically what she was praying for … “I will pray that all our donations are used wisely to benefit all Haitians.” I don’t need to think or presuppose anything.
The point Jesus was making was that the commandment in Lev 19:18 says, “…you must love your neighbor as yourself”, without any qualifications. Mere Christians don’t get to pick and choose who we love and who we hate.
As for your second point, I don’t see how praying “that all our donations are used wisely to benefit all Haitians” puts one in opposition to the will of God. Can you explain?
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m asking how one justifies prayer and you’re telling me you’re obligated to love everyone. (Just FYI, altruism is not a Christian construct, its natural selection — most primates are altruistic.) If you’re saying prayer equates to love, I say you are a very lazy “lover.” How are Haitians getting any benefitting from your silent, contemplative “love?”
Mary answers honestly, she admits she prays because it makes HER feel better. I wonder if the Haitians appreciate that Mary feels good about her silent efforts? (nothing personal Mary)
In response to another comment. See in context »Okay, I think I understand where you’re coming from now.
Prayer does not equate to love, it is an act of love that demonstrates faith. And I would agree with you that if one only prays for someone in need, when one has the means to help meet the need with their own resources, the prayer alone is a weaker demonstration of faith.
As for Mary’s comments, I went back and reviewed them and can’t conclude she’s praying only because it makes her feel better. It seems to me she believes her prayers may have some effect on how the donations will be used.
As far as whether she should feel better after praying, I think she should. She has done something merely by allocating the time and making the effort to pray, even though tangible results might be difficult to discern.
In response to another comment. See in context »I suspect the “tangible results might be difficult to discern” because there are none.
In response to another comment. See in context »BTW, great discussion & thanks!
In response to another comment. See in context »No prob.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes prayer makes me feel better and so does volunteer work and donating food. They also have a positive effect on those who receive them. I am more often thanked for praying than for helping feed people or volunteering with children. Yes, I believe that the Haitian people appreciate our prayers but we also need to act swiftly to take care of their physical needs too.
In response to another comment. See in context »@marystack:
Chris, I presume you believe in the literal translation of the bible.
I try to approach the Bible the way I would approach any writing. I take it literally unless there’s some context to suggest otherwise. Is there something that suggests those two passages shouldn’t be taken literally?