Religion as a Motivator for Good?

[AceWilliams]

Before my fellow atheists jump down my throat, I just want to state that I am indeed an atheist (never been a theist in fact). My question is this, for those of you who wish to do away with religion, what about those people who do undisputed good (feeding poor, rescuing innocent, etc) in the name of religion. I know for a fact that some christians use god as tool to do great things in everyday life and I have benifited from their deeds as well. What would become of these decent people if religion was done away with?

[curiosityandthecat]

I would say that if those people are only doing those good things because of religion, then we wouldn't lose any good people, at all. A virtuous person who does good things only because God tells him or her to is not virtuous. If they are truly decent, good people, nothing would change save their attribution.

[AceWilliams]

I see your point clearly but these people at least claim that they would not have even thought about helping out without religion. If what your saying is these people would be obsolete without religion then what about the thousands (maybe millions) of people who would suffer?

[minstrelofc]

Logically, if someone wants to do good, they'll find any motivation to do so (valid/logical, or not). If they believe in FSM, they'll rationalize it as doing FSM's will, if they don't they'll do it because it "makes them feel good", or "what goes around comes around" or whatever.

The exception would be those who do good out of fear that they'll burn in hell if they don't. Who knows what they might do if they were freed of their bonds.  

[AceWilliams]

Logically, if someone wants to do good, they'll find any motivation to do so (valid/logical, or not). If they believe in FSM, they'll rationalize it as doing FSM's will, if they don't they'll do it because it "makes them feel good", or "what goes around comes around" or whatever.

The exception would be those who do good out of fear that they'll burn in hell if they don't. Who knows what they might do if they were freed of their bonds.  

Didn't think about it that way esp the last sentence. Question pretty much answered.

[minstrelofc]

Didn't think about it that way esp the last sentence. Question pretty much answered.

Glad I could help  

[Hitsumei]

I would say that if those people are only doing those good things because of religion, then we wouldn't lose any good people, at all. A virtuous person who does good things only because God tells him or her to is not virtuous. If they are truly decent, good people, nothing would change save their attribution.

If you are starving, does it really matter if the person running the soup kitchen thinks that they are scoring brownie points with Jesus? Or do they need to be doing it out of the goodness of their heart? Does it really matter to you which the case is? Isn't what is important actually the fact that you are getting soup? Do you really struggle with the metaphysics in such a situation?

Saying that you find their justification less than virtuous in no way removes the beneficial outcome of their actions, so is a moot point.

[BadPoison]

Saying that you find their justification less than virtuous in no way removes the beneficial outcome of their actions, so is a moot point.

I would like to think that most people who are consistently altruistic would still be compassionate to those less fortunate even if they didn't have their religions. They just wouldn't be giving their credit away.
And likely those that were trying to score brownie points with a deity would still have that trait, just instead of getting brownie points with a deity, they might do it for something else (be it another person, or whatever. They would still find a way of making themselves look better than others as they're only comfortable with themselves when they have the security of being able to look down on others...)  <----there's my armchair psychiatry.  

[Hitsumei]

I would like to think that most people who are consistently altruistic would still be compassionate to those less fortunate even if they didn't have their religions.

You may like to think that, but it is not supported by the data, unfortunately. Sociological studies indicate that religious people both give more to charity, and donate more time to charitable ventures than other groups.

They just wouldn't be giving their credit away.
And likely those that were trying to score brownie points with a deity would still have that trait, just instead of getting brownie points with a deity, they might do it for something else (be it another person, or whatever. They would still find a way of making themselves look better than others as they're only comfortable with themselves when they have the security of being able to look down on others...)  <----there's my armchair psychiatry.  

I think that the purpose of the brownie point scoring is to make heaven and avoid hell, not to feel superior to other people.

[minstrelofc]

I would like to think that most people who are consistently altruistic would still be compassionate to those less fortunate even if they didn't have their religions.

You may like to think that, but it is not supported by the data, unfortunately. Sociological studies indicate that religious people both give more to charity, and donate more time to charitable ventures than other groups.

Note that those in the religious groups are self-selected (as are those who chose not to be part of a religious group), so there's no way to tell how they would act if their religion wasn't there - the studies can't account for that.

[curiosityandthecat]

If you are starving, does it really matter if the person running the soup kitchen thinks that they are scoring brownie points with Jesus? Or do they need to be doing it out of the goodness of their heart? Does it really matter to you which the case is? Isn't what is important actually the fact that you are getting soup? Do you really struggle with the metaphysics in such a situation?

Saying that you find their justification less than virtuous in no way removes the beneficial outcome of their actions, so is a moot point.

Never said the actions weren't useful. The topic of the thread is the motivation behind it, not the result.

[Hitsumei]

Never said the actions weren't useful. The topic of the thread is the motivation behind it, not the result.

Dunno, "for good" sounds like a result to me.

[Hitsumei]

Note that those in the religious groups are self-selected (as are those who chose not to be part of a religious group), so there's no way to tell how they would act if their religion wasn't there - the studies can't account for that.

Most religious people didn't convert, they were raised within their religion, so it was hardly a choice. Though, even if they were, a huge number of them claim their religion to be their motivation, simply denying their word, and sociological studies that align with it because you don't like what it implies seems rather unreasonable to me.

Are you suggesting that a natural tendency of people that become irreligious is greater apathy towards people?

[Lilbeth]

Well, if religion is the only reason some people will do any good for others, then let them have their religion....Someone asked me that once...."If you don't believe in god, then why stay good?" Hmmmmm....I just replied..."because I am a good person."

[BadPoison]

Maybe the reason the data (which I haven't seen, but we'll assume it's true for what I'm about to say) shows religious people being more charitable than non-religious is because the people who are religious are in more need of getting behind an ideal. Religion just happens to be the most readily available "righteous" ideal for most people - so they choose to align themselves with it. If say, humanism was more mainstream and the various religions were not, how do you know that the same group of people that identify with religion in our reality wouldn't identify with humanism in another?

The data doesn't explain religion as the reason they're more charitable. It only shows the correlation.
You stated that the people themselves stated their religion as their motivation. We don't know what environmental stimuli caused them to choose their religion in the first place. So my hypothesis is still valid: If the landscape of 'ideas' were different it is possible many of the same people who are religious altruists would be aligned with whichever altruistic idea was more readily available to them.


EDIT:
This model doesn't account for those that behave charitable but are not themselves charitable. Another words, those that are doing charity out of fear of a hell wouldn't likely be charitable if they didn't have their religion.
However, I think that assuming that but only a small minority of religious people are only 'good' because of their fear of hell would be ignorant. I find it more likely that those that were being 'good' only out of fear would probably just find a version/doctrine of their religion that allows more leniancy ("Once baptised, always saved" or "By the grace of jesus alone are we saved, not by our works." ect)