but few churches spend more than a third of their donations on actual charity, and of the remainder most don't spend more than a quarter.
That may be true but it's not a reflection of the generosity of a religious vs. a non-religious person. Many charitable organizations run into high overhead and administrative costs as well - 20 worst charities in america.. This author makes some valid arguments regarding why he never donates to (major) charities.
Funny, most religious people think of themselves as belonging to a religion from the time they were born.
I've never heard of that but I don't really talk about religion to anyone so I wouldn't know. However, that seems quite impossible from my perspective as a person can't believe what they don't know. Isn't that what baptism is for in the Christian faith, a declaration that they are a believer (and yes, I understand in Catholicism there is infant baptism, but there are many other denominations where that is not practiced). Another issue I have with studies like these are that many people would identify themselves as say a Christian but have never even read the Bible completely or attend a church service regularly. Can such a person truly profess to be a Christian?
That may be true but it's not a reflection of the generosity of a religious vs. a non-religious person. Many charitable organizations run into high overhead and administrative costs as well - 20 worst charities in america.. This author makes some valid arguments regarding why he never donates to (major) charities.
It's a reflection of the way religious people feel good about themselves for being charitable to their local church without actually donating to charity. Is it then any wonder that their children would learn to be equally ungracious? And yes, there are secular charities that are very, very bad. We also acknowledge them as bad charities. We don't laud them for their charitable efforts.
I've never heard of that but I don't really talk about religion to anyone so I wouldn't know. However, that seems quite impossible from my perspective as a person can't believe what they don't know. Isn't that what baptism is for in the Christian faith, a declaration that they are a believer (and yes, I understand in Catholicism there is infant baptism, but there are many other denominations where that is not practiced). Another issue I have with studies like these are that many people would identify themselves as say a Christian but have never even read the Bible completely or attend a church service regularly. Can such a person truly profess to be a Christian?
Christians frequently claim that Christianity is not a religion. Bill O'Reilly famously claimed that not only is Christianity not a religion, it's a philosophy. Now, these people may not be your kind of Christian but neither you nor I have sufficient authority to declare when someone is or isn't a Christian when they claim they are. Anthony Flew coined a famous fallacy to describe that kind of argument.
Anthony Flew coined a famous fallacy to describe that kind of argument....It's a reflection of the way religious people feel good about themselves for being charitable to their local church without actually donating to charity.
Isn't what you did right there an example of that fallacy; by defining religious giving as not charity when they clearly believe their donations are doing good, however they define 'good'. Whether you believe religious giving is charitable or not does not negate the fact that a person has chosen to give up a share of their economic resource. =P; haha, jk, hope it doesn't come off that I'm arguing with you or anything.
But in general I agree with you, people whether religious or not need to be more proactive in understanding where their money is really going.
Many religions, including Christianity, make religious donations an obligatory part of membership which is frequently non-negotiable. When your charitable giving primarily consists of donations to your church you're teaching your kids that the only people who deserve your charity are those who identify with your group. Now, I may be guilty of a No True Scotsman fallacy here but that doesn't strike me as being charitable at all, especially when you examine how the majority of churches use those funds.
We definitely agree, everyone needs to be mindful of their charitable giving and take the time to research the organization they're donating to. However, the core premise of the study is still valid when you examine charitable and empathetic behavior demonstrated by children of religious parents versus secular parents. Whatever religious parents think they're teaching their children, it's clearly not as generous as they think it is.
That may be true but it's not a reflection of the generosity of a religious vs. a non-religious person. Many charitable organizations run into high overhead and administrative costs as well - 20 worst charities in america.. This author makes some valid arguments regarding why he never donates to (major) charities.
I've never heard of that but I don't really talk about religion to anyone so I wouldn't know. However, that seems quite impossible from my perspective as a person can't believe what they don't know. Isn't that what baptism is for in the Christian faith, a declaration that they are a believer (and yes, I understand in Catholicism there is infant baptism, but there are many other denominations where that is not practiced). Another issue I have with studies like these are that many people would identify themselves as say a Christian but have never even read the Bible completely or attend a church service regularly. Can such a person truly profess to be a Christian?
It's a reflection of the way religious people feel good about themselves for being charitable to their local church without actually donating to charity. Is it then any wonder that their children would learn to be equally ungracious? And yes, there are secular charities that are very, very bad. We also acknowledge them as bad charities. We don't laud them for their charitable efforts.
Christians frequently claim that Christianity is not a religion. Bill O'Reilly famously claimed that not only is Christianity not a religion, it's a philosophy. Now, these people may not be your kind of Christian but neither you nor I have sufficient authority to declare when someone is or isn't a Christian when they claim they are. Anthony Flew coined a famous fallacy to describe that kind of argument.
Isn't what you did right there an example of that fallacy; by defining religious giving as not charity when they clearly believe their donations are doing good, however they define 'good'. Whether you believe religious giving is charitable or not does not negate the fact that a person has chosen to give up a share of their economic resource. =P; haha, jk, hope it doesn't come off that I'm arguing with you or anything.
But in general I agree with you, people whether religious or not need to be more proactive in understanding where their money is really going.
Many religions, including Christianity, make religious donations an obligatory part of membership which is frequently non-negotiable. When your charitable giving primarily consists of donations to your church you're teaching your kids that the only people who deserve your charity are those who identify with your group. Now, I may be guilty of a No True Scotsman fallacy here but that doesn't strike me as being charitable at all, especially when you examine how the majority of churches use those funds.
We definitely agree, everyone needs to be mindful of their charitable giving and take the time to research the organization they're donating to. However, the core premise of the study is still valid when you examine charitable and empathetic behavior demonstrated by children of religious parents versus secular parents. Whatever religious parents think they're teaching their children, it's clearly not as generous as they think it is.