![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/05\/DonateLove.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog,\u00a0A Tippling Philosopher<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0His\u00a0\u201cAbout\u201d page<\/a>\u00a0states: \u201cPearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn\u00a0his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n This is my sixth piece on Doubting Thomas and the issue of a supposedly \u201cunfair\u201d God, in response to Jonathan. I\u2019ll be replying in the near future to additional papers of his on the same general topic. See the previous installments:<\/p>\n Pearce\u2019s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an \u201cUnfair\u201d God<\/a>\u00a0[3-17-21]<\/span><\/p>\n Pearce\u2019s Potshots #18: Doubting Thomas & Evidence<\/a>\u00a0[3-18-21]<\/span><\/p>\n Pearce\u2019s Potshots #19: Doubting Thomas & a \u201cMean God\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[3-19-21]<\/span><\/p>\n Pearce\u2019s Potshots #20: Unfair Meanie God & Unfree Will<\/a>\u00a0[5-7-21]<\/span><\/p>\n Pearce\u2019s Potshots #21: Sufficient Evidence for Theism<\/a> [5-8-21]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to Jonathan\u2019s article, \u201cGod\u2019s Mercy REQUIRES God\u2019s Unfairness\u201d<\/a> (5-5-21). He was primarily responding to someone else. I don\u2019t want to interfere with that person\u2019s dialogue and he can defend his own views. But I\u2019d like to concentrate on one thing Jonathan wrote:<\/p>\n This gets onto\u00a0the argument that looks at whether Christians are, by point of fact of believing in God, better people on balance than non-Christians. If there is no difference between humans on account of their beliefs insofar as their moral character and actions, then belief in God is irrelevant to evaluating the moral worth of any given human. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n If earthly belief in God\u00a0does<\/em>, on balance, make humans better, then an uneven distribution of evidence for belief in God does indeed have a direct impact on earthly value of human life,\u00a0since belief (on balance)\u00a0makes you a better human.\u00a0Therefore, uneven distribution of evidence for the existence of God has a direct implication on the earthly value of human life. It\u2019s not just about heaven and hell.<\/span><\/p>\n Jonathan\u2019s \u201cdirection\u201d in making these remarks is to somehow indict God for unfairness. He has adopted incorrect premises all through that discussion, as I and others have shown again and again. My interest here is in showing sociological evidence that being more religious does in fact<\/em> make us \u201ca better human.\u201d<\/span> The only relatively objective way to determine that is through social science and the methodology of the controlled poll.<\/p>\n I found a related article from a site called Philanthropy Roundtable<\/em>, entitled, \u201cLess God, Less Giving?: Religion and generosity feed each other in fascinating ways\u201d<\/a> (Karl Zinsmeister, Winter 2019). I shall cite it at length (because there is so much great and relevant information in this article):<\/p>\n When researchers document how people spend their hours and their money, religious Americans look very different from others. Pew Research Center investigators examined the behavior of a large sample of the public across a typical seven-day period. They found that among Americans who attend services weekly and pray daily, 45 percent had done volunteer work during the previous week. Among all other Americans, only 27 percent had volunteered somewhere. (See graph 7<\/em>)<\/p>\n The capacity of religion to motivate pro-social behavior goes way beyond volunteering. Religious people are more involved in community groups. They have stronger links with their neighbors. They are more engaged with their own families. Pew has found that among Americans who attend worship weekly and pray daily, about half gather with extended family members at least once a month. For the rest of our population, it\u2019s 30 percent. (See graph 8<\/em>)<\/p>\n Of all the \u201cassociational\u201d activity that takes place in the U.S., almost half is church-related, according to Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam. \u201cAs a whole,\u201d notes Tim Keller,\u00a0 \u201csecularism is not good for society.\u201d Secularism \u201cmakes people very fragmented\u2014they might talk about community, but they aren\u2019t sacrificing their own personal goals for community, as religion requires you to do.\u201d<\/p>\n Religious practice links us in webs of mutual knowledge, responsibility, and support like no other influence. Seven out of ten weekly church attenders told Pew they consider \u201cwork to help the needy\u201d an \u201cessential part\u201d of their faith. Most of them put their money and time where their mouth is: 65 percent of weekly church attenders were found to have donated either volunteer hours or money or goods to the poor within the previous week. (See graph 9<\/em>)<\/p>\n Philanthropic studies show that people with a religious affiliation give away several times as much every year as other Americans. Research by the Lilly School at Indiana University found Americans with any religious affiliation made average annual charitable donations of $1,590, versus $695 for those with no religious affiliation. Another report using data from the Panel Study for Income Dynamics juxtaposed Americans who do not attend religious services with those who attend worship at least twice a month, and made fine-tunings to compare demographic apples to apples. The results: $2,935 of annual charitable giving for the church attenders, versus $704 for the non-attenders. (See graph 10<\/em>) In addition to giving larger amounts, the religious give more often\u2014making gifts about half again as frequently.<\/p>\n In study after study, religious practice is the behavioral variable with the strongest and most consistent association with generous giving. And people with religious motivations don\u2019t give just to faith-based causes\u2014they are also much likelier to give to secular causes than the nonreligious. Two thirds of people who worship at least twice a month give to secular causes, compared to less than half of non-attenders, and the average secular gift by a church attender is 20 percent bigger. (See graph 11<\/em>) . . .<\/p>\n America\u2019s tradition of voluntary charitable giving is one of the clearest markers of U.S. exceptionalism. As a fraction of our income, we donate over two and a half times as much as Britons do, more than eight times as much as the Germans, and at 12 times the rate of the Japanese. . . .<\/p>\n Other research shows that of America\u2019s top 50 charities, 40 percent are faith-based.<\/p>\n An even more inclusive 2016 study by Georgetown University economist Brian Grim calculated the economic value of all U.S. religious activity. Its midrange estimate was that religion annually contributes $1.2 trillion of socioeconomic value to the U.S. economy. This estimate includes not only the fair market value of activity connected to churches (like $91 billion of religious schooling and daycare), and by non-church religious institutions (faith-based charities, hospitals, and colleges), but also activity by faith-related commercial organizations. That $1.2 trillion is more than the combined revenue of America\u2019s ten biggest tech giants. It is bigger than the total economy of all but 14 entire nations. . . .<\/p>\n [M]embers of U.S. churches and synagogues send four and a half\u00a0times<\/em>\u00a0as much money overseas to needy people every year as the Gates Foundation does! . . .<\/p>\n Over the last couple decades, soaring interest in the poorest of the poor by evangelical Christians in particular has made overseas giving the fastest growing corner of American charity. One result: U.S. voluntary giving to the overseas poor now totals $44 billion annually\u2014far more than the $33 billion of official aid distributed by the U.S. government.<\/p>\n There are many other types of charity and social healing where religious givers are dominant influences.<\/p>\n It isn\u2019t just a matter of serving and healing others. People of faith also behave differently themselves. There is lots of evidence that in addition to encouraging a \u201cbrother\u2019s keeper\u201d attitude that manifests itself in philanthropy and volunteering, religious participation also inculcates healthy habits that help individuals resist destructive personal behavior themselves.<\/p>\n A classic study by Harvard economist James Freeman found that black males living in inner-city poverty tracts were far less likely to engage in crime and drug use if they attended church. Church attendance was also associated with better academic performance and more success in holding jobs. Follow-up studies found that regular church attendance could even help counterbalance threats to child success like parental absence, low school quality, local drug traffic, and crime in the neighborhood.<\/p>\n Regular religious participation is correlated with many positive social outcomes: less poverty, fewer divorces and more marital happiness, fewer births out of wedlock, less suicide, reduced binge-drinking, less depression, better relationships. This is true among Americans of all demographic backgrounds.<\/p>\n Given all the evidence linking religious practice with both healthy individual behavior and generosity toward others, recent patterns of religious decline are concerning. . . .<\/p>\n It\u2019s clear that America\u2019s unusual religiosity and extraordinary generosity are closely linked. As faith spirals downward, voluntary giving is very likely to follow.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The link is clear, and sociology (my major in college) confirms it. It\u2019s not just Christians saying we are better than others (circular argumentation). And to the extent we are better, in the Christian view it is all<\/em><\/strong> ultimately God<\/em>\u2018s<\/em><\/strong> doing. God\u2019s grace and enabling power transform our lives and make us capable of doing good and righteous and loving, charitable things. We merely cooperate<\/em> with that grace. This is the teaching of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and historic Protestantism alike: human beings (including atheists) can literally do no good thing without the enabling power of God\u2019s grace.<\/p>\n But the above information from social science clearly shows that if we want a better society, we will encourage<\/em> religion, not discourage<\/em> it. If we want a less caring, more heartless, less charitable, less other-directed society, we will encourage atheism and neglect of church attendance. That\u2019s not my subjective, biased opinion as a Christian; it\u2019s the objective data of sociology. Of course, I would have predicted<\/em> precisely this, and the secular science backs up what Christianity has said all along: that God (i.e., when we actually cooperate<\/em> with Him and let Him be the primary purpose of our lives) produces better, more loving and caring human beings on the whole.<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Seidensticker Folly #1: Atheist vs. Christian Generosity<\/a>\u00a0[8-12-18]<\/p>\n Christian Sexual Views and Support from Sociology (Discussions About Christian Sexual Morality and Marriage with Atheists)<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>[12-8-06] Social Science: Religion Leads to Lower Suicide Rates<\/a>\u00a0[6-9-18]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n\n
\n*
\nSociology: Devout Married Christians Have Best Sex<\/a>\u00a0[2-29-20]
\n*
\nSociology: Absence of Mother or Father Harms Children\u00a0<\/a>[6-23-16]<\/p>\n