dangin

Layman, when I criticize you and your discussions of Rome, it is because you are making an argument that is impossible to make, you do not have enough sources, and I posit, enough sources do not exist, for you to make your argument about Rome. By your standard of historical proof, I can say that the onset of christianity is what lead to the fall of the Empire. The empire fell after it became christian. Truly it was over extension of said empire, and building an army of uninvested conscripts instead of an army of citizens with an investment to protect. But, as I said, as good a job as the Roman historians did, there is a thimble full of first hand information to cover hundreds of years of history.


And so your argument, which has shifted now, is only about pre christian rome, and post christian rome. What about the "West", don't forget the West. But in your last post the west is missing. Shrinking the size of what you have to defend I guess. Anyway, once again, enough evidence does not exist, contrary evidence does exist, and Roman era Christianity, and modern christianity resemble each other in name only, they don't even have common scripture to share, unless you count traslated text as identical in each language. Which is a hard thing to do and maintain scholastic integrity.

And if you are not arguing that christianty is responsible for charity, what are you doing. You cede that charity can come from other sources, so what is your point. That christianity informed a charitable shift in roman culture over centuries and that has affected the western culture of today? Once again, you don't have the evidence to make that argument, at least not without showing an extensive bibliography, and posting a thesis of no less than an estimated 50 pages with footnotes. Also, as has been pointed out. The west is charitable, but it is also rich. Angola is 90 percent catholic, but very poor. Are thay charitable, no, they don't have two cents to rub together, when they aren't dodging bullets. But they are mostly christian, so according to you they should be charitable. But they aren't rich, so which is it, rich or christian that makes charity?

And it IS logically counter productive to feed starving people in overpopulated areas(arguably the whole world). Because the answer to starvation is never the creation of more people. The animal kingdom model of supply and demand within a food chain exists for humans too. No matter how much the ill thought out christian "charities" think it does not. Christian charities that feed the starving who have no hope of feeding themselves, and deny reproductive control at the same time are sadism of the worst sort.

Christianity, thy name is sorrow.

Layman

Such a simplistic argument as yours would be properly rejected on the basis of timing alone. But I've done much more than demonstrating timing, I've demonstrated the Christian emphasis on Charity and the Pagans' rejection of it as a virtue. I've shown how Christian's were acting pursuant to the charitable creed befor reaching dominance, and that when they became dominant they enacted legislation and policies pursuant to what they had been practicing all along. But what's more, I've relied on several scholars from different perspectives expressing the same thing. Perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary?

Not that I've seen.

There is sufficient evidence to support my argument. You have no evidence to the contrary.

The argument has not "shifted." Nor is it only limited to Rome. In discussing the Roman shift I was comparing the clearest example of before and after. And by discussing ongoing Christian charitable activities I've demonstrated the endurance of the new ideal. What I never claimed, was that Christianity was the only possible way a society could begin to value charity.

You can say it over and over again, but I've provided plenty of evidence, which you have yet to rebut. Moreover, I have provided you with several leading scholars' assesment of the evidence, and they have all found sufficient reason to believe the argument fairly made, if not conclusively demonstrated. In response, you plead ignorance.

Wow. I can't prove anything without 50 pages with footnoes? Is that in the SecWeb's guidelines?

You are being completely arbitrary.

What evidence do you have that Angola is not charitable?

No. I think it's compassionate to feed those in need. Most Christian charities don't deny people reproductive control. I've been involved in various charities and have never known one to deny someone assistance on this basis.

Funny, I produce an lengthy post with many cites--to leading scholars and primary evidence--and you say I haven't, indeed can't, prove my point. But you get to conclude that there is no Charity in Angola and that Christian Charity causes more propblems than it solves, all with no evidence whatsoever.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dangin:
Layman, when I criticize you and your discussions of Rome, it is because you are making an argument that is impossible to make, you do not have enough sources, and I posit, enough sources do not exist, for you to make your argument about Rome.

<a href="http://www.vuw.ac.nz/classics/clas207bibl.html" target="_blank">http://www.vuw.ac.nz/classics/clas207bibl.html</a>
is a list of selected sources on Roman history. There are thousands of books on Rome, making use of hundreds of ancient texts, as well as millions of Roman artifacts. There are more than enough sources to make judgements about the charitable impulse in Roman society.

If you want to refute Layman's claims in their own terms, instead of simply denying that he has a case, I suggest you research the Roman term <a href="http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/depts/sml/airaanz/conferce/wgtn1998/PDF/jerrard.pdf" target="_blank">"collegia"</a>. The Collegia carried out a number of roles, including charitable activities, insurance, old-age and disease payments, and many other socially beneficial behaviors. Their exact role is hotly debated, however. Ironically, to escape bans on secret societies, synagogues were classified as collegia.

Michael

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Sauron

The problem with just quoting dollar figures on charitable giving is that it is vastly more complex than Layman portrays here.

[1]
The dollar figure donations mentioned are artificially limited to certain kinds of charities - the Sierra Club is not mentioned, for example. When those are factored in, it's unclear which country/religion would be the largest donor. It's also unclear whether or not the so-called christian charities would still be the largest, or even if the social services subset would still be the largest. It might be; but the argument is incomplete without examining this.

[2]
The dollar figures are presented in absolute terms, as opposed to being:
* percentage of GNP;
* per capita donations;
* percentage of household income;
* etc.

This makes cross-country comparisons very hard, since absolute numbers would tend to favor wealthy countries. But tallying up total charitable giving in absolute terms is not the same thing as proving that a broad social ethic of charity exists as a result of christianity.

[4]
Indeed, even comparing two such countries is hard and getting an apples-to-apples comparison requires handling the data carefully.

<a href="http://www.ccp.ca/information/research/facts_figures/rb102.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ccp.ca/information/research/facts_figures/rb102.htm</a>

• 88% of individual Canadians made donations, either financial or in-kind, to charitable and nonprofit organizations in 1997; this compares to 70% of American households that contributed money or property to charitable organizations in 1998.
  
  About half (52%) the dollar value of all financial donations made by Canadians went to religious organizations in 1997 compared to 60% of the value of money and property contributed formally by American households in 1998.
  
  Canadians direct relatively more of their support to health and social service organizations, accounting for 28% of the value of all financial donations in 1997 compared to 16% of the value of money and property formally contributed by Americans in 1998.

For reasons of geographic, cultural and historic similarity, Canadians often compare themselves with their neighbours to the south. The extent to which Canadians and Americans donate to charitable organizations is no exception. Are Canadians more or less generous than Americans in this regard? There is no simple answer to this seemingly straightforward question since, in both countries, charitable giving is a complex social behaviour influenced by socioeconomic factors (e.g., education) and public policy (e.g., taxation).

So when figures such as Layman presents are given here, they don't take into account such things as tax breaks. That makes it hard to argue that such acts were charity, vs. simply taking a tax write-off. And unless taxation policies are somehow factored into the figures for the comparison countries, the results will be skewed.

[3]
Many of the charities mentioned in Layman's post have only tangential connections to christianity. While they may have started out as christian relief organizations, their current status is more relevant to the conversation. To argue that they are still counted as christian merely because of their origin is specious; astronomy started out as astrology, but that does not mean that astronomy is currently composed of superstition. I doubt if the average private donor is giving to such charities because of such an origin. When people gave money in droves to the Red Cross after Sept 11, did they do so because it was a christian organization? No. It is far more likely that it was done because the Red Cross is the most visible and well-known disaster aid charity. In fact, it was only recently that a lot of people were shocked to find out that the Salvation Army was actually petitioning the White House to allow it to deny employment to gays and lesbians. Prior to that, most people did not even associate the Salvation Army with being an evangelical church with a position on homosexuality. To most people, the S.A. folks were simply the christmas bellringers that did lots of good charitable work. So as for The Pew Charitable Trust, the United Way, the Red Cross, etc. -- to put such charities into the "christian" column, when vast numbers of individual donors are unaware or indifferent to the charity's tenuous and distant connection to christianity, is disingenuous.

[4]
Statistics from various sources demonstrate no correlation between "degree of Christianity" and amount of charitable giving.

For example, this link discusses social aid to people and children in disasters and in the general Third World:
<a href="http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue148/facts.htm" target="_blank">http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue148/facts.htm</a>

It discusses social aid and leaves out other categories (such as environmental charities), which makes it a more useful comparison to what Layman is trying to show. Anyhow, the link indicates that the highest per capita contribution of voluntary (not state supported) aid comes The Netherlands, one of the most liberal and (gasp) atheistic countries in Europe. It's still Western, I suppose. But one would think that a highly "churched" country (such as the US) would have a higher donation rate than a liberal country, with nominal church attendance. Instead, a stronger correlation seems to exist between (a)awareness of need, and (b) income, rather than with the degree of christianization.

[5]
And finally, there is the question of whether or not these private religious charities are any better at providing services than their secular counterparts would be. As far as religious groups are concerned (which would be more relevant to the discussion than private groups as a whole, which includes secular private groups), the following two articles suggest that the claim that religious organizations are more efficient than secular alternatives appears to be in the "If-we-say-it-enough-times-everyone-will-believe-it" category:

<a href="http://www.tnr.com/022601/soskis022601.html" target="_blank">http://www.tnr.com/022601/soskis022601.html</a>

<a href="http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/aa021601.htm" target="_blank">http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/aa021601.htm</a>

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

E_muse

It seems sad to me if people can only be motivated to act out of a knowledge that they will benefit in some way out of their actions. Why can't they simply respond out of compassion because of the need in front of them, irrespective of whether their actions will change society or not?

I would seriously question that!

Of course you must include in this acts of selfless sacrifice made during time of war too! Good luck.

I'm sorry, but I just find your arguement silly at this point.

Often people get together and have children because they fall in love. Granted, there are exeptions. How many people can you name who have had children out of an insatiable desire to pass on their genes! When I stood at the aisle with my wife I don't remember thinking much about my genes. Funny that.

You seem to be suggesting that what occurs on the biological level must tell us something about human motivation!

Parents can protect their young by putting the lives of their children before their own survival. This isn't selfish, I would also question whether it comes out of a desire to protect the gene pool!

As for 'as do all animals'?

In certain crisis situations a rabbit will eat its young.

Or the black widow spider who eats her mate afer a bit of hanky panky.

A male lion will kill the young of a lone female in order to replace it with his own offspring. He replaces the existent genetic code with his own.

The latter behaviour ensures survival.

I think if we start justifying human behaviour on the basis of what we see animals doing, we might be on a slippery slope. We wouldn't accept what animals do for ourselves.

Of course the other observation which can be made from this is that, if it is legitimate to compare human and animal societies, then the fact that animals are able to live in stable societies (take the ant for example) demonstrates that the stabilization of society is more linked to instinct than intelligence. Humanistic reasoning shoots itself in the foot as the only legitimate means of building a stable society. Human behaviour should differ little regardless of how it was being rationalized.

Your arguement that 'moral' behaviour can ensure survival is probably true, but so can immoral behaviour - and has done!

Comparing humans to other animals doesn't seem helpful. If I study a cat I won't learn more about humans, I will learn more about cats. If I want to understand human behaviour I will study humans. If I married a single mother I wouldn't kill the child in order to replace it with my own I can assure you - because I'm not a lion!

Being generous can be considered selfish... on the other hand it can be considered unselfish.

Yes, but I'm not doubting that people can 'feel' ill will. What if they rise above their feelings and act kindly despite the actions of the neighbour? How will the neighbour react if they are a category 3 person?

Again, unless they are surrounded by category 1 and 3 people.

What determines the reactions of people here? The way they are treated or whether they are a category 1, 2 or 3 person?

The thing is I do enjoy going out of my way for people, whether they deserve it or not. Often people offer me gifts for what I've done and often I refuse. The only thing I hope is that people can go to bed feeling they've been valued in some way and haven't had to do anything to achieve it.

I'm not always good at this admittedly.

Unless of course your neighbours are 'negatives' or 'neutrals' in which case your behaviour will have no impact on them!

Some people may act kindly regardless of how you've treated them. This is too simplistic to my thinking.

Positive behaviour doesn't mean that people will like you. They might resent you or be jealous of you because you're so succesful, they may ignore you, especially if they fall into the category of 1 and 2.

It's not too self evident to me...

I do a lot of voluntary work and don't earn a great deal. For the past 6 months someone has anonymously been giving my family £165 every month. We can't thank them because we don't know who they are. I also don't think that I've done anything to deserve it and I certainly haven't asked for such gifts.

A society informed by society?

People obtain their values from observing society and society is the product of people living out their values. That sounds a little circular.

And society includes religion! Are you suggesting that the society you describe contains absolutely no theists and there is no religious influence at all!

Secondly, if society is informed by religion (or religious individuals) in practice then your conclusion must be inaccurate because it refuses to take this into account.

Other animals are not humans and they are not the same. Humans do use complex language, their societies do contain religion which means that, in these regards, they're not like other animals at all are they? This means that on this level, human interactions are completely different from those of other animals.

Dogs can lick their own genitalia with their own tongues. I can't do that - because I'm not a dog!

Animals are not religious (for whatever reason) - humans are because they're different.

Other animals don't build computers, discuss philosophy, debate the existence of God...... and so on. Humans do!

How does this 'rule' inform society?

Is it the product of human reasoning or instinct?

For a 'rule' to inform society surely it must first exist in the minds of the members of that society!

I think that a 'free thinker' keeps open the possibility of God's existence. Once he/she rules out God's existence thought is no longer free.

All you've said above is that both 'free thinkers' and theists have presuppositions but the presuppositons of 'free thinkers' are more valid. And of course you are one! That doesn't sound too disimilar to religion. My way of thinking is the only 'right' way.

And of course, the conclusion that reason and logic are the bounds of what can be examined, is itself a conclusion reached through the application of reason and logic. Of course, if you only apply reason and logic you will come to the conclusion that these are the bounds of what can be examined because you've used reason and logic to reach the conclusion!

It seems a tautology to me - it has to be true by definition. If you insist on only applying reason and logic, you will end up concluding, by utilizing these processes, that they are the only means of establishing truth!

Of all people Lewis Carrol said in 1895 that every attempt at rational justification by deduction turns out to be circular, in that the application of the process of deduction presupposes that this process of deduction is itself valid.

And all this, despite the fact that the application of reason and logic yields different results depending upon who is making the observation which is why there are moral objectivists and moral subjectivists! It's why scientists don't always agree.

Many atheists parameters of thought are often shrunk down from the full use of reason. Instead of 'God says...' they will say, 'scientists say..' or 'Did you see on tv?...'. There are atheist whose atheism is as established on authority as any Christian.

The fact that many people 'don't think' as you put it, or simply don't have the academic ability to grapple with the concepts involved, doesn't provide evidence against their belief. That must come from elsewhere.

Remember, the Bible exists (as with other writings) because people claim that they have experienced God, not the other way around.

There is nothing in the Bible which claims that it is exhaustive when considering aspects of right and wrong. In fact I would argue that it points beyond itself.

But fear is used as a means of control within secular society as well as religion isn't it? And it will always inhibit personal freedom somewhere won't it? And consequences for 'bad' behaviour have to be 'invented' or manufactured don't they? And all of this is to ensure that a set of preferred values will be perpetuated isn't it?

Philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend makes the following statement:

His comments are made in light of the lack of belief in a 'universal rationality'.

It is reprehensible if it is a pretense, yes.

But so is creating the pretense that evolution favours one particular set of values and using that as a basis for limiting freedom.

Evolution has produced what you would view as 'moral' people as well as 'immoral' people such as murderers.

Now, from one rational viewpoint, the presence of murderers and psychopaths is a part of nature's process of 'natural selection'. A natural means of population control if you like. Remember that natural selection is a blind process. The world is suffering an overpopulation crisis at some point in the future, if it isn't already. One reason for this could be that we lock our murderers away. One way of dealing with this would be to stop locking up our criminals and allow nature to take its course. It's certainly how it works in the animal kingdom, which you've spoken so much about.

However, the course of nature is interrupted by the so called experts who seek to control nature to their own ends on the basis of their rationalization of it. Murderers are locked away (or put to death) by those who hold to a particular set of values which they see as fundamental.

The conclusion to this is that people are put to death or put in fear of death on the basis of one particular rationalization of the world and in accordance with a particular set of values.

Certain values are kept in place by the use of fear - the fear of death and the fear of punishment.

Just as good as what? If education were that effective why is the threat of punishment so necessary?

Education will never be effective for some people because they have learning disabilities of one nature or another.

Do I take it that you perceive yourself to be among the academic elite that you're going on about? Are you one of the enlightened? This is sounding more religious all the time! Smacks of gnosticism actually.

Are you suggesting here that educated people do not commit murder and do not engage in immoral acts? What you failed to mention is that the educated can act just as immorally!

If education was such an effective tool why do we continue to have the need for punishment. Should we be beyond such barbaric tactics?

Knowledge? Such as the knowledge that all forms of human morality are equally valid outcomes of the evolutionary process and the one which will come to dominate is the one which can excercise control on the others?

But you've already argued that animals are capable of living in an ordered society! And that can hardly be the result of a good education can it!

How did society remain ordered before rationalism came along?

Looks like it isn't rationalism or religion then.

Serves the species as a whole? How does it serve the ones who are being killed (who are a part of the whole)?

Whether we rationalize it or not? So you are saying that rationalism will have no actual effect on the way people behave because it is simply 'the way we are made' and is also independent of intelligence? If the purpose of life is simply gene survival, what is actually going through a person's mind in order for that to happen is of no importance. Doesn't this contradict your statements about the need to enlighten people? What is the purpose in having this discussion with you if nothing you're saying will actually change the way I act?

Again indicating that it is independent of intelligence.

No, this is your rationalization of what has happened which you are now presenting to me as fact.

Hang on, let me see if I've got this right.

You've argued, on the basis of your own rationalisation (for which you provide no supporting evidence) that all humans and all human acts are essentially selfish. Because you see this as true you also apply it to me although you've never met me.

What you're actually arguing is for the 'selfish gene', which is independent of what is going on in the mind however and there appears to be some confusion between the two in your arguements.

On the basis of this, I will be what I am regardless of whether I rationalize it or not, if I've understood you correctly. Because animals are social, I will behave socially as such behaviour appears to be independent of intelligence level.

However, according to you, education is a more effective means of controlling people and will help people behave more socially!

Is this a part of your system of enlightened free thinking?!

I know. It's rather like a political party saying 'vote for us and we will improve education...etc etc.' Proving that the realisation of certain values is dependent on the level of control that you can yield and the possession of power.

Of course, giving some bad examples doesn't refute Christianity's positive influence on society anymore than giving some bad examples of the influences of atheism under communism would refute atheism as a philisophical system.

So you're arguing that those who work to keep charities going shouldn't get paid? Is that right? What happens if the level of work required to keep the charity going is a full time occupation? How are those who run the charity meant to live and not become charity cases themselves?

I know of one non Christian charity which provides rooms for homeless people for up to nine months whilst they get themselves sorted out. This involves 24 hour care, counselling, filling in forms etc. If appropriately trained people weren't paid to fulfill these tasks it wouldn't happen. People couldn't do it for free otherwise they couldn't feed their own families!

I know non Christian Charities where those who run the charity get paid!! I work with them!!

Is this a serious debate or are you just desperate to score points?

At least it attempts to ease the suffering until a better solution can be found doesn't it. At least it gives the more enlightened something to work with. It gives them some people to shoot.

If you feel so strongly, send them some condoms, you can do something about it. Criticising Christianity will achieve nothing. Rationalising something doesn't actually get the job done.

I wonder how their society and the rest of mankind would feel if atheists walked in and started shooting them then?

I think people have more respect for those who try and fall short of the mark.

Anyway, criticising something else because it isn't working doesn't validate your own viewpoint.

Layman

Actually, I'm the one who argued that the issue of modern charitable giving is a complex issue. But, alas, it is not the focus of this post. I didn't make any of the arguments you appear to be attempting to refute: efficiency, Americans vs. Canadians, the significance of "environmental charities." Rather, I was discussing the origins of the Charitable impulse. First, by demonstrating the Christian influence on Roman culture. Then, I mentioned some aspects of modern charitable giving to show that the connection between charitable giving--admittedly targatted to provide assistance to poor and needy humans, rather than, say, dolphins--and Christianity.

That isn't true. Why do you think that?

Do you have any evidence that charities like the Sierra Club come anywhere close to the $1.4 billion in donations the Salvation Army receives? Or the $660 or so million the Red Cross and YMCA provide? And you are wrong, my sources specifically stated that churches/synagouges are the largest contributors of social services other than the government.

But of course the relative size of the Christian charities is not really my point. It's their indisputably large size--whether THE BIGGEST or not--that demonstrates an ongoing link between Christianity and Charity.

Since I didn't make any cross-country comparisons I'm not sure what your point is. But I think that demonostrating that the top three charitable organizations in the United States are explicitly Christian or founded by Christians because of Christianity is very probative of the link between charitable giving and Christianity. Of course, it's possible that as the United States grows more secular the charitable impulse will survive Christianity's loss of influence, but that in no way eliminates the fact that historically, Christianity is largely responsible for the charitable impulse in the first place. Which is why I spent most of my initial post discussing its origins in the Christianization of the Roman Empire.

I can see you know how to use your search engine, but how is any of this relevant? I certainly didn't say that Canadians are misers.

Actually, the very existence of a tax write-off for charitable giving is mostly due to Christian influence, but anyway, this is a rather weak point. In no year did my charitable giving save me more money than it cost me.

But since I didn't compare countries, there are no results to be concerned with skewing.

Actually, the origins of these charities is precisely part of my point, which is the origins of the Charitable impulse in Western Society. That's why I spent most of my post discussing the befores and afters of Christianity in Rome, where the contrast is clear and the origins are. It's entirely possible, even probable, that the more secular that the United States becomes, the charitable impulse which has its origins in Christianity, will surive while Christian influence itself wanes.

[quote]I doubt if the average private donor is giving to such charities because of such an origin. When people gave money in droves to the Red Cross after Sept 11, did they do so because it was a christian organization? No. It is far more likely that it was done because the Red Cross is the most visible and well-known disaster aid charity. [/QOUTE]

Sure, but the reason it exists is because of its Christian origins. And, arguably, the very reason a charitable impuluse exists in this country is largely due to Christian influence on the Roman Empire's non-charitable inclinations.

If you have some evidence that most of the contributors to the Salvation Army were unaware that it was actually a church--in addition to being a social charity--please provide it. But as with the rest of the list, the origins of the Salvation Army are enough to support my point. The fact that it is still an explicitly Christian organization only adds additional support.

Not disingenusous at all, since I never argued that most people were so aware. These organizations are here because of the Christian influence on their founders and funders. As I said above, the diminishment of the Christian rationale behind the Charitable impulse doesn't remove the fact that the origin of the impulse in the first place is due largely to Christian influence.

I'm waiting for any such source. And an "example" that actually supports your assertion.

I don't doubt the generousity of liberals. Nor do I see how their charity is somehow classified as nonChristian per se. The Methodist Church, which is left leaning, certainly retains a strong commitment to charity, which it has been known for since its creation.

Nor have I said that atheists are not charitable. But these atheists were raised in countries that obviously value the charitable impulse which has its origins in the spread of Christianity to dominance in the Roman Empire.

Why is this a question? It's certainly irrelevant to the origins of the charitable impulse. I haven't claimed that religious groups are necessarily "better" at providing such services. But I'll note that your articles are lacking in any empirical study of the issue. The first seems to be at least serious, while the second is one man's opinion of Operation Blessing's tax returns. Hardly probative.

And completely irrelevant.

Sauron

No. You took a clear and unambiguous affirmative position. After declaring that christianity improved the situation of charity in Rome, you extrapolated that to cover the entire West. And then you said that modern charitable giving was rooted in christianity. Here are your words:

So while you may be doing lip-service to the idea that modern charity is hard to measure, you quickly leave behind all that uncertainty when you decide to proclaim the contributions of christianity.

Moving along....


By only citing the situation in Rome? That's hardly a discussion of the charitable impulse. It's a comparison in a single scenario: Rome. We have no idea if Rome was an averagely-generous culture, or whether it was particularly miserly, or something else. For all we know, Rome was especially stingy; christianity's philanthropic influence would do no more than bring Rome's "generosity quotient" (for lack of a better term) into alignment with other ancient societies.

If you really want to demonstrate your case, you'll also pick some other test subjects besides Rome. If christianity really does increase the "generosity quotient", then demonstrate that effect in 3 or 4 different cultures. After all, if there is something special and unique about your faith, then that effect should be universal, and not limited to just Rome.

Moreover, the point of using comparisons between two modern countries (the USA and Canada) was to show how difficult it is to measure generosity, even in a technologically advanced age where record-keeping of such philanthropic activities has reached a fine art. If it is that difficult today in modern times, then your comparison with Rome is on shaky ground.


Yes, you mentioned that modern charitable giving exists. But pointing out that a particular group has roots in christianity is not the same as showing that current levels of donation are being made, with christianity in mind.

And your flippancy with regard to environmental causes is noted. And expected.


I would think that point would be obvious. Because no such organizations are mentioned in your post.

Furthermore, the text is explicit in naming the kinds of charity that are being measured:
Moving along.....

Huh?

I don't need any such evidence. It's your post; and you're the one making the affirmative claim here. I am merely pointing out that your analysis is incomplete without factoring in such donations. Besides the Sierra Club, there are other similar organizations: the March of Dimes. The American Cancer Society. The Leukemia-Lymphoma Society. The Ronald McDonald House. Progressive Animal Welfare Society. By only focusing on a particular subset of charities and ignoring the rest, your analysis is biased and incomplete.

"Indisputably large size" is a relative term. By itself, it is meaningless. It needs to be measured against total income, per capita giving, national GDP, the dollar amount of the need which the charitable organization is trying to meet, etc. Your position is nonsense; it is like saying that the 21st century is the most deadly century in history, because more people are dying now than ever before. While that is true, it is also true that there are more people alive now today than ever before, and average life expectancy is greater than ever before. Absolute numbers by themselves are useless. And absolute dollars do not establish a broad, societal value placed on charity - the kind of change you claim exists today, as a result of christian influence on Rome.

For example, One single individual, such as an Andrew Carnegie or a Bill Gates, can skew the data tremendously. By using absolute numbers to measure charity (as opposed to more granular measurements), you have selected the wrong unit of measurement, and have not proven your case. And by failing to account for other non-social kinds of charity, you are not capturing the entire amount of all charitable giving.

My point, Layman, is to demonstrate that quoting absolute figures on charitable giving, and then proclaiming that christianity lies behind it all, is simplistic and naive. You've left out all context, all sense of scale, and any way to perform a relative measurement. I'm sure that Rome's absolute total charitable giving far exceeded that of ancient Ireland's, if for no other reason than Rome had more people and more wealth. But that would not necessarily prove that Rome was an especially generous society.

Furthermore, you've been trumpeting and crowing that the change in the Roman empire was broad-based, not driven by imperial decree or senatorial fiat. Instead, it was a societal change, enacted in the hearts of men. If that is the case, then, such a change should have permeated through other countries that have fallen under the sway of christianity.

You presented figures for selected kinds of charitable giving in the USA, as proof of this "permeation". Yet you did not demonstrate that charity in the USA (a christian country) is any more prevalent than in other countries.

As I indicated, the fact that some organizations may have started out as christian does not demonstrate that the current donation activity is stemming from that fact. Current donors living in this day and age are (for the most part) either unaware, or only tangentially aware of some tenuous connection between the United Way and christianity.

Second, demonstrating an increase in charity in Rome does not equate to an increase in charity in the West, or in the United States. You mentioned Constantine, made one passing claim about the middle ages, and then jumped immediately to 20th century American charity organizations. Sorry; it doesn't work that way. If you want to prove causal connections, you're going to have to fill in the blanks of the missing centuries.

You condescension is expected, but unwarranted. The point is twofold:

1. your previously stated figures for American charity do not factor in such things as tax breaks or socieconomic factors, and as such are incomplete;

2. if your original premise is correct (that christianity has the effect of increasing a country's "generosity quotient"), then that principle should be true in the present, as well as in the past (where you tried to apply it to Rome). That being the case, why is it that countries that are less "christian" in their society often are more generous than those which are more fundamentalist?

Sources?

And keep in mind that a tax write-off for charitable giving amounts to reducing the net donation. In other words, a selfish motivation that runs contrary to charity.

You'll excuse me if I don't accept your personal experience as substitute for reference work.

You are setting the USA up as a proof of the idea that that, as far as charity goes, Christianity is still heavily involved in it. Yet your proof does not factor in these two elements--both of which undercut your argument, because tax policy that favors charitable giving is an appeal to selfish motivations, and socioeconomic factors (education) are not based in a belief in christianity.


Yes, I know. I saw your post.

You want to show the charitable impulse started in Rome, and then zoom ahead 2000 years in your time machine, and claim that it exists in the USA for the same reason.

But the modern charities of which you mentioned are not rooted in Rome, nor in the christianity of that time. They took root perhaps in christian soil, but have since changed so much that they are hardly recognizable as christian at all.

Here; let me help you out. If you want to separate a truly christian charity, from one that is not, there are two question to ask:

1. what is in the hearts & minds of people who donate to such charities today? Are they aware that they are giving to a christian charity? Or are they simply moved by the plight of a fellow human being, and giving to help someone eat / get medical care / have a roof over their heads?

2. what kind of activities is the charity involved in? Are they an evangelistic association, that helps build churches and also provides medical care? Or are they a disaster relief organization that provides shelter, blankets, and warm meals but never mentions religious issues?

It's even more probable that the USA is generous not because of christianity, but in spite of it. The correlation between income level and charitable giving, remember? In addition, the fierce Scotch-Irish protestant work ethic was contrary to what we know today as charity; it assumed that poverty was the result of indolence.

Again: why it came into existence 80 or 100 years ago is irrelevant. What counts is what is the motivation for people who are giving right now - religion, or just generic compassion?

And as for origins: the reason astronomy exists is because of astrology. The reason chemistry exists is because of alchemy. The reason medicine exists is because of witchcraft. Just because a particular activity begins somewhere, does not mean that it carries that attribute with it forever.

Here's another parallel for you: the individual who started the Boy Scouts, a British fellow named Baden-Powell, was widely reputed to have been a pedophile. However, the modern incarnation of the Boy Scouts is far removed from any such distasteful association. And even though I disagree strongly with their position on admitting gay scoutmasters, it is nevertheless true that the BSA have done great things for a lot of boys, giving them great advantages and adventures in life.

It would be an unfair characterization to say that pedophilia was the root of the Boy Scouts, since they have grown beyond that and done so many other good things. By the same token, the Red Cross, the Pew Charitable Trust, the United Way, etc. are so far removed from any christian roots that continuing to classify them as a christian organization is simply absurd, since they have grown and changed in so many ways since then. Attempts to count them as "christian" nowadays reeks of an attempt to "stack the deck" in favor of christianity.

You remind me of the former Soviet scientists who went out of their way to try and prove that every modern invention, from the radio, to the lightbulb, was actually invented by a socialist.

I'm going off the news reports and the write-ups in TIME and Newsweek, as well as the analysis on NPR. The fact that the Salvation Army wanted to keep those discussions quiet, the interaction with Karl Rowe in the White House, and their initial attempt to deny any such contacts - to prevent a dropoff in donation.

Repetition of your claim is not proof. The question is: do most of the contributors to the Salvation Army realize that they are giving money to an evangelical Protestant church? Or do they think of the Salvation Army as a bunch of angels that run around ringing handbells at Christmas and collect money for the needy?

Then your argument essentially boils down to "since they started out as christian, that means that christianity gets to take credit for whatever they do, even 500 years from now."

That's pathetic, Layman. I guess astrology can claim credit for the Apollo space shots, by the same rationale.

If the christian rationale fades away in the secular society, then what keeps the donations coming? It must be a non-christian motivation. Yet you are afraid to give credit to any such motivation.

I gave you one such example - The Netherlands out-gives the USA, even though the USA is the more "christian" country:

<a href="http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue148/facts.htm" target="_blank">http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue148/facts.htm</a>

In addition, I am not the first person to raise the point that charitable giving is related to income level.

You took the initial affirmative position; you were so convinced of it that you decided to write a long excerpt and post it here. If you truly believe that your premise has merit (i.e., that christianity has increased the "generosity quotient" first of Rome, and then the West in general), then you should have already explored the connection between generosity and income level. This would be a necessary step in de-bugging your own argument, to make sure that it wasn't just the product of religious bias.

Assuming, of course, that protection from bias is a concern of yours. Perhaps I'm wrong, though....


&lt;heh&gt;
I could ask you the same question. You were quick to classify all the philanthropic activity in your report (in the USA) as 'christian' - what prompted you to do that?

But to answer your question: these countries in the comparison (see the URL) are all less well "churched" than the USA. Ceterus parebus, their populations are going to be less influenced by christianity.

Therefore, the less christian countries should exhibit less of the charitable impulse.

Except the data says that it doesn't work that way. Too bad for your argument, eh?


I'm not sure everyone would agree with your characterization of the Methodist church. And the fact that it can retain such a strong commitment (your words) in spite of distancing itself from christianity; well, that seems to indicate that christianity is not an essential element to the social mindset of generosity.

Wow; what a hand-wave that was. Atheists are only charitable because they were fortunate enough to grow up in christianized countries. Which all trace their generosity back to christian dominance in Rome.

How lucky such atheists are.

And again with the time machine. All these modern, 21st century countries have charitable outlooks, because christianty made ancient Rome into a more charitable place. Is that really your argument, and are you really going to try and stretch the proof over a period of 2000 years with no intervening substantiation? You mentioned Constantine, made one passing claim about the middle ages, and then jumped immediately to 20th century American charity organizations.


The question is relevant, because you seem to think that private religious charities are a good thing. That is your position, isn't it?

If so, then these articles would seem to indicate that private charities and public support are about equal in effectiveness. That being the case, individual contributions become irrelevant, and individuals who decide not to be charitable are not acting selfishly, since the state support (via taxation) is equally effective.

And if that is the case, then measurements of charitable giving are again not taking ALL such social spending into account - they're leaving out the state supported component.

It's funny how your condescension can come back to bite you. You may not think this article is "probative".

But it's at least as probative as when you offered your own personal experience on whether or not charitable giving was a good tax write-off for you.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

dangin

I'm sorry Layman, I spent too many years in Historian Seminars, and doing PRIMARY research in archives on the way to my histroy degree to be impressed by your research equivalent of a high school paper. You do cite some primary research, and that is good, but I would say that it is approximately 15% or less of your citations in the original post. You also post scripture, which scholastically counts for naught without supporting evidence. All your secondary citations demonstrate your ability to parrot other people, but gain your argument no true scholastic value. That is why Ph.D. dissertations don't cite the Encyclopedia Brittanica that often, you have to do your own research, in the primary sources.

So that is the source of my discounting your argument. If you want to REVIEW what other historians have said, you can do that with your abundance of secondary sources, but unless you speak and read ancient latin, and greek you are a little short on the standard of proof, other than hearsay.

Then we open the can of worms called the "Dead White Man" syndrome in history. As this syndrome is applied to U.S. history we see that most all that is known, recorded, and studied about US history is about and written by dead white men of power. Thus a "populist" history is lacking, a minority history is lacking, a feminist history is lacking. Thus it is incredibly difficult to objectively say this is the history of america, with the millions of available primary sources we have archived around the world. It is very easy to say, This is objectively what Lincoln said, or did, or thought, it is also easy to say that about Washingon, Jefferson, well all the presidents, major politicians, judges, writers, and so on. Mostly made up of dead white men.

This historical problem grows geometrically when you turn it to face Roman History. Where is your source about the common housewife of Rome and her average behavior? Where are your sources that conclusively document the behavior of the massive slave culture in Rome? Did they help each other, were they charitable to each other? How about the Legioners, the foot soldiers, not the leaders. Did they share water while in the desert, did they share food, did they share blankets? Oh what, do you mean there is no primary sources for these massive portions of Roman cultures. Of course there are not. Thus, your argument is impossible. You cannot take the sources that you have, which account for a sliver of a culture, and make sweeping generalizations. What you can say is that according to these other historians, christian ideals of charity changed the official govermental position on charity. And even that is not safe from being argued or questioned.

Which is why I asked for fifty pages with footnotes. Actually it would take fifty pages just to explain the cultural gaps that you have no ability to know about, because there is no evidence that exists. Mind you, I'm not insulting you, this is a historical impossibility for anyone. Your problem is you think that your meager sources, the meager sources available are ROME. They are faded snapshots of a tiny corner of Rome.

A great example of this is a book (I can't find the title) that was being published by a professor in my history department when I was an undergrad. In a basement in central Illinois, a family was cleaning out after a patriarch's death, and found a handwritten journal. The journal was an ancestor's diary kept when he was a footsoldier in the revolutionary war. It was poorly written, in a hard to read, half illiterate, mode of english, but it provided insights into that war, and that time that were never known before. Does it tell us anything about Washington, King George III, and the creation of this nation. No, but do the histories of Washington, King George III, and the creation of this nation tell us anything about the common man? No. Are you going to say which is more important? If you can claim that, then you need to go on the history lecture circuit and publish immediately, because historians have been fighting this out for going on three decades now.

So, your research is fine, your argument is fine, if you want to prove that the government of Rome changed due to christianity. But there is, there must be, no alternative to the fact that 99.9 percent of Rome will never be known. It is not an obscene level of proof that I demand, it is the fact of history.

Charity is best carried out by the individual. If I give money to your list of christian charities it gets watered down. It pays for organization, payroll, rent, and marketing, and then gets to the one in need. If I, as an individual, give a starving bum in the street a sandwich, 100% of my gift is received. Your history of Rome does not take into account the acts of common people, (which must be the vast majority of acts) because it cannot, and I don't need sources to prove that there are no sources.

Now as to christian charity, I maintain that it is often not charitable, and when it is, it is not the huge conglomerates that perpetrate it. It is the kindness of individuals. And once again there are no stats on that. We can get further into that in another post if you wish to reply.

edited to add: So you may be right, but you can't prove it, I can't prove you are wrong, but that doesn't mean that you aren't. But it is clear that the sources don't exist to make the broad claim you make.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: dangin ]</p>

dangin

turtonm

Great link, but I still deny he has a case. I can't say he is falling to the "dead white man" syndrome because that is american not roman. But he is falling to the "dead literate syndrome" or the "dead politician syndrome". There are a great number of sources on ancient rome, I don't deny it.(even though ancient history was not my focus) But the idea that even that great amount, actually represents the whole of Roman culture, across the whole of the Roman empire's timeline is not valid.

dangin

E-muse. Do you believe in evolution? If you do not, we are wasting time here. But our brains are the product of millions of years of development. Most of which is animal. And evolution is not an erase and rewrite procedure, it is a build upon the past procedure. Thus, all those millions of years of animal behavior, instinct, and savagery remain within us, and within our psyches. The fact that humans can be "nurtured" into "civilized" beings is a tribute to how far our development has come. But it does not change the FACT that we remain seething animals underneath. Even you, with all you denial about what a kind and charitable person you are. That is all taught. If you don't believe me, then get an infant, put it in a blank, empty room, feed it, and do nothing else for 12 years. Then pull that little beastie out, and observe the raw material of which we are made.

The animal instinct within us says look out for number one. No amount of education can overwrite that. It can only shove it down to the point where people like you think it is "sad" or "guilty". Acknowledge the truth about yourself. It does not make you a savage human, it makes you a civilized animal.

And if you think my argument about the human raised in a vacuum is faulty, then send me a private message, and I'll arrange for you to come visit me, and I can introduce you to two. Brothers raised in a chicken coop for several years. By the time they got out they were still trainable, but they have no concepts of any of the "finer" things that you take for granted like charity, generosity, compassion, or even propriety.

You tell me that having children is not selfish, that people do it out of love. Are you aware of the reason love evolved? Love is a chemical process that keeps our savage asses from killing our own children. It makes us want to protect our family units. It evolved because those that experience it, protect their young better, and thus stand a better chance of passing on their genes. Those genes include the capacity to love. Love is a mechanism of succesfull procreation. That does not make it any less important, and it sure helps hallmark sell some cards, but this is exactly what I am talking about with you. You throw out love as an argument without ever considering what purpose love serves and how it evolved. These are the very walls of presuppositional thought that I was describing above.

And it is selfish to give your life to protect your young. Because your purpose is make, and protect your young, hoping that they will do the same thing. This is how we serve the species. Sometimes one's own death serves both that individual, and that individual's species.

Then you talk about perfectly acceptable killings in the animal community, and say we won't accept that among ourselves. Lions killing other male's litters(improves his own offsprings chances), Rabbit eating her own litter(response to biome restrictions, and overpopulation, decreases demands upon mother, increases odds of successful litter at another time) And then you say this is not acceptable among humans.

Well that is a pretty thought, but as I pointed out above, we are animals, these rules apply to us as well. The fact that we have technology, and written language, and we can outpace our carrying capacity does not change the laws that nature has for us. We must stll die off, we must still kill, or nature will do it for us. We will grow, and destroy other species, and biomes, until the planet will no longer support us, and we will face an extinction level event, or a major population regulation. Either way billions will die. This is not a guess, this is the future. Just like how nature regulates the number of hawks in a biome to their prey, thus will we eventually face such a regulation. Small ones happen all the time. As I mentioned above the famine in many third world areas are just such an example, yet those with no foresight consider it "charity" to continue to feed those people.

Comparing humans with other animals is appropriate. It is more appropriate to compare us to social animals, and even more appropriate to compare us to primates. Just as balistic scientists learn about the destructive ability of bullets on humans when they shoot goat carcasses,(which are similar in size and structure to human trunks)so can behavior models and rules be observed among animals that can be applied to humans. It is really foolish to say that there is nothing about humans that can be learned from our lower animal bretheren.

Then we get into the behavior models. Do you deny that a reasonable model of behavior can be made for morality, charity, and volunteering based upon my "selfish" motivations? Sure the christian model exists, is my model any more or less usable? Mine simply comes with nothing but reason as its foundation, and none of the trappings of christianity that are so useless.


You really insist on separating us from the animals don't you. Do you need so much to be special? Yes we have language, yes we have technology, so what. As my human raised in a vacuum proves, we are still animals. Our society is complex and advanced beyond all other species on this planet, but it is still made up of a few billion individuals who were trained(to one degree or another) to be social. Without that level of training, animal instinct would rule the day. But we would again, immediately begin building social groups and start climbing the ladder again. We're just the smartest animals, nothing more.

Nice quote from Paul Feyerabend. But there is a huge difference. It is called the scientific method, or laboratory verifiable results. An unlearned culture makes guesses, a rationalist in an advanced culture has knowledge to stand upon. Let's not get into relativity.


You wrote:"creating the pretense that evolution favours one particular set of values and using that as a basis for limiting freedom."

Evolutionary observation is reprehensible? I said controlling people with fear of damnation and a big daddy in the sky is reprehensible, and you reply that it is reprehensible to "control" people with the facts of science. Whatever.


You said: "Now, from one rational viewpoint, the presence of murderers and psychopaths is a part of nature's process of 'natural selection'. A natural means of population control if you like. Remember that natural selection is a blind process. The world is suffering an overpopulation crisis at some point in the future, if it isn't already. One reason for this could be that we lock our murderers away. One way of dealing with this would be to stop locking up our criminals and allow nature to take its course. It's certainly how it works in the animal kingdom, which you've spoken so much about.

However, the course of nature is interrupted by the so called experts who seek to control nature to their own ends on the basis of their rationalization of it. Murderers are locked away (or put to death) by those who hold to a particular set of values which they see as fundamental.

The conclusion to this is that people are put to death or put in fear of death on the basis of one particular rationalization of the world and in accordance with a particular set of values.

Certain values are kept in place by the use of fear - the fear of death and the fear of punishment."

I think you are missing something here. In the animal kingdom "murder" or killing is done outsides one's own society. Predators kill other species, monkey groups kill members of other monkey groups. Human murderers act within their own group. An ape that starts killing off their own social group(with the exception of the occasional killing of the elderly or the infirm) is going to find himself excluded from the benefit of that social group.

Killing within one's culture-bad, killing outside of one's culture-good. Murder-bad, war-good. Well war may not be good, but it is necessary to thin the herd. Just ask the Palestinians, and Israelites right now.

You said:

"But you've already argued that animals are capable of living in an ordered society! And that can hardly be the result of a good education can it!

How did society remain ordered before rationalism came along?

Looks like it isn't rationalism or religion then."


My very point is the rules of social order are natural. "Don't kill within your society, help protect your society, breed, and help others in your society breed" This equals success for the individual and the society. Knowing this is a way to rationalize our behavior today without the religious mumbo jumbo.

Shit is getting too long and convoluted.

My points.

We are animals, please raise your children in a vacuum and prove me wrong.

Primates are social, we can observe social behaviors in primates, and observe that what is important in their social order is remarkably similar to what is important in our social order. Religion's "morals" include things(porn, masturbation, drug use, homosexuality) that are not important to lower primates, and when compared to our social legislation, low and behold, they are less important to us too. Thus religion is responding and co-opting. If religion was the well spring of social order, all of religion's morals would be so very important to everyone.

We can then say that the most important social behaviors have existed in us as we evolved, and thus existed in us long before we were homo sapiens, and long before we had religon.

We can further demonstate that now that we do have reason, there are several ways to enforce control upon our population. Religion is one. Educating the individual that behaving socially is in one's own best interest is another. The education model leads to educated people behaving or not behaving with full knowledge of why, the religion model leads to forced behavior out of fear of eternal punishment, and other exclusionary bullshit. Neither is perfect, we are human animals after all.

Oh yeah, and charity is part of all that. Whew, got back on topic at the last second. . .