It's all quite fascinating. It's too bad people, in their haste to be political, draw the wrong conclusions. But then, that's what Freakonomics was all about. People love to draw the wrong conclusions, even when the data showing the correct conclusion is eyeball to eyeball with them...
I do think it is very likely the religious people are indeed more charitiable- especially since they have to tithe. But even outside of tithing, for those who believe that deeds, not words, will get them in to heaven, of COURSE they have to get out there and do deeds.
"Now "latria signifies servitude," as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei x, 1). And we are bound to serve not only God, but also our neighbor, according to Gal. 5:13, "By charity of the spirit serve one another." Therefore religion includes a relation to one's neighbor also"
It is funny to see someone unequivocally deny that commandments to charity, and the even more powerful social impetus to charity among one's religious peers (so that one appears "good" in one's social circle), would not make it logical to at least examine the idea that sometimes charity is motivated by things other than pure unselfishness, and at times might be bribery to God, or an attempt to "pay" God for prior wrongs done (which is fine with me. I have no problem with selfish charity- it serves a useful purpose if the charity itself is beneficial). I never thought such an idea, which I remember discussing in both undergraduate and graduate school, would be thought so outre. |
