Well, Christianity, according to many traditional interpretations, involves an omniscient, omnipotent Observer who keeps tally of such good Samaritan-esque acts and provides a reward in a paradisaical life after death. This same Observer might also deny you entry into said paradise if you show a consistent disregard for the welfare of others.

Seems to me this is a pretty rational reason why Christians, among others with similar metaphysical beliefs about the universe, might be more likely to help.

Comment author: Jiro comment score below threshold [+] (33 children)

Comment author: Lamp2 07 April 2016 07:13:50AM 1 point [-]

And it still borders on bigotry

Ok, define "bigotry", also explain why "bigotry" as you just defined it is a bad thing.

Original thread here.

Comment deleted 01 April 2016 02:06:14AM [-]

Comment author: Good_Burning_Plastic 01 April 2016 08:02:02PM -1 points [-]

Your usernames are getting lamer and lamer, Eugene.

Comment author: Jiro 01 April 2016 05:36:49AM -1 points [-]

Ok, define "bigotry",

Negative beliefs about a group of people based on weak evidence, and actions that derive from such beliefs, particularly when the group is defined by a characteristic that is difficult or impossible to change.

also explain why "bigotry" as you just defined it is a bad thing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claims that are similar to ones that have been proven false in the past and have led to lots of human misery count as extraordinary for these purposes.

Comment author: Lamp2 07 April 2016 07:10:12AM 1 point [-]

Negative beliefs about a group of people based on weak evidence,

And then you use this as an excuse to ignore any negative evidence.

Comment author: Brillyant 31 March 2016 02:59:53PM 0 points [-]

It's bigotry?

Comment author: Lumifer 31 March 2016 03:10:15PM 0 points [-]

It's specifically a bias against non-Christians.

Comment author: Brillyant 31 March 2016 03:23:20PM 0 points [-]

No.

There is a perfectly rational reason why a Christian might be more inclined than a non-Christian to help a stranger if that Christian believes they will be rewarded for their actions.

There is a clear incentive in their mind.

The Christian who acts only in order to receive the reward ceases to act altruistically. In this sense, they are no "better" than a non-Christian who doesn't help.

But to a sincere believer in a certain interpretation of Christianity, the future heavenly rewards attached to good deeds like helping strangers are just as real and motivating as immediate cash rewards. There is no good reason to suspect this wouldn't motivate them to do more good deeds than a non-believer. It's just simple economics.

Comment author: Lumifer 31 March 2016 03:34:27PM * 1 point [-]

No.

Heh. I think you just proposed an argument why spherical cows in vacuum who are "sincere believer[s] in a certain interpretation" will give more milk than other not-that spherical cows.

However as a matter of empirical reality, are you willing to assert that a bleeding person standing over a broken bike by the side of road will have more random strangers stop to help him in, say, Honduras than in, say, Japan? And that difference will be pronounced and noticeable?

Let me offer some useful terms. One is "social cohesion". Another is "high-trust society". Yet another is "collectivism". Note how none of them refers to religious beliefs or to rewards in the afterlife.

Comment author: Brillyant 31 March 2016 04:13:02PM 0 points [-]

Imagine two people approach the bloodied biker. Person A sincerely believes they will receive a future $100 cash reward for engaging in an act of kindness on that day. Person B holds no such belief.

If our scenario takes place in a collectivist, high-trust society with strong social cohesion, which person do you believe is more likely to act to help the bloodied biker? A or B? Why?

Comment author: Lumifer 31 March 2016 04:19:38PM * 0 points [-]

If our scenario takes place in a collectivist, high-trust society with strong social cohesion, which person do you believe is more likely to act to help the bloodied biker?

I believe both will help and the $100 will make no difference. Homo economicus is a fictional creature.

More to the point, if bloody biker X stands by the side of the road in a Christian but low-trust low-cohesion country, and bloody biker Y stands by the side of the road in a heathen high-trust high-cohesion country, I think Y's chances are better than X's.

Comment author: Brillyant 31 March 2016 04:32:04PM 0 points [-]

Homo economicus is a fictional creature.

It doesn't follow that humans don't ever act based on incentives. What if the $100 was $1,000? Or $1,000,000? The amount is arbitrary. In reality, Christians of a certain ilk believe the rewards they can reap in heaven dwarf any conceivable monetary amount. (Like 3^^^3 times better than $1,000,000...)

More to the point, if bloody biker X stands by the side of the road in a Christian but low-trust low-cohesion country, and bloody biker Y stands by the side of the road in a heathen high-trust high-cohesion country, I think Y's chances are better than X's.

In other words, if you place two spherical cows in vastly different scenarios with remarkably different variables, then you can produce an outcome that supports your argument. Fascinating.

continue this thread »

Brillyant comments on "3 Reasons It’s Irrational to Demand ‘Rationalism’ in Social Justice Activism" - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (247)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (247)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login