This is a good point, but there's an awful lot of post-hoc Just World fallacy wrapped up in those same statements of faith. The really spurious ones - like 9/11 or Katrina being divine punishment - get media coverage but there're more bland ones that are actually more harmful; like disease or disaster being all part of God's plan. It's all good for living a life where you have to cope with what you can't directly control, but not so good when it comes to supporting policy that aims to take action on healthcare, climate change, etc. I'm not saying this to support any specific existing policy proposal, just that when/if the "right" one comes it's unlikely to undergo a rational debate.
How does that tie with the statistics showing US citizens - and in particular more religious people - as good donors for charities and disaster victims? Seems contradictory.
It's complicated & kind of orthogonal. I am not trying to paint all religious people with the Pat Robertson-style example that I pointed out as egregious. This isn't an anti-religion post; it's just about the downside of thinking something was destined/planned/ordained just because it happened.
Have you considered that charity and donation campaigns are perhaps more necessary in the US due to lack of social safety nets and governmental disaster relief?
Sure, but if it's the widespread belief in a Just World that prevents those safety nets and governmental disaster relief programs, wouldn't it also lead people to not donate?
While I haven't looked at the statistics, I can easily imagine that's the result of religious communities/institutions having better infrastructure/peer structure in place to motivate donations, at least vs "unorganized unreligious" people which rarely organize on a similar scale.
Pretty much all religious institutions are dependent on regular donations coming in, they are organizations build to motivate people to donate and keep those donations coming.
In that regard, it shouldn't really be that surprising that they end up being overrepresented when they use these "powers" to collect donations for a non-religious cause. Could just as well be interpreted as the temporary redirection of a revenue stream that'd otherwise just go to said religious institutions, in the form of the regular donations of their members.
Depending on the methodology of the statistics this could actually be checked for: Do "more religious" people actually donate "more" during times of non-religious crisis? Or do they merely have a bigger overall "donation budget", which they can use for these times, due to their religious donation obligation?
Sympathy for a disaster and belief about its causes are different things.
If you think a natural disaster is the result of God's plan (and not e.g. climate change), it is perfectly congruent to both contribute to healing in the form of charity, while also being disinterested in climate change regulation.
"post-hoc Just World fallacy wrapped up in those same statements of faith"
Not really.
We have built a progressively more just world - and it gets a little bit more just and civilized every generation that goes by.
It's only possible when most people have some kind of faith, however crude, as the grind away at it. It does not happen by accident - over the long haul, it requires a Will.
It does NOT require any sort of religious will, and I posit that religion will be a steadily larger impediment to further progress if it does not fade.
We have better and more nuanced ways of making the universe more just these days.
If you think that religious fervor is fading, look at all these people fighting for "just cases" of their choosing, from human rights to things like animal welfare. This fervor may be not attached to a belief in a particular deity, or something metaphysical at all. The feeling, and the mechanics, are still the same, to my mind.
" that religion will be a steadily larger impediment to further progress if it does not fade"
Religion, which is the application of Spirituality (however crude) was essential to the development of morality in humanity, and hence civilization. Much of it has been codified and secularized, but the underlying metaphysical value remains the same and nothing has replaced it.
Scientific Materialists, who can't even seem to grasp that Religion and Spirituality aren't just about 'believing in random stuff' and that these issues are grounded in an existential metaphysical premise - are the real problem.
The combustion engine and nuclear energy are parlour tricks.
Morality and humanity ... much harder.
Progress is not actually hindered that much by some odd religious people worrying about 'too much adultery or gay marriage' - it's hindered by Scientific Materialism which presumes a universe ordered by a specific set of equations - a philosophy which taken to it's full extent implies we are merely random bags of noise, in a random Universe ... and therefore denies the very fact of life itself, let alone love, creativity, intelligence, knowledge, wisdom etc.. It underlines even our most obvious existential challenge: Global Warming (i.e. technology too advanced for our collective morality).
Materialism is ultimately an empty, nihilist world view.
I'm not worried because those who hold it, directly or indirectly so lack faith (I mean that loosely), don't see themselves as part of a greater whole, so much so that they're much less willing to reproduce, and form a bizarre 'end of the evolutionary trail' cohort. Those with at least an inkling of faith - even if only in their bones and not their hearts, let alone minds - will form the future, write future history, and shape creation going forward. And most people do have some kind of faith, actually.
There's hope in the fact that I find usually in the most ardent materialists, it's just a matter of ego. The ego is usually the thing standing between an individual an their own recognition of 'that which is greater'. The Buddhists put it in pretty good, nearly secular terms when they refer to 'egolessness', which is a good place to start for anyone interested in getting it.
The ancient world has a lot of similar Promethean-type myths (i.e. Lucifer etc.) - who brought us fire/light ... but it's the 'fire' or 'light' in our hearts and souls that matters, not literally 'fire', which useful, but ultimately, missing the point.
Hints - Colombia motto: "In Thy light shall we see light", Yale motto: "Light and Truth", Dartmouth Motto: "A voice crying out in the wilderness", Cambridge Motto: ""From here, light and sacred draughts" ...
It's a bit of a stretch (or at best a gross over-simplification) to exclusively group the concepts of religion/spirituality with love such that anyone who is not religious/spiritual must only care about "materialism". The rant is far too black & white, or us vs. them for my liking.
Materialism would posit that not only can you not 'feel' love, but there is definitely no such thing as it in the first place.
Tell me were is 'love' among a bunch of completely random particles, bouncing through the Universe?
There isn't.
Ergo, while Materialism is an extremely useful tool for understanding much of the universe around us - we have to remember that this is all it is - a tool. Science is a Framework, not a Truth.
> Religion, which is the application of Spirituality (however crude) was essential to the development of morality in humanity, and hence civilization.
As posited by religious people and writers of religious texts.
As a counterpoint, keep in mind that modern religions are massively syncretic and many of the moral issues were probably absorbed the same way some ancient cells absorbed mitochondria to create modern cells.
Also, that comment about nihilism is just misguided.
I feel as much spirituality in Carl Sagan vision of the stars being part of us and making us part of the universe, making us the universe observing itself, as you can feel with your books and promises of an afterlife.
I am going to die as well, and that fact makes my own life, and the lives of other people, the most sacred thing ever. No gods are needed to determine this fact.
