IF ALTRUISM IS GOOD DOES GOD BELIEF DAMAGE IT?
What is altruism?
Doing good for another without any thought about what is in it for you. You
deliberately exclude any thought for yourself if you find you are expecting to
gain from it. Altruism means that if you do the good deed and it will cost you
your life you will still do it. Though you don't get this dramatic choice much
in your life you are meant to have this disposition.
But you are only asked to die if you have to try to save the lives of
others!
What if we lived in a world where there was no way to be altruistic but by
dying? Say you had to save a stranger from dying by the plague by taking the
plague from him unto yourself? Altruism says we must die for we are here to love
others.
What is egoism?
Doing good for others to fulfil yourself. For example, giving away your
last apple to fulfil the feeling of friendship for another is egoism. It does
not look for anything back other than this fulfilment.
Do you have a choice between altruism and egoism?
No. Egoism is the sane and correct philosophy. The condemnations issued at
the egoist ignore the fact that a person should not be condemned for doing what
they have to do, when there is no choice. Egoists are bullied by the preachers
of altruism.
Can egoism be reconciled with religion?
No for egoism says we need only do good to fulfil ourselves and we should
enjoy working for others instead of studying theology, praying, looking for
miracles and trying to believe in God. Egoism says I must put myself first in a
way that will automatically benefit all those around me. Religion says that
doing good for others is not enough - you need religion too. This is so silly
for even most religionists do good without even thinking of their faith, nearly
all the time. Miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead do
nothing to encourage being a better egoist and so must be dismissed as evil
myths.
What is religious altruism?
The religious Altruist does everything for the sake of God. It is not for
his or her own sake. It is not even for other people and when he or she speaks
of our duty to love one another he or she means love for the sake of God. This
love is really just loving God alone and acting as if you love others. Some
religious Altruists do love for God firstly and people secondly. But that would
be a sin for God alone matters for nothing exists without him inclduing the
people you love. The first brand of religious altruism was endorsed by Jesus
Christ. Both he and Moses said that God must be loved with all our powers or to
the full.
Did philosophers teach altruism that was not necessarily religious?
Yes! Altruism is the bedrock of Kant’s moral philosophy.
Why is religious altruism worse than altruism?
Because you are more sure that people exist than that God does and it
demands that he be put first and yourself and others second or him first and
yourself and others be served only for his sake and for this and other reasons
which we will see later it is crueller. At least altruism on its own tries to
put people you can see and touch first, people whose existence you are more
confident of.
What else is better about humanistic altruism?
It is that it helps a being who cries and suffers and dies while nothing
can harm God.
Does belief in God give an extra endorsement of altruism?
Yes - altruism is evil and there is enough to endorse it without God and
religion making it holy and trying to make out it is what life is all about.
Why does belief in a loving God imply that altruism is true?
Because the alternative is to believe that we always please ourselves and
if we can only do that then suffering is no use but it must have some use if
there is a God. Suffering implies that we are here to be trained and to
sacrifice ourselves in love if there is a God. If God made us, then Altruism is
his law for he would not have made free beings that should be selfish in at
least a healthy way. He should not bother causing them to suffer for they can’t
sacrifice anyway.
What is "back door" altruism?
Some religions condemn altruism and go for backdoor altruism. They rebrand
it after banning it and then sneak it back in. But if they are honest they are
out and out altruists in relation to God when they say he comes first or alone
matters. In practice, this is the same as being altruists with regard to people.
You exercise the disposition of altruism the same as for man as for God. The
only difference is that total altruism is due to God for he supposedly deserves
all our love.
Is it true that without God that altruism becomes an arbitrary thing with
nobody able to prove that there is an obligation to do this or that?
This idea which appears in the Catholic Encyclopaedia discussion of
altruism is false. It presupposes that the altruist can only say that somebody
was wrong to rape her or him or whatever if God says so for when self-sacrifice
is the law a person could have a duty to be willing, though not necessarily
desiring, to be raped. The Church wants to believe that God commands us to seek
our own welfare and happiness instead of having no concern for our own rights
and dignity even to please him. This would forbid the altruistic habit of not
caring about yourself for others. But in fact the Church advocates altruism
towards God for you are to work for yourself and others for his sake and not for
anything else. The reasoning of the Church is that God wants self-sacrifice or
altruism but he directs how it is to be done for he knows best. He sees that the
system he gives will result in the most virtue and moral good. But this cannot
work.
First of all how can we put a God whose existence we can’t be sure of first? If we can manage this then the problem of how we can be sure of his revelation arises for if he makes morality we will never know if he is right or if what we are being told by him is true.
Secondly, altruism seeks the moral good of others though this good is far from pleasant but to love God and love others for his sake is not just to care for their moral good at all but just to care for God. It is worse than any non-religious altruism.
The next problem is that Jesus did tell us to let others steal from us and abuse us and do nothing about it.
The next problem is that there is little agreement on
morality in the Churches.
Does altruism imply that God exists?
Altruism cannot make sense apart from a God of love for it does us no good
and consequently it denies that God really cares about us too. It can only be
right if God deserves altruistic love. But even if God exists there are still
problems for the credibility of altruism. Altruism is not love in a real but
superficial sense.
Can’t you see you are wrong for animals exist and have no ability to be
altruistic and we do not think this disproves God?
But if God exists and is good animals cannot suffer. They only appear to.
Their suffering would have no value or worth so God would be malicious if he
allowed it to happen. It would be the same with us. And especially us for we
know we are conscious beings so if we cannot be altruistic we cannot be the
creations of a good God.
Does the doctrine of God imply extreme sacrifice is a duty?
Yes. Altruism does that too even without him but if God exists he is more
important than men and women and so deserves greater sacrifice. To put it
another way, if to us altruism requires extreme torment, God requires worse. If
God deserves infinite love then the more we suffer to do good the better and the
more we hate it the better for love is sacrifice.
You know that some religion lies that God does not want us to suffer and when we
have to suffer he has to let it happen to us and ask us to bear it with
patience. It is a necessary evil. But it is only a necessary evil if God had to
make us which religion denies. Belief in God is dangerous as you can see from
the fact that nobody should try for a baby when that baby will inherit a
dreadful disability from her on the basis that it will love and she will love it
and suffering will deepen that love. Belief in God logically commands cruelty.
If altruism alone is cruel it has to be crueller if there
is a God and has all the more reason to be cruel then.
Don’t you think that when God enables us to be happy and is happy himself
and became man and enjoyed himself that he would not want us to torment
ourselves?
God could give us pleasure for us to renounce it. God cannot change so he
cannot help the happiness he has so it is no argument for happiness being
lawful. If he became man and enjoyed himself it was a necessary evil to attract
followers.
How does God letting a man be stranded on a desert island for life prove
that altruism is cruel?
The man has nobody to be altruistic with so he must do severe penance even
if it is not needed just for the sake of pleasing God through altruism.
What does altruism and God say about meddling in the lives of others for
their good?
God meddles all the time and tells us what to think. Meddling is a duty if
altruism is true but if God is believed in then it is even more obligatory for
God commands it and wants us to offer him our good deeds. Also, since everything
is God’s business for God made us and gives us all we have and God does not
speak to people, we have to do all the work for him and be God to them. We
cannot do proper good for others without making sure we know what we are doing
and that it is good first. This forces altruists to meddle because others will
disagree with them or at least not be sure. They will say that helping others
who don’t want it is helping them even if they can’t see it and altruism
commands that the best as it sees it be done. It is said that helping them is
more important than respecting what they believe and refusing to help them
because of their belief for that would be at the expense of disrespecting the
help they need. It would be wrong to put their belief before their need for need
is more important. It is said that this is not scary because the altruist can
reject his or her own feelings and desires and look at the problem objectively
and come up with the right and successful solution without the interference of
these feelings and desires. Sometimes it will be best to do nothing. But that
presupposes that altruism makes sense and it does not. From start to finish it
is error and guesswork. Altruists could not possibly be able to agree on what is
best unless they misunderstand their altruism. And especially when making others
altruistic is the main goal for it is hard to tell how this or that will affect
a person’s relation to altruism.
What is the relationship between altruism and free will?
Religion says God gave us free will to choose between ourselves and him or
selfishness or selflessness towards him. If altruism is not possible then free
will cannot be for this reason. It either is freely choosing between different
forms of selfishness or it does not exist. The two, altruism and free will, are
inseparable if there is a God. For the anti-altruist atheist, free will would be
a choice between of one of several egoist options.
Was Jesus an altruist?
Jesus advocated altruism all during his ministry (Luke 6:32-35;14:12-14).
He preached it in the Sermon on the Mount, which the Christian world prefers to
forget for it practices nothing like it. He was alleged to have died for the
spiritual good of others and lived like a beggar. Jesus said nobody can be
perfect as God but he commanded us to try to be as perfect as God - he meant we
must never be happy with how good we are.
Does the Bible advocate altruism and self-sacrifice and frown on pleasure?
The apostle Paul authorised to deliver Jesus' teaching declared that no
matter what you have it is useless when one has Christ (Philippians 3:8). Paul
talks of wanting to punish his body to make it his slave (1 Corinthians 9:27). 1
Maccabees 2:62 speaks of the glory of sinners as dung. The fact that the Bible
declares that love isn't enough and we must believe its doctrines that are
superfluous to love and believe some doctrines that are disturbing shows that it
is a nasty scripture. There would be a very different Bible if Spinoza's
declaration that we are obligated only to believe in what assists us best in
loving our neighbour were accepted.
Does God imply that the doctrine of supererogation (good deeds you have no
duty to do) is right?
Yes. He did not need to make us if he is supreme being. Christianity says
he is three persons in one being so he is self-sufficient. Still he made us. One
has no duty to create beings so if God made us it was an act over and above the
call of duty. It was generosity and not a duty. But duty is still what is best.
If it is best for us to exist then God did wrong if he had no duty to make us.
But if he had a duty to make us it implies he is not self-sufficient and
therefore not a real God. This is another way the fact that existence tells
against the existence of God rather than for it.
Does the lie that all believers in God tell that you must love the sinner
and not love the sin prove that altruism is bad?
Yes.Believers in God say we must love the sinner and hate the sin for we
are all sinners. This is dishonest because if you say John’s essay is stupid
that is the same as calling John stupid and administering bad consequences to
him though many pretend it is not. Religion does this which shows it is wilful
dishonesty and false charm. This makes altruism impossible for it is meant to be
free from lies but this bases it on lies. So egoism is the only option. It is
bad enough to be an unbeliever and promote the lie of loving wrongdoers and
hating wrong but it is worse to say that God does the same, to blacken the being
you say is all good. Despite all it is “love” for God, God-religion is
intrinsically blasphemous and deepens vice.
How is the sinner the sin?
If we are to love the sinner that means we are to love the sin for it is
not the bad act we hate but what the person has become in doing the act. To
acknowledge that sin reveals the sinner or the kind of person the doer of the
sin is is to say that sin and sinner are one and the same. Sin describes not a
thing but what a person does or what a person is like. The sin becomes the
person as it were. Loving the sinner will come before hating the sin and is more
important so the sin will be treated as unimportant or even nice. For these two
reasons the sin is loved. Altruism cannot condone this so altruism has to be
rejected.
And where is God when you love sinners and hate sins or try to?
If God should be loved first of all that follows that hating the sin is
more important than loving the sinner for he hates sin infinitely and not to
hate what he hates would not be putting him first. If you hate the sin more than
you love the person then you might as well hate the person too for your attitude
will be hurtful to him and will lead to you losing sight of him being a person.
But you might reply that God loves the sinner infinitely and it is only because
he loves the sinner that he hates the sin. But when he hates the sin which is
very strong it is clear that he hates the person. There is no need for us to
hate and disapprove of sin that much but since God wants us to be like him that
is what he wants us to do. If you say you love Mary and you say you hate her
biting her nails does your claim to love her ring true if you really feel that
strongly about it? Of course not. If you really love the person and the sin
deserves to be hated you cannot abhor the sin. You have to forget about what is
deserved to keep loving the person.
How will altruism affect your peace of mind?
If a stranger insults you, nobody can tell you not to take it to heart if
altruism is true. You would have to be upset that the person had such a bad
character. Altruism is very harmful.
Does God reward if altruism is right?
Critics of altruism hold that altruistic people are just do-gooders who
pretend their good is all about others while they have selfish motives. They may
just do good because they feel like it and enjoy it or expect or like the
reward. Psychologists admit that the most altruistic of actions could have
hidden selfish motives that even the doer cannot perceive or will not perceive.
The Bible says the heart is the worst deceiver of all. God could not give us
rewards if he wants us to be altruistic. Then he is giving us extra reason for
our motives to deceive us. We could be after the reward more than we think. He
is encouraging us to lose or weaken our altruism if he offers rewards. Assuming
altruism is possible, atheism has more altruistic potential than belief in God.
What does God imply about love?
We want people to find us lovable. If we think we are causing people to
love us say by magic that love will not satisfy us. It is manipulation that is
causing the love. The love isn't real for it is not us that is found lovable but
magic making people think we are lovable. It is about the magic and not us.
Christianity teaches that God enables his true followers to love one another and
that this love is not natural but a supernatural gift of God called grace. It is
another way of saying that real love is magic. The Church says love needs to be
a gift from God and not our creation for we are so bad and stupid and imperfect.
This wouldn't be love. God and love are irreconcilable. Prayer is basically
asking God to help us love him and others far more or to start loving others as
God wants. Prayer is evil. To derive satisfaction from it is delusional.
What does motherhood say about altruism?
That you can be moral and not be altruistic for you can be altruistic
without being moral. Nobody thinks a mother caring for her new baby is doing it
for moral reasons. She does it naturally - her altruism is driven by nature not
morality. The disappearance of such so-called altruism would be worse than the
disappearance of altruism or morality. Real altruism or morality is not
everything and it is selfish to put it first! Paradoxically!
Conclusion
Altruism is a bad belief. Belief in God only makes it worse and even more
hypocritical than it is.