[Gander5739]

But is there really a difference? You can can argue that any apparently selfless act is driven by a desire for self-satisfaction, but from an external view the outcome is the same in either case.

You claim that, because for religious believers this desire to help people is driven by faith rather than what you would term self-interest, it's somehow more resolute. But I'm unconvinced that that is the case, nor that people consciously or not, weigh up decisions to care for others in such a calculating manner.

If the divine impetus made you infallibly caring, I would perhaps concede the point, but I haven't see much evidence of that so far.

[GS523523]

Right, the desire of religious believers to help others is also self-interest. But the difference is that the expected reward comes from God, not from others. That makes it more resolute, because for the secular person if the cost of the care greatly outweighs the benefit of "common decency", then there is no reason to continue. Whereas, for a religious believer, the benefit of carrying out God's will is immeasurable.

As for your last point - we're all sinners and we're not perfect. The calculation is there, but the individual's faith and/or abilities might be lacking.

[kelnos]

> That makes it more resolute, because for the secular person if the cost of the care greatly outweighs the benefit of "common decency", then there is no reason to continue.

You seem to be latching onto "common decency" as the only reason atheists do nice things. If that's truly what you believe, I think maybe you should get out more, and talk to actual atheists about how they live their lives.

When I decide whether or not I'm going to help someone, I don't sit down with a calculator and determine the benefit to myself, vs. the burden, and only do it if the balance is in my favor. I do what feels right, or at least I strive to, even if doing so might be a net negative to me.

Why? Because I think that's the best way to live. The best way to be happy. The best way to build a community. The best way to enrich the world, one situation and one person at a time.

Religion isn't required for a moral code. If you believe otherwise, you're sorely mistaken. And this idea that religious people are more likely to do the right thing because of "faith" is just garbage. Orders of magnitude more bad things have been done in the name of religion than in the name of atheism.

[GS523523]

You're missing the point. I "latched onto" common decency because that is what the user before you brought up as a valid reason. It was only typed for demonstrative purposes.

So the other reasons you've given are similar - it's in your best interest, and in your community's, and in the world's. Notice that that is exactly what was argued in my comment before: "Can you provide a reason to care for someone that has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with a personal/societal gain?"

[muwtyhg]

> But the difference is that the expected reward comes from God

Is there an effective difference outside of that person's own mind? It's still a reward-based system where people only do Good because there is some reward waiting for them, be it from other people or a God.

[GS523523]

The effective difference is that the reward is immeasurably desirable. Whereas the reward of "common decency", for example, is low in comparison, and so the cost of taking care of someone can easily outweigh it - in which case there is no rational reason to continue taking care.

[muwtyhg]

You said:

> The difference is, like Jesus taught, religious people will care for others expecting nothing in return (reward is from God)

But you admit that's not true. They expect something in return from God. I don't understand why this distinction even matters if the only thing that makes the reward worth it is just how 'immeasurably desirable' it is.

If atheists could get some similar reward (maybe their consciousness uploaded to a "heaven" simulation by a kindness-promoting nonprofit that feels effectively endless) depending on how kind they were to others during their lives, would they then be rational to be kind? Or would it still be chasing some sort of "reward" for their kindness?

Why does the reward originating from God matter?

[GS523523]

Yeah, I think we're in agreement, just "speaking" past each other a bit. That the reward originates from God doesn't matter for the purpose of the argument, only that it is immeasurably desirable. If we lived in a science fiction fantasy where such a non-profit organization as you described existed then it would effectively be the same.

I want to clarify about "chasing a reward": people don't do serious things "just because". People expect a return. Jesus taught that those who do good expecting a tangible earthly return "have already received their reward". In this context, that's whether that is because you expect the person you're taking care of to repay you in the future, or you just enjoy his company, or it makes you feel like a good person, or it maintains your social status, or whatever it is. Jesus taught that those who do good not expecting a tangible worldly return will receive a reward in Heaven. In the Gospels He makes this same argument repeatedly using different words. Another one that comes to mind: "sinners are also kind to those who are kind to them, but if you will be kind to those who hate you then your reward in Heaven will be great." So I deliberately added that note in parenthesis to make the distinction that religious people (should) expect nothing in return from others, they should expect a reward from God only.